Obama, Egypt & History of the Muslim Brotherhood


As Egyptians ponder revolution, the globe awaits how this will effect energy prices, Middle East relations, and world stability, especially considering agitation by the Muslim Brotherhood. It is mystifying how Obama supports these protestors, while admitting he hadn’t yet called Mubarak—America’s ally and Egypt’s president. Remember Obama’s deer-in-the-headlights routine when Iranians protested rigged elections. So what is different this time?

As with all things Barack, if we scratch beneath the surface of superficial incompetence we find a genuine commitment to real leftism. It is axiomatic what excites Obama is some form of revolutionary liberalism, hence his “Change” mantra, and all subsequent progressive policies and past associations.

So his backing leftist radicals makes splendid sense considering his instinctual sympathy for Marxist revolutions, Hegel’s fatalism and hem-of-the-garment Islamism. These issues are the topic of this essay.

I. Egyptian Crisis

The 2011 Egyptian unrest has several named causes, including tyranny, grinding poverty, and social inequality. It should therefore surprise no one these socialist-sounding talking points, undoubtedly true on their own merit, were broadcast by Marxist propagandists.

This point is underscored by reporting from The Graph:

Many Arabic Jan 25 tweets used phrases sounding like Karl Marx… These Egyptian grassroots political activists, most socialist/ Marxist/ unionist, used the momentum of the recent “revolution” in Tunisia to kick-off their January 25th protests.

In the history of communism, many Marxist missionaries were sent internationally to foment revolution. This seems what occurred in Egypt, especially by the Marxist Muslim Brotherhood.

II. History & Beliefs of the Socialist Muslim Brotherhood

The Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan al-Muslimin) was developed in Egypt by Hasan al-Banna in 1928. It is the foundation of the modern Muslim radical movement, according to Ira M. Lapidus in A History of Islamic Societies. Lapidus claims the Muslim Brotherhood platform is:

Restoration of Islamic principles, and a return to the Quran and Islamic piety…the reform of morals, education, economic projects, and the creation of a Muslim state. Islam in their minds was the blueprint for a total modern society and presented itself as an ideological and political alternative to liberalism and communism.

By the 1930s, this religious revival became political. The Brotherhood sent fighters to other countries for uprisings, such as the Suez unrest. They call for a world Islamic state, imposition of Shari’ah law, and the application of socialist principles for “Economic Justice,” writes Lapidus. One detects here a Muslim fascism, seeking return to a glorious past, while resisting liberal democracy.

The Muslim Brotherhood was on the verge of power in Egypt, when Nasser and Sadat did an end-run, overthrowing the king, creating the Egyptian army “Free Officers” regime. This changed liberal parliamentarian rule for a one-party presidential government, embracing Pan-Arabism, similar to the Baath party’s ideology.

Ideology of Muslim Brotherhood & Other Islamic Revivalists

The Muslim Brotherhood represent those wanting to revive the beauty and simplicity of basic Islam. Lapidus describes their ideology:

They believe the Quran and Sunna must be the basis of individual morality, and stress application of the Shari’a in all relevant matters. In social policy they hold the primary role of women should be care of the family. They avoid ideological positions in economic matters, but stress importance of minimizing the differences in wealth between rich and poor. For them, social justice is more important than technological, economic, or administrative issues. In general, these groups believe their society has been corrupted by secular values and only a return to Islamic principles will restore morality, economic health, and political power.

Sayyid Qutb, Egyptian Radical Separatist & Muslim Brotherhood Member

Radical Egyptian scholar Sayyid Qutb is called the Karl Marx of Islamic Revolution. He was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, spending many years behind bars in Egypt for controversial ideas, before execution by Nasser. His 1966 book Milestones on the Road (Ma’alim fi al-tariq) is a classic of Islamic fundamentalism. He is the “Philosopher of Terrorism,” laying down the template followed by al-Qaeda, and other radical Muslim terrorists. Qutb is said to have inspired Osama bin Laden.

One writer describes Milestones:

Part of the originality of “Milestones” was Qutb’s use of the term jahiliyya to depict the abject condition of the Muslim world. Literally meaning ignorance, the term was originally used to describe the benighted condition of Arabia prior to the advent of Islam. But Qutb used it to condemn Muslim governments and societies which, in his eyes, had been corrupted by Western culture and secularism to the point where they had abandoned Islam.

Another scholar describes his works:

Qutb’s major work is Fi Zalal al-Koran (In the Shadow of the Koran), a 30-volume commentary on the Koran started in 1952 and completed in prison. Striking is Qutb’s relentless insistence on the unconditional demands made upon believers. From his reading of the Koran, he deduced Christians are all destined for hell and in other, shorter, later works he polemicised against Christians, Jews and western ways of life.

One can see quite clearly if Qutb is the leading light of the men Barack has backed, the entire world may be in for a helluva ride. Says one scholar about Qutb’s beliefs:

Qutb rejected all kinds of government, secular and theocratic, advocating a kind of anarcho-Islam. His writings have exercised a formative influence on the Taliban, who, under the leadership of the shy, rustic Mullah Omar concentrate on implementing Shari’a in one country under the governance of the Mullahs. And, Qutb’s works have also influenced al-Qaida, which, under the leadership of Bin Laden, aims at a global jihad that will end with all men under direct, unmediated rule of Allah.

III. Jimmy Carter, Ayatollah Khomeini & Iran

Jimmy Carter was a tireless, self-righteous, yet opportunistic moralizer, causing other world leaders to bitterly complain. His ideology exposed a fatal leftist flaw. He believed if an ally had a shortcoming, the appropriate response was shaming, exposing or abandoning them. But socialists who were imperfect deserved protection.

As Dr. Mike Evans writes in Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos: A Carter/Obama Plan That Will Not Work, Carter tossed out the Shah “like a dead mouse.”

Evans writes,

Former French Pres. Valery Giscard d’Estaing said of Carter: “He was a bastard of conscience, a moralist, who treats with total lightness the fact of abandoning a man [the Shah] that we had supported together.”

Carter did this without reflecting upon whether the first Iranian devil might be better than any replacement. The upshot—perhaps Carter saw himself in the Ayatollah, a religious zealot who ceaselessly blasted his enemies as morally compromised. Carter claimed the Ayatollah was a Ghandi-esque character, a “little George Washington.”

Evans claims Carter gave the Ayatollah hundreds of millions of dollars during his four months in Paris. Khomeini then used these funds for revolution, and seeding al-Qaeda. Carter hailed the Ayatollah as a human rights loving reformer, while booting the imperfect Shah to the curb like a plague corpse.

Dr. Evans describes how

President Jimmy Carter provided checks of $150 million each to Khomeini who plotted to kill the Shah of Iran and overthrow his nation. Provided $500 million to the Muslim Brotherhood freedom fighters who became the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Wire-transferred $7.9 billion to buy-back the hostages after 444 days of humiliation.

Is history repeating itself with the sanctimonious Obama demanding Mubarak step aside? Does Barack have any idea who will replace the old Egyptian regime? Does he even care? Could we possibly be surprised if a retrograde radical Islamic sect began demanding fundamentalist policy concessions in the name of Allah?

Evans also includes this astounding fact:

Leonid Brezhnev, the former leader of the Soviet Union, warned Jimmy Carter in 1979 NOT to assist in overthrowing the Shah of Iran. He told Carter if he did that Brezehnev would in turn invade Afghanistan

IV. Obama, Marx, Hegel & “Change”

By Obama’s own admissions and actions he is a man of the far left, a socialist, a progressive. King communist Karl Marx himself was deeply influenced by Georg Hegel, especially his Dialectic of History, writes Robert Tucker in The Marxian Revolutionary Idea. Alarmingly, Barack treasures Hegel’s ideas.

Hegel taught history went in cycles, in a kind of vortex, continually growing upwards in sophistication. This meant every regime change or revolution caused civilization to evolve. And this is exactly why socialists and Marxists are so euphoric over the idea of “Change” & “Revolution.” All change is good!

When a real leftist sees an Egypt on verge of revolution, his Marxist instincts encourage him to believe the transition will be salutary. Carter’s staff were also far-leftists, and their beliefs deluded them into blindly backing the Iranian Revolution, creating ongoing unmitigated disaster.

There are profound flaws in Marx’s & Hegel’s political ideas. First, according to Hegel, no person has any Natural Rights against those of the state, therefore justifying all tyranny. Second, individuals only find purpose and salvation in the group, a logical extension of the first idea. Third, according to Hegel and Marx’s Dialectic of History, all states are acceptable for they all lead to higher development.

It follows here Marxism lacks an ethical or moral core. True right or wrong, is merely an opinion, having no basis in absolute fact. Therefore, all moral evolution in the leftist state is an impossible mirage.


Official response by the Obama administration to Egypt is absurd at nearly all levels. First, Barack claims to have warned Mubarak; WH adviser David Axelrod said of Obama… “He’s—on several occasions directly confronted Pres. Mubarak on it. And pushed him on the need for political reform.”

This is confuted by the CIA’s admission:

Stephanie O’Sullivan, a senior CIA official, in testimony to the Senate Select Intelligence Committee on Feb. 3, acknowledged the CIA did not envision the events over the last week in Egypt. She refused to elaborate on the intelligence assessment concerning Egypt.

Second, Obama blanched when asked to confront Iran on human rights issues, but was at the same time pressuring Egypt for exactly the same kind of reform? Of course! This spin is meant to rehabilitate Barack’s crippled legend as World’s Greatest Leader. Most laughable, Obama’s demand for Egyptian “Consent of the governed” flies in the face of his own refusal to even defend the concept at home. For example, 75% want Obamacare changed.

Third, and most disturbing, Obama seems to have no clear insight into who will assume power in Egypt after this unrest. The fact he might be supporting the Muslim Brotherhood’s rise to power, and doesn’t care about their socialism and fanatical Islamic goals would not be a surprise, given his fatalistic, revolution loving world view. Further, considering Barack’s criticism of all things American and Western, and obvious love of Islam, would he even care if the country fell and became another Iran?

Most unnerving of all—we must keep asking ourselves if each successive Obama pratfall is part of a master Muslim/ Marxist plan, or just another strand of the unbroken chain of incompetence from the world’s most overrated leader?

2 thoughts on “Obama, Egypt & History of the Muslim Brotherhood”

  1. Could see right off the bat that Obama is a Islamo-Marxist hybrid, and even here in the U.S. we have groups such as the Nation of Islam that is extremely riddled with Marxism. The Muslim Brotherhood has Marxist leanings as well? You would think that Islam would reject the teachings of Marx purely on religous grounds, but that could be yet another //western propaganda// ? Interesting… Kinda takes the Islamic doctrine of taquiyya to a whole new level.

    1. The ‘Marxist’ leanings of the MB are just bait and switch for the illiterate masses of poor, indoctrinated Muslims who hope for wealth redistribution.

      The wealth will be redistributed, of course, but the rabble will not get their hands on it, as you can see in Iran. The Mullahs are all multi-millionaires, many worth more than 100, some over 200 million dollars.

      Marxist nonbelievers, however, are just useful idiots when they support the Islamic revolution. Because unbelief is the most heinous crime they are the first to lose their heads once the clerics rule.

Comments are closed.