First published on 22nd February 2011 in American Chronicle, Buzzle and AfroArticles Only 11 days after Mubarak was overthrown, I was the first, worldwide, to state the absolute truth that "No Revolution Occurred in Tahrir Square" in 2011. This article concludes my Egyptian pentalogy of February 2011; links to the earlier four articles are here: https://www.academia.edu/43418877/The_Collapse_of_the_Mubarak_Regime_and_the_Re-birth_of_Egypt_-_2_2_2011 https://www.academia.edu/43419343/Egypt_in_Crisis_Self-governed_Cairo_and_the_Emergence_of_Egypts_Civil_Society_-_2011 https://www.academia.edu/43419926/Egypt_Mass_Media_Gave_Fake_Numbers_of_Protesters._Example_the_New_York_Times_Fallacy_-_2011 https://www.academia.edu/43437556/Egypt_Cairo_in_Turmoil_the_Tahrir_Square_Facts_and_the_Freemasonic_Mass_Media_Myths._An_Insight_-_2011

1. Egypt, Cairo: No Revolution Occurredin
Tahrir Square,Despite the FreemasonicMass
Media Lies
Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis
February 22, 2011
--------------------------------------------------------
In four earlier articles published under the titles ´´The Collapse of the Mubarak
Regime and the Re-birth of Egypt´´ (http://www.buzzle.com/articles/the-collapse-
of-the-mubarak-regime-and-the-re-birth-of-egypt.html), ´´Egypt in Crisis, Self-
governed Cairo, and the Emergence of Egypt´s Civil Society´´
(http://www.buzzle.com/articles/egypt-in-crisis-self-governed-cairo-and-the-
emergence-of-egypts-civil-society.html), ´´Egypt – Mass Media Gave Fake Numbers
of Protesters. Example: the New York Times Fallacy´´
(http://www.buzzle.com/articles/egypt-mass-media-gave-fake-numbers-of-
protesters-example-the-new-york-times-fallacy.html), and ´´Egypt, Cairo in Turmoil:
the Tahrir Square Facts, and the Freemasonic Mass Media Myths. An Insight´´
(http://www.buzzle.com/articles/egypt-cairo-in-turmoil-the-tahrir-square-facts-
and-the-freemasonic-mass-media-myths-an-insight.html),I expanded on the
underlying reasons of the present socio-political upheaval in Egypt, and on the socio-
political developments that took place in Cairo during the two weeks from 28
January to 11 February.
I added that it would be very simplistic to establish a divide of the type ´´civil,
democratic society supporters vs. an autocratic regime´´, and I specified that for
many long decades the Western mass media diffused worldwide an altered image of
the Egyptian reality, thus helping the local regime myths remain intact in Egypt, and
the global public opinion stay in mysteries. I also demonstrated that the global mass
media gave false data to their readers and audiences as regards the number of
protesters in Tahrir square, at Down Town Cairo.
In the latest article of the series, I examined in detail the global mass media fake

2. interpretation and deliberate falsification of the events occurred in Egypt, offering a
striking contrast, namely the true reality of what occurred in Egypt versus the grave
oversights, the criminal distortions and premeditated falsifications that have been
propagated by the tyrannical mass media of the present global World Order. As I
enumerated thirty three (33) points of distortion, I could not expand much on the
reasons of the facts that I presented.
As this article was commented by a shrewd reader in a Forum where it was re-
published, I find it necessary to expand on the reasons behind the reaction of the
Egyptian people. I will first republish the comment and then respond analytically.
A Reader´s Comment and Questions as regards the Stance of the Egyptian People
during the Tahrir Square Events, 28 January – 11 February
http://vigilantcitizen.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=12039
By Xinette
OK, I may accept your description of the Cairo's reality and I certainly believe in
some kind of orchestration coming from foreign powers (NWO) but, at this point, I
would really like to know why most Egyptians stayed indoors: Does it mean they 1)
approved Mubarak regime? 2) They were just despairing about changes and so they
submitted themselves to the status quo? 3) They didn't care about politics or what?
Why the rais was compelled to resign (actually leave...) if the protest was not that
widespread? And anotherquestion is what do you think about Mubarak and the
deeds of his regime but - above all - what was the meaning of the ordinary people
because that's what I want mostly know - in fact - If the people of Egypt really
wanted/want changes they will fight also against consequent new, but still old
school, tyrants-puppets. In this case we have seen the beginning of a real revolution,
anyway it started!
Thanks for all your information and I will certainly read your older posts, tomorrow,
....
My Response to a Reader´s Questions
Thank you for your comment! In my answer, I will focus on the following seven
points for which you ask my opinion.
1. Did the Egyptians approve the Mubarak regime?
Certainly not! They reviled and loathed the Mubarak regime terribly; I already
expanded on this subject in my first article as per above. There must be no doubt that
the Mubarak regime, despite its existing popular electoral basis (National Democratic
Party / NDP supporters), and in spite of its docility toward the socio-economic elite,
was terribly despised – even by numerous members of the said elite whose interests
it so much serviced.
For all purposes and intentions, I would not agree, for the entire period after the
spring 2002, with any number given about the regime basis among the people, if it
were higher than 10%;of course, this figure would be mostly made up by the

3. regime´s popular electoral basis, the elite being very small.
Judging on the regime´s popular basis, I would say that it was weaker than those of
Gaddafi in Libya, Ali Abdallah Saleh in Yemen, and Abdelaziz Bouteflika in Algeria
for different reasons. Furthermore, I support that the Mubarak regime was also
weaker than the royal regimes of Morocco, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.As I already
said, it survived for long, because the administration tolerated social disorder
wherever this was meant as an expression of negative attitude toward the regime
(e.g. disobeying traffic rules, etc.) .
2. Were the Egyptians just despairing about changes and so they submitted
themselves to the status quo?
Although one may imagine that a positive answer is the logical conclusion about
three decades of Mubarak´s regime without any major insurgence, this would be
wrong.
At this point, one should add that there was indeed an exception in the apparent
calmness of 30 years´ Mubarak rule, namely the Zawya al Hamra events back in the
90s. This case represents a monument of hypocrisy on the part of the Western,
Freemasonic mass media that were ordered to cover the recent events so passionately
and so extensively.
Where were the criminal Western mass media at the time of the Zawya al Hamra
events? Why did they not cover those events in the same manner and with the same
zeal that they demonstrated in 2011? Most probably, because at the time, they were
not ordered to do so...
Why were the Western mass media not ordered to duly cover the Zawya al Hamra
events? Certainly, because by that time the first stage of Freemasonic infiltration in
Egypt had not been completed (if ever started), and because the end of Mubarak´s
tenure in the 90s was not part of the evil Freemasonic agenda...
To respond to this point, one should admit that the outright majority of the
Egyptians did indeed want changes but, due to the oppressive regime, they failed to
formulate them at the political level because any voice that would be perceived as
´´challenging´´ by the omnipresent Internal Security agents would end up in the jail.
One has to add that over the past decades, the various administrations were well
aware of the fact that the easiest manner to voice an opposition to the regime was to
give a fervent khutbah (Friday prayer sermon) of political contents; for this reason,
an impressively great number of Internal Security agents attended the Friday prayers
in different mosques across the country in order to monitor the dozens of thousands
of sheikhs and to report on the contents of their sermons. Consequently, the jails
were full of sheikhs identified as a challenge for the regime, and extra-judicially
arrested.
I would disagree with the assumption that the Egyptians submitted themselves to
the status quo; in their minds, they rejected it totally. They were not despairing but
viewing things very differently from what seems to be a modern Western European

4. viewpoint.
This subject pertains to the behavioural system of the Egyptians. Every nation,
people and ethno-religious group is identified with a particular behavioural system,
which reflects the indigenous culture, values, heritage, moral principles and
considerations, as well as the ensuing stance toward life, nature and society.
The catastrophic abandonment of Ethnography and its nefarious replacement by the
highly ideologized, perverse, materialistic pseudo-doctrine of ´´Social
Anthropology´´ deprived the Western world from an accurate perception and a
pertinent understanding of the entire world, and of each culture in particular.
Not all the nations, peoples and ethno-religious groups react against or oppose a
tyranny in the same manner – or (to put it otherwise) not all the nations proceed in
the silly manner the French purportedly acted in 1789, the Germans supposedly
comported themselves in 1848, and the Russians seem to have behaved in 1917.
Through the aforementioned I also imply that the description of the above events
that took place in Europe has been forged and distorted by the European
Freemasonic academia, historians and political scientists, in the first place.
Cultures are fundamentally based on religions and spiritual considerations,
narratives and beliefs, and this is what the global Freemasonic tyranny thatfirst
prevailed in Europe and North America wants every human being to forget.
For whatever the Mankind has been historically known as ascribed to, abiding by,
and conform with, the present life is an introduction to the eternal Hereafter. This
focal belief and conviction has always been at the epicentre of every human society´s
deeds.
Whatever the religion of every single person may be, our basic concepts and
principles are religious / spiritual of origin, nature and contents. Our stance towards
life, different from continent to continent and from nation to nation,is inherently
religious / spiritual or simply it does not exist, and in its absence, we are mere
´´animals´´.
Revolution is not an Option for the Egyptians and for the Mankind in general.
A spontaneous rejection of an undeserving ruler, an instantaneous rectification and
elimination of a regime´s evildoings, and a momentary reassessment of the social
order have nothing to do with what has been propagated since the 18th century
among Western Europeans as ´´revolution´´. This impervious, devious and atrocious
concept is an inhuman, purely Freemasonic and Satanic invention geared to propel
the erstwhile marginal Freemasonic Order to power, to destroy Christianity in
Europe and other religions in other parts of the world, and to deform the Mankind
spiritually, mentally, psychologically, behaviourally, and culturally.
Revolution was not an Option for the Turks before 90 years, and Kemal Ataturk
managed to introduce overwhelming changes and even establish a secular society
without ´´it´´.

5. Despite the undeniable modernization of Egypt, in spite of the prevalence of a socio-
economic order based on modern technology, and notwithstanding the advanced
penetration of Western educational,cultural, economic and political ideas, the
Egyptian society in all its parts remains today an entity characterized by s deep
respect of traditional values, moral principles, and religious concepts.
By rejecting the option of a ´´revolution´´, today´s Egyptians do not acquiesce with
the statu quo, but simply reject to open the Gates of Hell for their society. Change
would come one day, but it should come in a correct way that would not spread
confusion, chaos, negative feelings, and disorderly concepts.
3. Did / do the Egyptians care about politics?
They certainly did and actually do, but in a balanced manner that greatly differs
from the highly politicized and ideologized European and North American societies.
A socio-economic comparison would help in this regard; the overlook of a country´s
political life and the importance of the political life within a specific society differ
greatly as per the labour force breakdown. When ca.15 or 20% of a country´s labour
force are employed in agriculture, certainly the political life will be different from
that of (and differently viewed than in) a country whereby less than 2% are working
in the primary sector.
Furthermore, it would be wrong to over-magnify the importance of a country´s
political life for the personal and professional life of each and every individual.
Egypt is a country with millions of farmers (fellahin); life goes on for them, whether
Mubarak stays or goes.
Nature and faith are at the epicentre of a person´s material and spiritual life, and the
political organization of the Egyptian society would not change the social order in
which they live and the faith in which they believe.
Maximizing the importance of a country´s political life for the personal and
professional life of each and every individual is a way of being entrapped in the
Freemasonic schemes that provide for the destruction of the Mankind; one would
accurately describe it as self-victimization.
4. Why the Rais was compelled to resign (actually leave...) if the protest was not that
widespread?
Rais (President) Mubarak was compelled to leave because he probably felt a gun on
his head – or he was told that this would be the case, if did not immediately leave –
on the spur of the moment.
This may sound extraordinary, but it is not; you may take the aforementioned
statement either literally or metaphorically, but this matters not. It pertains to basic
human intelligence; there is no need to conceptualize everything as per Hollywood
movies, but if your country´s three – five top military come to tell you that they
cannot guarantee your personal safety, you have to understand that you are already
being targeted – even if you are a president. You then assess your real power and
your ability to oppose the imminent and explicit threat, and you decide accordingly.

6. The fact that less than 24 hours before the announcementof his departure, Mubarak
addressed the Egyptian nation only to declare his determination to stay, bring the
country to normalcy, guarantee the transition period, and leave after some months
makes clear that an occurrence similar to the aforementioned took place in the Cairo
presidential building, early in the afternoon of Friday 11 February 2011.
In every country, the political life consists indeed in the domain of the utmost
cynicism, and it is very different from what the beautifying efforts of the mass media
let average people believe.
As you say, the protest was not widespread, and actually no one would have
expected Mubarak to step down or even to accept changes, but as I pointed out in
my latest article (as per above), the burning of the police stations and the police
officers´ seclusion in privacy deprived the embattled president and his
administration of their basic tool of oppression.
It is pertinent to assume that early in the afternoon of Friday 28 January Mubarak
would have laughed with the idea of stepping down because of 30000 people
protesting in Tahrir square, particularly because in the earlier manifestations (in the
week 23 – 27 January) fewer people (max. 15000 people) had been gathered in
Cairo´s central square.
What made the difference were the international mass media involvement, and the
tough international pressure which was really unexpected by the regime, and
definitely unprecedented. Of course, despite the undeniable foreign involvement,
Mubarak would have stayed long in power, had the Egyptian police not been
literally dismantled.
At this point, it is noteworthy to state that in numerous other cases of manifestations
held in various countries against the local governments, despite the fact that
hundreds of thousands or more than one million of people were gathered, the
ridiculous Freemasonic puppets Cameron, Sarkozy, Obama,and their criminal peers
did not interfere, simply because the local governments are controlled by the
Freemasonic gangsters of the New World Order, and they therefore found no need to
obstruct them. This illuminates the Freemasonic biased mind and partial attitude,
unveiling the evident and real threat that the Freemasons pose for the entire
Mankind.
Of course, the foreign involvement did not take only the form of embarrassing
telephone calls and expressed threats, but it can also be detected in the
compromising stance advised by various subordinates, advisors, ministers,
diplomats and top army officers. In this regard, Egypt is not a particular case of
course, because people in high positions of administrations across the globe have
been systematically bribed and comprehensively induced to betray their own
countries for shameful material benefits by the evil Freemasonic organization.
Whenever during this crisis an adviser or minister suggested to Mubarak to comply
with the advice of the above statesmen who are all Freemasonic puppets, you can
safely deduce that this adviser or minister had previously been bribed by the evil
Freemasonic organization, and that by so advising his president, the shameful
subordinate merely acted instinctively, carrying out – against his own country – the

7. task ordered by his hidden (and real) superiors.
However, one should also add that, as early as the evening of Friday 28 January,
Mubarak had lost in the battle of symbols: the burning of the headquarters of the
National Democratic Party was a terribly bad hit.
5. What do you think about Mubarak and the deeds of his regime?
Well, it was a multi-faceted and multi-levelled failure. Clearly! Mubarak´s three
decades of unadulterated ineptitude, inaptitude,and inertia is a global example to
avoid.
The top lesson Mubarak offered Egypt and many other African, Asiatic, European,
Latin American, and Oceanic countries and independentor subjugated nations is
triple:
A. You cannot possibly trust international counterparts asking you to implement any
option of foreign policy that is rejected by the country´s population.
B. You cannot possibly survive by servicing other governments and administrations
under any circumstances whatsoever.
C. You cannot possibly exist by believing, accepting or even tolerating colonial myths
and preconceived fabrications under any circumstances whatsoever.
6. What was the meaning of the ordinary people?
They certainly wanted Mubarak out; they certainly did not want the change to cause
any trouble to the country´s national unity and social calmness; they certainly did
not want to undertake a revolution; and they certainly wished all or most of the
highly positioned people in the army, the parliament and the government to behave
as true patriots placing the national interest above the personal benefit and act
accordingly.
7. If the people of Egypt really wanted / want changes, they will fight also against
consequent new, but still old-school, tyrants-puppets. In this case we have seen the
beginning of a real revolution, anyway it started!
I will answer this statement, concluding the present article. Yes, they wanted / want
changes; yes, they (will) object any governmental effort to replay the old policies,
with the elimination of the former head of state being the sole concession to the
people. Yes, there will be a very different Egypt in the years ahead. But there will be
no revolution.
If the interfering forces manipulate their tools toward this direction, there will be no
revolution, but chaos; but at the end, the Egyptian people will isolate the elements
that, because of their cooperation with the Freemasonic statesmen of Europe and
America, spread disorder in the country.
The Egyptian people will certainly react either in the case of introducing a fake
democracy geared to allow homosexuals to be formally married in Egypt or in the

8. eventuality of dragging Egypt into a multilateral war against Israel. By this I don´t
mean that the Egyptians in their outright majority acceptthe existence of the fake
Zionist state; on the contrary. However, the solution of a problem must always be an
act that does not create another problem. Throughout its - longer than five millennia
- History, Egypt many times awaited long for a problem solution to be invented and
/ or implemented; but the solution never created another problem. The ages old,
monotheistic doctrine of the Hermopolitan Ogdoad provided for that option,
thousands of years before the Holy Quran be revealed.
On the lessons taken from Mubarak´s 30 years of inertia I will further expand in
another article.
Note
Picture: The Ogdoad and the Hermopolitan Doctrine antedate and herald Islam,
while instructing faithful monotheistic believers that a solution never creates a
problem. From:
http://www.thekeep.org/~kunoichi/kunoichi/themestream/ogdoad.jpg