The reaction in Britain and America to the turmoil in Egypt has produced a number of astounding revelations.
The first is that everyone in the bien-pensant world is now apparently a neo-con. You really do have to rub your eyes very hard at this.
For the past seven years, western progressives have screamed without remission that George W Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Uncle Tom Neo-Con and all were criminally out to lunch to pretend that democracy could ever come to Iraq through ousting a dictator. The neo-con article of faith, that the Arab or Islamic world could or should embrace democracy and human rights, was held up as an example of cultural imperialism, racist bigotry or insanity - or all three.
Yet when the Egyptian protesters called for regime change and free elections, those very same Bush-whackers excitedly hailed this brave new dawn of Islamic freedom. They further declared that America had been criminally obtuse in propping up the dictator Hosni Mubarak rather than promoting regime change and helping install democracy on the banks of the Nile.
What's the difference? Saddam Hussein was an enemy of the west; Hosni Mubarak is an ally. So progressives claim that getting rid of the former was a crime against humanity, while not getting rid of the latter was a crime against humanity. Got that?
Here's the next amazing thing. When the people of Lebanon made their pitch for democracy against the crushing oppression of Hizbollah, western bien-pensants were totally indifferent.
When the people of Iran made their pitch for democracy against the savage cruelties of the Islamic regime, the bien-pensants were totally indifferent. But when the Egyptians took to the streets, the bien-pensants all but wet themselves with excitement.
What's the difference? If the Lebanese and Iranians had succeeded, the west would have been strengthened. But the Egyptian uprising would most likely install another Islamic theocracy - this time under the Muslim Brotherhood - which would further threaten the free world.
And this is the third strange and most frightening thing of all: the way in which the west has sanitised the Muslim Brothers and even, in the case of the Obama administration, actually pushed them towards power. When it wasn't flip-flopping over whether Mubarak should stay or go, the White House first said it wouldn't mind if the Muslim Brothers became part of the Egyptian government.
Then it urged the inclusion of "important non-secular actors" - code for the Muslim Brothers - in a "more democratic" Egypt. And then it was revealed that its proposal for the immediate transfer of power called for the transitional government to include the Brotherhood.
What madness is this? The Muslim Brothers' goal is to Islamise the world. They are religious fascists. While certainly there are millions of Muslims around the world who do want to live under democracy, the Brothers are totally against any secular rule at all and stand for an extinction of human rights.
They are fanatical Jew-haters. In the 1930s, they were effectively created as a political force by the Nazi Party, with which they formulated a "Final Solution" for Palestine by ridding it of its Jews - an agenda continued today by their offshoot, Hamas.
Today, they are no less the mortal enemies of the free world. Their leaders have declared war on America, gloating that the US is "experiencing the beginning of its end and is heading towards its demise", and that "resistance is the only solution".
They support al Qaeda terrorism "against the Americans and the Zionists". They have declared that, once Mubarak steps down, they will dissolve the peace treaty with Israel.
They murdered Egyptian President Sadat, who made peace with Israel. They support Hizbollah, make overtures to Iran, and openly employ a strategy of simulating moderation to gain power though democratic means in order to destroy democracy.
If Egypt is taken over by the Brotherhood, Jordan will be next - and both will turn into Iran/Gaza in a matter of a few years. Oh - and they are also busy Islamising Britain and America.
Yet, on both sides of the pond, significant elements of the political and defence establishment have decided that the Muslim Brothers are basically peace-loving, sensible, pragmatic chaps who are useful allies against the men of violence. Has there ever been a society more bent on collective suicide?