She Reads

“The concept of fourth-generation wars simply refers to the use of disinformation, funding subversive N.G.O.s, and spreading rumours as a method for warfare, broadening the concept of war to include non-military action. This endlessly elastic concept is a godsend for conspiracy theorists and provides endless justification for state repression.”

Chapter “Genesis”, page 33”
― Maged Mandour, Egypt under El-Sisi: A Nation on the Edge

“The most notable amendment is the alteration to Article 200, which describes the constitutional role of the military. This amendment extends the military’s duties to include the ‘protection of the constitution, democracy, the state and its secular nature, and personal freedoms.’ This phrase has radical implications, the most notable of which is that it paves the way for continued military intervention in politics, if and when it deems that the secular nature of that state, democracy or personal freedoms are threatened by an elected civilian government. This is very cynical, considering that the military autocracy has been the main violator of the freedoms mentioned in the amendment. In fact, this is the military’s option of last resort, in the event that popular pressure forces a free election and that a civilian government is elected. This is a very similar argument to the one made by the Algerian military on the eve of the coup in 1992, when elections won by F.I.S. were voided, triggering a bloody civil war that lasted the better part of a decade (Evans and John, 2007). Hidden in the language of the amendment is a very dangerous ideological imperative, which identifies the military with the ‘state’ rather than with the elected government of the day. It assumes that since the military is serving the ‘state’, then the military—and only the military—is able to defend the ‘state’ against the incompetence of civilians. In other words, the amendment assumes that the military’s supremacy over civilians is the natural order of things. This assumption is deeply rooted in the regime’s ideological construct, where the ‘state’ is imagined as an almost mythical entity that has to be protected against the folly of civilian politicians and the demands for democratization. In essence, the amendment turns the concept of popular sovereignty on its head, with the source of sovereignty transferred from the popular will to the military, as the ultimate guardian of the ‘state’. This entrenches a paternalistic attitude towards the citizenry, as incompetent simpletons who, in a moment of folly, might elect a government that could destroy the ‘state’. Finer identifies acceptance of civilian supremacy as one of the pre-conditions for restraining a military’s interventionist appetite (Finer, 2002). This is clearly not the case in Egypt, where prospective future coups now have a solid constitutional basis.”
Chapter 2: The New Leviathan, pages 52-53”
― Maged Mandour, Egypt under El-Sisi: A Nation on the Edge

“A priestess of Hetheru said:

‘That which is held in abomination to me is the block of slaughter of the god. [198] That which is abominable, that which is abominable I will not eat. An abominable thing is filth, I will not eat thereof. That which is an abomination unto my Ka shall not enter my body. I will live upon that whereon live the gods and the Spirit-souls. I shall live, and I shall be master of their cakes. I am master of them, and I shall eat them under the trees of the dweller in the house of Hetheru, my Lady, the Mistress of Iken.’ [199]”

[198] Directly quotes from the Book of the Dead Papyrus of Nu, The Chapter of Not Letting the Heart of Nu, Whose Word Is Truth, Be Carried Away From Him in Khert-Neter.
[199] Directly quoted from the Book of the Dead Papyrus of Ani, The Chapter of Making the Transformation Into Ptah

Pages 210-211”
― Samuel Baca-Henry, Lament of Hathor

“Every praising mouth is filled with ‘we love you’ yet the words are followed by one arm raised with a goad or a whip and another with a knife.”
Page 169”
― Samuel Baca-Henry, Lament of Hathor