Have you ever noticed that sometimes the WSJ gives online access to its articles and sometimes not? When the material has high propaganda value and is important to the interests of the paper's readership (the ruling class, in other words), one finds the door to the archives flung open wide. In the following case, it isn't, but the title of the article suffices for its purpose.
Mubarak Faces Trial in Egypt Amid Split Public Opinion
The rest of the article, which I didn't pay to read, might well be less dissimulative than the title (hence you will have to pay to play). Nevertheless, perhaps the single thing which gave the revolution the impetus it needed to advance thus far, and which has united the disparate factions sufficiently (at least until recently) for it to remain formidable, is the universal hatred of Mubarak, and the equally widespread demand that he be brought to justice. The WSJ title is pure fiction, pure propaganda, and they know it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904292504576484322438544038.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Here's some more journaganda:
Extremists Threaten Egypt's Delicate Democracy
Egypt doesn't have a democracy, it has a military dictatorship, the same dictatorship it had before frontman Hosni Mubarak departed. Mubarak was to the Egyptian government what the Geico lizard is to the insurance industry.
If you follow the link through to the rest of the article, you will see that the original piece was entitled "Will Extremists Hijack the Aftermath of the Arab Spring." This idea that the Spring is over (which obviously it is not: Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Syria etc.) has been driven home by media loyalists since Mubarak abdicated. Of late, it is everywhere. And that is no coincidence.
http://www.theroot.com/buzz/egypts-delicate-democracy-threatened-extremists
Not to be outdone by their fellow traveler publication the WSJ, the king of bourgeois disinformation has stepped forth with a classic piece of jounaganda, students of the black art please pay heed:
Egypt, Europe, and the Seeds of a Crisis
As we shall see the "Seeds" here are a double entendre (so clever).
When Hosni Mubarak fell from power, the European Union promised to trade its cozy links with Arab dictators for a new partnership for democracy. To support the process of political reform, the Union would offer increased money, access to markets and greater mobility. Half a year on from those heady days, Egyptians have been protesting outside the European Commission headquarters in Cairo and the much-discussed partnership is in danger of being driven off track.
There is no partnership, and there is no democracy.
The cause is neither a coup nor a counterrevolution, but an avoidable dispute over a humble plant: Egyptian fenugreek, the seeds of which are often used in spices and salads. This simmering argument is in danger of being driven forward by a toxic mix of European technocracy and Egyptian nationalism.
Readers of this blog will remember that when the German E Coli story broke I speculated that the story was a strange one and that we might be hearing more about this in the future.
Faced with a health threat that killed at least 48 people, caused renal problems in at least 800 others and affected more than 4,000 E.U. citizens — Union officials put caution first and banned imports into Europe not only of fenugreek seeds but also other beans. The ban is to be imposed until Oct. 31.
The only problem with this decision is that it didn’t take into account either the E.U.’s foreign policy priorities or the likely reactions of a post-revolutionary Egypt.
That's post-revolutionary Egypt again, just in case you thought perhaps that it was still ongoing.
Under the Lisbon Treaty, the E.U. is meant to be in a better position to coordinate its economic and foreign policy priorities. Although the Union’s foreign minister, Catherine Ashton, has rightly made supporting the Arab Spring a top priority, another part of the E.U. machine has introduced the ban that, if upheld for a full year, could block as much as 10 percent of Egypt’s agricultural exports at a time when the country’s economy is reeling from a plunge in tourism and investment.
To the protesters in Cairo, the E.U. is cutting the revolution off at the knees. “I won’t even shake the hand of the official who decided this,” a prominent Egyptian businessman told us.
Now the reason for the ever-so-specific outbreak of E Coli in an ever-so-small batch of exported fenugreek comes into view: It justifies sanctions of sorts. Is it possible that the EU, which would stand to lose billions of Euros if Egypt goes democratic, wants to cut the revolution off at the knees?
The E.U. is not alone in banning the imports (Switzerland and Russia put a similar ban in place) but the measure, which affects just €5.6 million of exports (if the ban ends on Oct. 31), is threatening to obscure the E.U. offer of billions of euros in assistance.
The figure cited here refers specifically to what Europe imports from Egypt, noy its total investments in/profits from the country. And these billions in assistance are loans, profitable loans.
Less than a week after the European Commission’s president, José Manuel Barosso, met with Tahrir Square activists in Cairo and pledged to support their aspirations, some of the same activists have helped organize the protests.
What has made matters worse is the unthinking nationalism of a post-revolutionary Egyptian government that is keen to assert Egyptian independence.
Barosso there to support the activists? He's there to protect European capital. Period! And the NYT knows it.
"Unthinking nationalism"? Wow! The implication is that nationalism and independence are counterproductive for Egypt and, by extrapolation, every nation. You seldom see this idea expressed so directly in a media which normally is keen to defend such political sentiments. Certainly the Times has never, nor would ever suggest that Americans are unthinkingly nationalistic or independent, or that these ideologies so popular with rank and file Americans is inimical to their national interests. But money is on the line in Egypt, and the Times' journaganda is always configured to serve the interests of those who own large sums of it.
And so the E.U.’s offer of partnership is collapsing under the weight of European technocracy and Egyptian recalcitrance. If the E.U. wants to salvage its reputation and help Egyptian farmers it needs to act quickly.
Shameless!
In the longer run, the E.U. will need to look at more innovative ways of supporting European investment in Egypt. One way could be to boost exports to Egypt and Tunisia by insuring European companies against political risk. The E.U. should also learn another lesson from the debacle and create an early warning system to ensure that its diplomatic machine is in a better position to prevent technical decisions about trade and food safety from undermining its broader foreign policy priorities.
Boosting exports to Egypt way of helping Egyptians? The benefit would be to the exporters. What an outrageous lie.
Be in a better position to regulation from undermining European profits? Every once in a while the Times flubs and a little reality ends up in its pages. Nobody's perfect.
And now the ugly climax:
European governments want to help post-revolutionary Egypt undergo a successful transition to democracy, and many people in Cairo — starting with the Tahrir Square activists — would like the assistance on offer. Arraigned against them, however, is an accidental alliance between pre-Lisbon Treaty European bureaucrats and post-Mubarak Egyptian nationalists, both of whom believe they are acting in the interests of their constituencies.
To ensure that the European Union and Egypt can begin the kind of partnership that many people on both sides of the Mediterranean want, the current crisis must be defused before it becomes unfixable.
Once again that phrase: post-revolutionary. Tahrir Square activists would like assistance on offer? Accidental alliance of European bureaucrats and Egyptian nationalists? Accidental?
And the last paragraph ends with a chilling, call to "defuse" the "current crisis" before it becomes "unfixable."
Like the WSJ, the NYT sometimes charges for access to their articles online. This one was offered gratis though.
Down with the NYT, up with the Egyptian revolution.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/03/opinion/03iht-edkorski03.html?_r=2
Anyway, for some real journalism, I recommend this eyewitness account.
I saw the general whose name is Mahmoud Abbas, the one Rasha Azab said she's seen in the military museum torturing revolutionaries in March, and that I have personally also seen later on in Maspiro and Abbasseya. When I saw him, I felt heavy-hearted and that the sit-in was going to be disbanded by force. In short, I heard people chanting behind the army, “The people want to evacuate the square.” I headed for the sidewalk and went past the military police. I found lots of Central Security Foces there…
http://globalvoicesonline.org/2011/08/02/egypt-scenes-from-mondays-crackdown-on-tahrir-square/
