Alex Blaze

Advocate Columnist Supports Hosni Mubarak

Filed By Alex Blaze | February 03, 2011 5:30 PM | comments

Filed in: Media, Politics
Tags: Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, Michael Lucas, The Advocate, Vladimir Putin

Foreign policy expert Michael Lucas has a column up talking about how much he loves Hosni Mubarak. Yhosni-mubarak.jpgou see, dictators are bad and anyone who supports them is "brainless," but sometimes a pro-America dictator is needed to keep dirty, stinkin', unreasonable Moozlims in line:

Protesters say President Mubarak (pictured) and his corrupt cronies steal their money and leave the populace poor and miserable. Whoever grabs power next will no doubt do the same, except they will stir some nasty 14th-century-inspired brutal oppression into the stew.

It's all part of the Islamists' master plan to impose the most strict and cruel form of Sharia law on the entire Arab world.

If you were looking for any proof that the revolution will necessarily lead to a fundamentalist Muslim regime, you won't find it in that column. You could join Lucas in his world and imagine it with him; I'm sure he'd love the company.

Those of us who actually care about democracy or intelligent debate, though, might wonder why The Advocate is still printing his columns.

A month ago, when he said no one in the West should ever support a dictator, he was referring to Vladimir Putin (who, frankly, was elected twice and left the post when he reached term limits there and governed with a real legislative branch, which is more than can be said for Mubarak). But that was because he was busy calling Putin a "communist," contrary both to Putin's party affiliation and policy, and here Mubarak is a dictator who everyone knows was willing to let his people get exploited by Western business for some cash. Plus he didn't try to do anything for the people living in the Gaza Strip, which effectively makes Israel's express policy of economic oppression of the Palestinian people possible, so more power to him.

Dictators are awesome so long as they do what you want.

Lucas also insists, for no explainable reason other than that his column ran in The Advocate, that Mubarak was OK for the gays and whoever replaces him will be terrible. Here's Parvez Sharma, just a couple weeks ago in The Advocate, describing Mubarak's anti-gay "pogrom":

The notion of homosexual activity being considered foreign -- and often specifically a Western perversion -- is not new to me. As an out and proud gay man, I have documented the policing of morality and sexuality in repressive Arab regimes, the most notable being the Hosni Mubarak government's pogrom against gay men in 2001, an incident whose victims came to be known as the Cairo 52. Knowing the indignities the 52 men arrested then, on a floating nightclub on the Nile called the Queen Boat, had to face in prison, I shudder to think of the fate of the 13 now in the custody of the notoriously brutal Uttar Pradesh police force.

And it seems gays in Egypt have decided which side they're on:

Pro-democracy demonstrators have called for a massive protest on Friday - a date by which they want President Mubarak out of power. This is a note posted on GayEgypt.com:

"Egypt's gay and lesbian community has had enough of years of police brutality and torture and GayEgypt.com calls on all lesbians and gays to join their brothers and sisters on the street to peacefully express their demand for immediate change."

But Michael Lucas, an expert on all things Egypt, knows that it's going to get worse. Sure, the reason he thinks it will starts with an "I" and rhymes with "homophobia," but why won't these Egyptians listen to an uninformed neocon sitting in NYC?


Recent Entries Filed under Media:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


Brad Bailey | February 3, 2011 7:08 PM

Much as I despise Lucas' political views, he does make a valid point in this particular commentary.

Egypt has strategic and commercial importance to the U.S. because of the Suez Canal. It has the largest population of any Muslim country. Mubarak's regime has been a mediator for thirty years between Israel and the the other Muslim countries hostile to its presence.

It would be glorious if a more democratic government replaces the current regime. But if Cairo is just another Tiananmen Square, the protesters will lose and Mubarak will prevail. In the worst case scenario, this incident could play out like the overthrow of the Shah of Iran. We all know what happened there.

Egypt is a lynchpin. What happens there will most likely be occur in the entire Middle East. This is why all eyes are on Cairo right now.

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | February 4, 2011 7:10 AM

"Egypt has strategic and commercial importance to the U.S. ..." Egyptian assets are the property of the Egyptian people, not the US. US interference in the region is colonialism at its most disgusting.

"Mubarak's regime has been a mediator... between Israel and the other Muslim countries hostile to its presence..." The shame of recognizing and aiding the zionist colony in Palestine is one of the forces driving the uprising.

"But if Cairo is just another Tiananmen Square..." It isn't. Mass actions are occurring across the country (and region) involving millions of working people and trade unionists. Tiananmen Square was mainly students.

" this incident could play out like the overthrow of the Shah of Iran. We all know what happened there."

(1)I don't think you understand why things turned ugly in Iran. The influence of islamists in Iran is entirely the fault of US policy and mirrors similar developments throughout the Arab and muslim world. In August 1953 the CIA and the English MI6 engineered a coup d'├ętat to overthrow the elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh to regain control of Iranian oil. They were reacting to the 1951 nationalization of the English owned-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.

The CIA and MI6, afraid as always of even limited forms of democracy, placed Mohammad-Rez?, Sh?h-n-Sh?h Pahlavi on the throne and worked with him to murder and imprison leftists and secularists until he was overthrown by a popular uprising that was taken over by islamists in 1979 because the left, at the insistence of the US, had been murdered and imprisoned. The same tactics, kidnapping, torture and murder are the stock in trade of the US military and the CIA today. In return for aid, Mubarak's regime operates prisons where these atrocities are committed.

2) If islamists, in particular the Muslim Brotherhood, are part of the government that replaces the current quisling regime that is solely the business of the Egyptian people. If the US intervenes it will only, as it did in Iran, Palestine and in the US colony in Iraq increase the power of right wing islamists and undercut the power of the left, trade unions and our GLBT brothers and sisters.

is it possible that he thinks that the egyptian rape rooms are actually an equal-opportunity employment option for those members of the local lbgt community that also support the ndp?

The young men and women who are being brutalized by Mubarak's regime are NOT fanatic Muslims--which is why this movement is so fresh in the Arab world. Their slogan is "No to Extremism, Yes to Moderate Islam." As proof you can note that many of the young women marching--and dying for their civil rights--are not wearing traditional head scarves (something that a pro-Mulsim Brotherhood movemnet would NEVER allow). Additionally, there is a large number of Christian Egyptians marching--and their sacrifice and courage should be encouraged and supported by us (not dismissed by Islamophobic, paranoid columnists like Alex Blaze).

If you need further reasons to feel queasy about U.S. support for Egypt's "he wasn't all that bad" dictator, Housing Works has posted a heartbreaking article about the treatment of people living with HIV in that country under the Mubarak regime.

The piece describes a country with complete intolerance for anyone with HIV. If you have it, you don't come in. If you test positive for it (through mandatory, involuntary testing), you're imprisoned. If you're hospitalized with it, don't bother finding the remote. Your hands will be chained to the bed.

Um, I think you meant to direct that comment to Michael Lucas, not that Alex Blah-zay character of the Bilereeco Report.

My sincere apologies to Alex Blaze. Of course I meant to direct my comment to M. Lucas! Is there any way I can withdraw and resubmit my comment above?

lol. no need. I'm sure people know whom you were referring to.

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | February 4, 2011 7:27 AM

I'm beginning to think that Lucas, a wannabe IDF thug, took profits from his 'epic film' Piss Gods 1 and bought himself a couple of editors at the Advocate.

What else can explain the idea of giving the producer of unsafe sex flics and an advocate of ethnic cleansing against Palestinians a voice. If they keep letting Lucas comment the Advocate is going to smell like a sty.

Paige Listerud | February 4, 2011 4:23 PM

The Advocate a conservative gay magazine?!?!?!?!!!!!!

Say it ain't so, mo!

LOL. You know, maybe they just brought on Michael Lucas to balance out that one guy who writes about being over 60. If someone is pro-aging, someone else has to be against it!

Although M. Lucas's Islamophobic and racist views of Arabs is well documented, it is our duty as Americans to allow him to express himself freely (freedom of speech) while utilizing our own freedom of choice to make a statement that "The Advocate" can understand.
I have no intention of renewing my membership to the Advocate and I urge everyone to do the same. And hey when it comes to porno choices, stay away from Lucas films; they're not that "hot" anyway.