Military Coup in Egypt

Some information about Egypt that is often missed by Christians.

• Egypt is controlled by the leaders of the military forces. This has been the situation since 1956, when the king was toppled by a military coup. They have often ruled through civilian puppets that are well controlled.

• President Murabak was put in place by the generals, but he had been in power so long, he had forgotten where he had come from and was trying to start a dynasty by establishing his son as his successor. The generals did not want that to happen, because they did not want to lose their grip on the political process, so they were not disappointed when he fell from power.

• The generals believed they could control the Moslem Brotherhood. They were happy for them to be the civilian government because they thought they could maintain the stability needed for their business to prosper, but they were worried that their US benefactors might be offended.

• The lower ranks of the army are made up of conscripts from the humble classes. The people feel like the military represents them, because there brothers and sons serve in it. In contrast, the security forces are hated.

• The military controls nearly 40 percent of the economy. They own and operate huge factories that produce electronics and consumer goods. Their construction companies build highways, housing developments, hotels and telecommunications facilities. They own factory farms producing milk and farming chicken and fish. Some of the work is done by poorly paid military conscripts.

• Private businesses find it almost impossible to compete with military-owned businesses. When they are not in direct competition, the military uses its power to clip the ticket at every opportunity.

• The military leaders enjoy a privileged life. They live a pampered existence in special developments where they can buy condominiums and luxurious apartments for at subsidised prices with cheap credit. The military leaders pretend to care for the nation, but their main political objective is to protect this privilege.

• The Moslem Brotherhood was totally unprepared for running a government. Their skills were in social support programmes. They have been outsmarted by entrenched political powers loyal to the military.

• Although the Morsi government had won an election, their power was limited. It had no control over the military budget, so they generals could carry on doing what they liked.

• The $1.3 billion aid given by the US government goes directly to the military. The Morsi government had no control over it.

• The military forces gets the some very effective weapons from the US, but they are only allowed a very limited supply of ammunition. This gives toys for the officers and the ability to control the people, but no capacity to fight a war.

• The Morsi government could not control the police and security forces, so they were unable implement their policies. The police and security forces went on strike in March to demand better conditions and the resignation of the Interior Minister appointed by the new government. They have been off the streets since then, which allowed crime to soar and causing massive insecurity.

• Most of the judges had been appointed by the Murabak government, so they obstructed all the decisions of the Morsi government. The nullified the lower house of parliament, although it was democratically elected.

• The Moslem Brotherhood in Egypt is quite a conservative group. They may have been radical fifty years ago, but they have grown old under persecution. They are not the Taliban of Egypt. They focused on providing social services, rather than on radical activities. This is the reason for their popularity.

• The Salafist movement is far more radical than the Moslem Brotherhood. The Salafists generally supported the Al Nour party, which got less votes in the election than the Freedom and Justice party of the Moslem Brotherhood led by Morsi.

• Al Nour, which advocates sharia law, won 30% of the vote in the parliamentary elections, so it expected to have influence in the government. The Morsi government was stuck in the middle. It needed the political support of Al Nour, but if it adopted Islamic practice to satisfy Al Nour, it alienated the more secular parts of the population.

• The driver of the Arab Spring was really economic. Egypt has 25 million people aged between 15 and 29. Many of them are unemployed.

• Egypt cannot produce enough food to feed its people. During the Murabak era, the United states shopped surplus wheat to Egypt at a 50 percent discount. When the Moslem Brotherhood was elected, the discounts stopped and bread prices doubled, causing huge pain for the poor.

• After the revolution, tourism to Egypt tanked. This has severely damaged small family businesses. The recent disruption will make the situation worse.

• The weakness of the economy makes Egypt almost impossible to govern. Very few economies in the modern world have been able to create enough jobs to absorb the new generation of youth. The military dominated Egyptian economy is incapable of absorbing it massive youth bulge.

• When Moslem leaders are forced into exile, they often up in France. They learnt their economic in Paris, which is bastion of socialism. When they get return home and get into government, they implement socialist solutions, which create a weak economy. (This was true of Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran, too)

• Modern people all over the world have an expectation that their governments can create economic growth and full employment. The Egyptian people have the same expectation, but it will be disappointed.

• Young people in Egypt can see the good life on television and want freedom to live it, but they also want jobs, so they can afford to live it. No government could create sufficient jobs to fulfil their dreams, especially a socialist one.

• Millions of young people in Cairo are unemployed, so they can easily join a protest for several days. There is evidence that some of the protests were organised by the security services.

• Egyptian society is very divided, but civil war is unlikely. The Military leaders have too much at stake, and they hold the power, so they will not let it happen.

• We will see rapid turnover of governments in Egypt. The people will go onto the streets when they are disappointed in the latest showing, and the military will put someone else in to have a try. If this goes on for several years, the army might lose control, and the red horse might be released.

I do not believe in democracy. It is a immoral and a lie. I am intrigued at how quickly Western governments who push democracy as the ideal government ignore it, when elections produce results they do not like. It confirms that they are more committed in power and control, which is what democracy is.

Decline of Religious Influence

We are all in the same boat. For religious groups that want to have political influence, the tide is going out all over the world.

Egypt is an example. The majority of people in Egypt are Moslem, so naturally they want Islam to have an influence on their government and laws. Therefore, it was it is not surprising that when relatively-free democratic elections were held, and Islamic government was elected.

The problem is that Islam is strongest among the older generations and in the rural areas. The younger generations are now a huge part of the population (Egypt has 35 million people aged between 15 and 29. Many reside in the cities. Their outlook on life is shaped by the mass media, not traditional schools or religious leaders, so they are mostly secular and materialist. They do not want to have their lives controlled by the rules of religion. They see religion as outdated and want to be free to live as they choose.

So they went onto the streets in their millions to protest.

The religious leaders were divided.

The military leaders, who are the real power in Egypt responded by ousting the religion government.

Religion has lost out, but the military leaders have cemented their control of the nation.

----

The situation is similar in America. The majority of people are Christian (or have a Christian memory). They want Christian principles to have an influence on the government and the laws of the nation.

Christianity is stronger in rural areas and the south. In the past, the culture was shaped by the pulpit and the strong Christian influence in public schools. That influence has now declined, everywhere but in rural areas and parts of the south.

The younger generations are concentrated in the cities. Their worldview is shaped by the media and public schools, so they are secular and materialist. They hate the idea of their lives being controlled by religious traditions. When George Bush became president, they got a sense of what it would be like if religious people gained control again and they were freaked out. They saw Christian political influence, and they hated it.

The secular generations stirred up the media and made sure that the political influence of religion was knocked back. Whenever a Christian like Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann seeking to bring back Christian political influence, the media turn of them with a vengeance, so that that they are thumped before they can become a threat. Christian leaders are divided politically, so they have been powerless against the onslaught.

In a secular and materialistic society, the only real power is military. So in America, the power of the military, and related security agencies, is increasing too.

-----

The pattern is the same in both countries, and in many others

• Large religious groups want their religion to have an influence on the government and the law.

• The power of the pulpit and the religious influence on education is declining.

• The younger generations are secular and materialistic. Their numbers are growing fast.

• These people refuse to have their lives controlled by what they see as old-fashioned religious ideas.

• They know how to manipulate the real powers that control their political system.

• Religion is squeezed out of the political sphere.

• The power of the military is increasing.

Gods OT Strategy (16) - Slavery in Egypt

22. Joseph and his family were sent in to the empire of Egypt. This was a sneaky move by God. When Satan saw Abraham’s faith, he knew that God was up to something, so he wanted to nip it in the bud. He carried Jacob and his family into Egypt, so he could keep them under control and stamp them out if they got out of hand. God allowed this to happen, because he knew the people of Israel would eventually cry out to him when they became slave and give him authority to rescue them. This authority gave freedom set his plan of redemption in place.

The bonus was that that Moses learned the wisdom of Egypt and the children of Israel gained access to the latest agricultural and communications technology. Moses knew how to read and write, yet he was not corrupted by it (Acts 7:22).

The other reason that God sent the children of Israel into slavery was to cleanse them from evil. Evil spirits are not interested in slaves, because they have no power. They always move towards the masters and rulers to gain more power. When Moses led the children of Israel out of Egypt, they were evil spirit free, because most of the evil spirits would have stayed with the Egyptians.

This could be why Moses had to spend forty years in the wilderness. Living in the household of Pharaoh, he would have picked up some of the spirits that dwelt in that house (one was a spirit of anger). When Moses fled to the wilderness for forty years, these spirits would have got of sick of watching sheep and wandered off to find someone more important to influence.

Middle East Stirred (3) - Massive Demonstrations

Daniel explains that the insurgency against the United States in Iraq would be followed by an even greater stirring up of the Middle East. Daniel 11:12 is quite difficult to interpret. A more literal translation follows:

The King of the South will stir up a great multitude and a great multitude will be given into his hand. As this multitude is raised up, their heart will heart will be lifted high, but tens of thousands will fall and he will not prosper.

The Hebrew word translated "multitude" means "roar, crowd or tumult". It speaks of a tumultuous and noisy crowd. Words are doubled in Hebrew for emphasis. The word multitude is used twice to emphasise the size of the crowds. Daniel saw an immense crowd or tumult.

The phrase “given into his hand” could refer to a defeat in battle, but more likely means “placed under his command”. This massive noisy crowd will be controlled by the King of the South (we must remember that the King of the South is a spiritual force and not a human ruler). An alternative translation suggests that he will “cause a great multitude to stand”.

The reference to their “heart being lifted high” could refer to pride or arrogance. In this context, it means to courage. When these huge crowds gather together, people who have been passive for decades will be stirred to a new courage. Bold resistance against security forces will boost their pride.

The first few months of 2011 were marked a gigantic stirring right across the Middle East and North Africa. It began in Tunisia, where the government was forced to resign. From there, the stirring spread to Egypt where huge crowds of young people protested in Cairo for two weeks, forcing President Murabak to resign from the position he had held for thirty years. Since then huge demonstrations have taken place in the cities of Algeria, Yemen, Jordan, Libya and Bahrain. A tumultuous crowd has been “caused to stand” and protest against their rulers.

Bahrain is interesting because the majority of the population is Shiite, but is ruled by a Sunni King. This small country in the Persian Gulf is now the home of the American sixth fleet, but it was once a province of Iran. The Iranians would like their province back. If a democratic government was elected, a Shiite majority government might be more sympathetic to Iran than American economic and political interests. The United States might be tempted to back a minority monarchy in order retain control of a key military base.

In Libya, hundreds of demonstrators were shot in the struggle. The Gadhafi forces initially lost control of much of the county, but are now fighting back. The political struggle has morphed into a civil war.

In some of the countries where the people have demonstrated, the rulers are American puppets, propped up because they maintain the stability needed for global business to prosper. Some of the kings belong to dynasties put in place by the British at the end of the First World War. These demonstrations are a reaction against the King of the North (currently manifesting through the United States).

The people of the Middle East have been made bitter by their treatment by the Western powers. In the months ahead, the entire Middle East could be stirred up. Saudi Arabia is particularly vulnerable, as its rulers are old conservative Sunnis, while the population is young and radical. A large, oppressed Shiite lives and works among the Saudi oilfields, but have received any of economic benefits.

Middle East Stirred (2) - Iraq War

When George Bush the King of the North invaded Iraq with his little helpers in 2003 (described in Dan 11:10), they were not just attacking a third rate Middle Eastern nation, but was taking on the enormous spiritual forces of the King of the South (he is a spiritual entity). The King of the South did not just roll over, but struck back hard. The people of the United States were surprised by the ferocity of these spiritual forces and lack the spiritual strength to resist (see United States invades Iraq).

Daniel describes the consequences of the United States invasion of Iraq.

The king of the South will be enraged and go forth and fight with the king of the North (Dan 11:11).

The invasion of Iraq caused the King of the South to stir up resistance against the United States forces. This part of the prophecy was fulfilled by the insurgency that erupted in Iraq after the Ba’athist government collapsed. Conquering Iraq was relatively easy, but maintaining control proved to be extremely difficult. The concentration of American forces in Iraq made them vulnerable to terrorist attack, leading to large-scale losses. A variety of Islamic groups emerged to fight against the United States in Iraq in fulfilment of this prophecy.

The Shiite Iraqis were stirred up first. In April 2004, a militia controlled by Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr took control of the holy Shiite city of Najaf and fortified themselves in the centre of the city near the Iman Ali Shrine. This led to the widespread insurgency in southern Iraq.

Sunni Moslems were stirred up when the United States forces Al Fallujah and killed several unarmed demonstrators. A year later, Sunni forces were able to re-claim the city, before being ousted by a siege and two re-invasions by US forces. These events stirred up opposition throughout the Sunni regions of Iraq and the insurgency.

Iraq was well and truly stirred up by the invasion. It is still being destroyed by violence, despite democratic elections.

Middle East Stirred (1)

Recent events in the Middle East have been amazing. The spread of “people power” from country to country was totally unexpected. No commentators expected that powerful political leaders would resign in the face of mass demonstrations.

I searched the prophetic lists to see if any of the prophets had prophesied these dramatic events, but they seemed to be totally silent. A few have linked events in Egypt with Isaiah 19, but none seemed to understood what is happening.

When I did a Google search, I was surprised to be reminded that five years ago, I had written an article called “Middle East Stirred". In the first version of the article, I wrote.

The presence of the United States in Iraq might also stir up the rest of the Middle East, leading to a collapse of the current order. The monarchs controlling Jordan, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States being overthrown. The entire Middle East might become unstable and unsettled. Saudi Arabia is particularly vulnerable, as the King is old and the people are radical....

Unfortunately, I did not fully understand what I had written. I assumed that Daniel’s warning of the Middle Eastern being stirred was mostly fulfilled by the insurgency in Iraq. This was misguided. It is now clear that Daniel’s warning has a much broader fulfilment. I am currently rewriting the article to make it clearer and will post it over the next few days.

Not Freedom

The news media are claiming that the people of Egypt want freedom and democracy. They have already had democracy. Unfortunately, it was the kind of democracy where the ruling powers gets 97% of the vote, billions of dollars in wealth, and the people get poverty, and harassment if they complain.

The Egyptians don’t want freedom, they want western democracy, and its spoils.

Western democracy works like this. The government provides cradle to grave security, guarantees jobs for everyone, and ensures that food is cheap. If political leaders do not deliver all this stuff, they are chucked out at the next election, and replaced by a group who promise to do a better job. Politicians get rich by getting a good deal on their memoirs. This is what the Egyptians want, and who can blame them.

It is not freedom, but the people of the west do not want freedom either. The responsibility that freedom brings is far too scary in a world without faith.

Egypt and Democracy

I cannot understand why the people of Egypt think they can have a new President.

Someone should tell the protesters the way things are. They live in the Middle East. Their President is selected by the Whitehouse.

Hilary Clinton failed in her own Presidential bid, so she gets to choose the next general to be Egyptian president as a consolation.

Hope?

The people of Tunisia and Egypt are demonstrating great hope. Unfortunately they have placed their hope in things that are bound to fail.

The people of these countries believe that democratic governments are the answer to their problems. The Egyptians have demonstrated particularly strong faith in their military forces. These are both false hopes.

The people protesting want jobs and they want cheaper food. Democratic governments do not produce jobs. Employment is produced by employers. What these countries need is entrepreneurs and employers who can create employment.

Food shortages are emerging all over the world. Government subsidies for biofuels have exacerbated the situation. For the next few years, rising food prices will be the norm. Poorer countries will suffer most, as the rich countries make sure that there is food on their tables.

Egypt and Tunisia cannot escape this problem. Democratic governments will not be able to hold down the price of food forever, as attempts to control prices will lead to shortages.

Whatever political change occurs in these countries, their economic situation is like to decline. The jobs and cheaper food for which people are desperate, will not suddenly emerge. The promises of political leaders are a false hope.