NB: This description contains material not included in the original broadcast.
Introduction: Since the turmoil in the Middle East began, we have been treated to numerous media presentations assuring us that the Muslim Brotherhood wouldn’t be coming to power in the Middle East and/or that if they did come to power, it wouldn’t be so bad because they have adopted a “democratic,” “parliamentarian,” “pluralistic” political viewpoint. This appears to be an example of Taqqiya, a principle of Islamic warfare and political struggle that obliges Muslim faithful to lie to non-Muslims about matters of importance.
After examining WikiLeaks kingpin Julian Assange’s claims  of being targeted by an international “Jewish conspiracy,” we view two op-ed columns printed by The New York Times on successive days in February, 2011. Authored by Brotherhood founder Hassan Al-Banna’s grandson Tarqiq Ramadan  and Egyptian Brotherhood official Essiam el-Errian , the columns lied brazenly about the history and methodology of the Brotherhood.
Portraying this fascist organization as having been opposed to the Axis in World War II (they were allies of Hitler and Mussolini), Ramadan lies fundamentally about the group, adding that it has been committed to principles of non-violence (except for fighting against Israel). The group is nothing if not violent , as even a cursory looks at its history will reveal.
The Times’ publication of these lies and refusal to print numerous rebuttals that were submitted suggests that the “Grey Lady” is fulfilling its role as the CIA’s number one propaganda asset, supporting an operation aimed at installing free-market ideological principles in the Muslim world, the Middle East in particular. The Brotherhood’s championing of the ideology of Ibn Khaldun  (viewed by the World Bank as the first advocate of privatization) appears to be central to its appeal to transnational corporate interests. Khaldun might be thought of as “The Milton Friedman of the Islamic World.”
Recall that the term “Piggy-Back Coup” alludes to the influence of the Tunisian uprising on the Egyptian popular revolt and also to the probability that the Corporatist Muslim Brotherhood will be the beneficiary of the democratic activism of The Jasmine Revolution and Tahrir Square, with dire consequences for our civilization.
Much of the program sets forth the activities of non-violent theoretician Gene Sharp  and his financial benefactor Peter Ackerman. One of the ideological mentors and sources of inspiration for the Tunisian and Egyptian protesters, Sharp’s resume suggests that he has been utilized by the intelligence community to effect some of the “colored revolutions.”
Sharp’s financial backer Peter Ackerman  has an interesting background as well. Former right-hand man to junk bond king Michael Milken, Ackerman has numerous connections to intelligence-linked institutions, as well as right-wing think tanks such as the Koch Brothers’ Cato Institute.
Program Highlights Include: Gene Sharp’s connections to Harvard Institute of International Studies ; that organization’s co-founding by former Deputy Director of Central Intelligence and John J. McCloy protege Roberrt R. Bowie ; Ackerman’s links to the United States Institute of Peace , whose Muslim World Initiative has been scored by conservatives as a repository for Muslim Brotherhood extremists; review of the links between American University in Cairo and pro-Muslim Brotherhood theoreticians  of the Ibn Khaldun stripe; review of the role played in the Egyptian uprising by Wael Ghonim, Google marketing executive, American University graduate and icon of the April 6 movement; Muslim Brotherhood-controlled Al Jazeera’s release of information  [about the recent peace negotiations damaging to the Palestinian Authority (alleged by both PA and Israeli authorities to be distorted and misleading.)
1a. Evidently feeling the heat, WikiLeaks chief Julian Assange has shown something of his true nature–not the altruistic “warrior for truth” that he represents himself as being. In an article in Private Eye  (UK), Assange posited a Jewish conspiracy against WikiLeaks, reacting to criticism of his selection of a celebratory anti-Semite, Holocaust denier and intimate of the Swedish Nazi milieu Joran Jermas, aka “Israel Shamir.” 
Defending this overt fascist, who has stated that “It is the duty of all good Christians and Muslims to deny the Holocaust,” Assange initially blamed the bad publicity the group has received over this Nazi on a “Jewish conspiracy.” Considering that The Guardian (UK) was one of his targets in that rhetorical flourish, the comment is as ludicrous as it is offensive and revealing–The Guardian is fiercely anti-Israel.
Assange echoed the substance of his remarks about Jermas/“Shamir” in an article in The New York Times.
. . . . He was especially angry about a Private Eye report that Israel Shamir, an Assange associate in Russia, was a Holocaust denier. Mr. Assange complained that the article was part of a campaign by Jewish reporters in London to smear WikiLeaks.
A lawyer for Mr. Assange could not immediately be reached for comment, but in a statement later released on the WikiLeaks Twitter feed, Mr. Assange said Mr. Hislop had “distorted, invented or misremembered almost every significant claim and phrase.”
The Private Eye article quoted Mr. Assange as saying the conspiracy was led by The Guardian and included the newspaper’s editor, Alan Rusbridger, and investigations editor, David Leigh, as well as John Kampfner, a prominent London journalist who recently reviewed two books about WikiLeaks for The Sunday Times of London.
When Mr. Hislop pointed out that Mr. Rusbridger was not Jewish, Mr. Assange countered that The Guardian’s editor was “sort of Jewish” because he and Mr. Leigh, who is Jewish, were brothers-in-law. . . .
1b. As the Egyptian uprising was gathering momentum, the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Al Jazeera network aired a leaked document concerning the Israeli/Palestinian Authority negotiations for a Palestinian state. Charged by both Israeli and Palestinian Authority with selectively editing the documents in such a way as to fundamentally misrepresent the substance of the negotiations, Al Jazeera has strengthened the hand of Hamas–the Muslim Brotherhood affiliate in Gaza.
It is unclear how Al-Jazeera got the documents. Were they leaked by WikiLeaks and Joran Jermas aka “Israel Shamir?”
Classified documents leaked by al- Jazeera signal that Israeli and Palestinian peace positions may have been closer than previously perceived.
Al-Jazeera television said it had been given access to thousands of pages of memos and e‑mails of private meetings that show Palestinian negotiators were prepared to give up claims to parts of east Jerusalem and swap some Jewish settlements in the West Bank for territory within Israel in 2008 talks. Al-Jazeera didn’t say how it obtained the documents, which covered the period from 1999 to 2010.
Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat called the reports “unfounded, twisted and taken out of context” in a telephone interview yesterday. Yasser Abed Rabbo, a member of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s Executive Committee, said at a press conference that it was “an organized campaign to distort the positions of the Palestinian leadership.” . . .
2a. A stunning op-ed piece was penned for The New York Times and carried by other publications. In it, Tariq Ramadan lies through his teeth about the history of the Muslim Brotherhood.
The Muslim Brothers began in the 1930s as a legalist, anti-colonialist and nonviolent movement that claimed legitimacy for armed resistance in Palestine against Zionist expansionism during the period before World War II. The writings from between 1930 and 1945 of Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Brotherhood, show that he opposed colonialism and strongly criticized the fascist governments in Germany and Italy. [Italics are mine–D.E.] He rejected use of violence in Egypt, even though he considered it legitimate in Palestine, in resistance to the Zionist Stern and Irgun terror gangs. . . .
. . . .Today’s Muslim Brotherhood draws these diverse visions together. But the leadership of the movement — those who belong to the founding generation are now very old — no longer fully represents the aspirations of the younger members, who are much more open to the world, anxious to bring about internal reform and fascinated by the Turkish example. Behind the unified, hierarchical facade, contradictory influences are at work. No one can tell which way the movement will go. . . .
2b. Ramadan’s op-ed piece in The New York Times was followed, the next day, by an equally disingenuous column by a key member of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, who also lied about the Brotherhood and its “peaceful” origins, intentions and methodology.
In more than eight decades of activism, the Muslim Brotherhood has consistently promoted an agenda of gradual reform. Our principles, clearly stated since the inception of the movement in 1928, affirm an unequivocal position against violence. . . .
2c. Aside from the Brotherhood’s long association with the Axis and the Underground Reich, its violent orientation could not be more clear from the historical record. In Cairo to Damascus, John Roy Carlson infiltrated the Brotherhood in the immediate aftermath of World War II, chronicling its fundamental violence toward Egyptians who didn’t support its political agenda.
Note that Carlson infiltrated the Brotherhood and obtained an interview with Hassan al-Banna.
He [Hassan el-Banna, the Moorshid or supreme guide] also had a special assassin squad, entrusted with the duty
of liquidating political opponents. El Banna resented a verdict
that Judge Ahmed el Khazindar Bey meted out against a
Moslem Brother, and ordered him liquidated. One of the
Moorshid’s henchmen took care of this assignment, aided by
an assistant who pumped six bullets into the judge.
Under public pressure Cairo’s police chief staged a few
raids and made a few arrests. El Banna was annoyed. He
ordered his terror squad to “teach the police chief a lesson.”
The latter was promptly killed by a hand grenade while on a
tour of inspection of Fouad University.
When the president of Fouad complained, he was denounced as a “European,”
publicly insulted, and narrowly missed being shot.
El Banna played for high stakes. Not content with liquidating
a judge and a police chief, he ordered Abdel Maguid
Ahmed Hassan, a twenty-three year old student and a member
of his terror squad, to carry out his duty to Allah. A religious
sheikh told Hassan that the Koran sanctioned the
murder of the “enemies of Islam and of Arabism,” whereupon
Hassan dutifully swore to kill any traitor the Moorshid named.
Hassan retired and spent his days in meditation, prayer, and
preparation. On the tenth day after his oath he donned a
policeman’s uniform and went to the Ministry of Interior,
where he waited for the Egyptian prime minister, Mahmoud
Fahmy el Nokrashy Pasha, to emerge. As soon as Nokrashy
Pasha appeared, followed by his bodyguard, Abdel whipped
out a pistol and shot the minister dead, his duty to the Moorshid
and to Allah fulfilled, his place in heaven assured. . . .
3a. Considerable insight into the machinations underlying the Piggy-Back Coup can be gleaned from a New York Times profile of Gene Sharp.
. . . . When the nonpartisan International Center on Nonviolent Conflict, which trains democracy activists, slipped into Cairo several years ago to conduct a workshop, among the papers it distributed was Mr. Sharp’s “198 Methods of Nonviolent Action,” a list of tactics that range from hunger strikes to “protest disrobing” to “disclosing identities of secret agents.”
Dalia Ziada, an Egyptian blogger and activist who attended the workshop and later organized similar sessions on her own, said trainees were active in both the Tunisia and Egypt revolts. She said that some activists translated excerpts of Mr. Sharp’s work into Arabic, and that his message of “attacking weaknesses of dictators” stuck with them.
Peter Ackerman, a onetime student of Mr. Sharp who founded the nonviolence center and ran the Cairo workshop, cites his former mentor as proof that “ideas have power.”
Mr. Sharp, hard-nosed yet exceedingly shy, is careful not to take credit. He is more thinker than revolutionary, though as a young man he participated in lunch-counter sit-ins and spent nine months in a federal prison in Danbury, Conn., as a conscientious objector during the Korean War. He has had no contact with the Egyptian protesters, he said, although he recently learned that the Muslim Brotherhood had “From Dictatorship to Democracy” posted on its Web site. . . .
. . . . Mr. Ackerman, who became wealthy as an investment banker after studying under Mr. Sharp, contributed millions of dollars and kept it afloat for years. But about a decade ago, Mr. Ackerman wanted to disseminate Mr. Sharp’s ideas more aggressively, as well as his own. He put his money into his own center, which also produces movies and even a video game to train dissidents. An annuity he purchased still helps pay Mr. Sharp’s salary. . .
3b. Sharp has enjoyed appointments at Harvard University’s Center for International Studies.
Sharp was born in Ohio. He received a Bachelor of Arts in Social Sciences in 1949 from Ohio State University, where he also received his Master of Arts in Sociology in 1951. In 1953–54, Sharp was jailed for nine months after protesting the conscription of soldiers for the Korean War. In 1968, he received a Doctor of Philosophy in political theory from Oxford University.
Sharp has been a professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth since 1972. He simultaneously held research appointments at Harvard University’s Center for International Affairs since 1965. In 1983 he founded the Albert Einstein Institution, a non-profit organization devoted to studies and promotion of the use of nonviolent action in conflicts worldwide. . . .
3c. The Harvard Center for International Studies was founded by Robert R. Bowie, an individual with numerous connections to the intelligence community.
Robert R. Bowie (born August 24, 1909) is an American diplomat and scholar who served as CIA Deputy Director from 1977–1979.
Robert Bowie graduated from Princeton University in 1931 and received a law degree from Harvard University in 1934 and turned down offers to work as a corporate lawyer with New York’s major law firms, returning to Baltimore to work in his father’s law firm, Bowie and Burke. He served in the U.S. Army (1942–1946) as a commissioned officer with the Pentagon and in occupied Germany from 1945 until 1946. In 1946 he resigned as a lieutenant-colonel. He taught at Harvard from 1946–1955. The youngest professor of the school, he was a trusted confidant to John J. McCloy the “unofficial chairman of the American establishment”. During periods of leave from Harvard between 1950 and 1952 Bowie worked for McCloy as one of his legal advisers in Germany.
He served as Director of Policy Planning from 1953–1957; co-founder of Harvard’s Center for International Affairs (1958); Counselor for the State Department from 1966–1968. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, and the American Academy of Diplomacy. He is a recipient of the Legion of Merit and the Commander’s Cross of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany. . . .
4. Ackerman has served as an advisor to the United States Institute of Peace, whose Muslim World Initiative  has been cited by critics as a theater of Islamic extremist penetration and activity.
Peter Ackerman is on “the U.S. Advisory Council of the United States Institute of Peace.” 
5. Ackerman’s resume is interesting, for a promoter of social justice.
Peter Ackerman was born in New York City, Nov 6 1946, and educated at Colgate University and the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy (Tufts University) where he earned a PhD in International Relations.
After his graduation he joined the junk-bond dealers, Drexel Burnham Lambert, and for most of the next fifteen years, he was the right-hand man to Michael Milken the “Junk-Bond King”. He became the key deal-maker and strategist for the company, and his innovative approach to deal-making, together with his unusual academic qualifications, earned him the nickname “the absentminded professor”. But the record shows that he was far from absent minded. . . .
6. [Uprising leader Wael] Ghonim has been widely publicized as a graduate of American University in Cairo. The broadcast relates part of an interview with Saad Eddin Ibrahim, a professor at American University who is very pro-Islamist and pro-Brotherhood. Interestingly and significantly, Ibrahim is the founder of the Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies, named after a 14th century Islamic advocate of free markets. Khaldun is highly regarded by the Brotherhood and that attitude has led the corporate business community to support the Brotherhood.
Note that no less an authority than the World Bank views Ibn Khaldun—revered by the Brotherhood—as “the first advocate of privatization”!
In the days of the caliphate, Islam developed the most sophisticated monetary system the world had yet known. Today, some economists cite Islamic banking as further evidence of an intrinsic Islamic pragmatism. Though still guided by a Qur’anic ban on riba, or interest, Islamic banking has adapted to the needs of a booming oil region for liquidity. In recent years, some 500 Islamic banks and investment firms holding $2 trillion in assets have emerged in the Gulf States, with more in Islamic communities of the West. British Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown wants to make London a global center for Islamic finance—and elicits no howl of protest from fundamentalists. How Islamists might run a central bank is more problematic: scholars say they would manipulate currency reserves, not interest rates. The Muslim Brotherhood hails 14th century philosopher Ibn Khaldun as its economic guide. Anticipating supply-side economics, Khaldun argued that cutting taxes raises production and tax revenues, and that state control should be limited to providing water, fire and free grazing land, the utilities of the ancient world. The World Bank has called Ibn Khaldun the first advocate of privatization. [Italics are mine–D.E.] His founding influence is a sign of moderation. If Islamists in power ever do clash with the West, it won’t be over commerce.
7. Excerpts from the interview with Saad Eddin Ibrahim indicate his support for Islamists. In fact, Gamal Al-Banna, the brother of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan Al-Banna is on the board of directors of the Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies!
Saad Eddin Ibrahim: This is one of the projects we are working on in the Ibn
Khaldun Center. On our Board of Trustees is Gamal al-Banna – the only surviving
brother of Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brothers. He is in his mid
80s but lucid. . . .
Alan Johnson: You have argued for an alliance of sorts between democrats and
‘moderate’ Islamists. In August 2006 you wrote that ‘Mainstream Islamists with
broad support developed civic dispositions and services to provide are the most
likely actors in building a new Middle East.’ And in December 2006 you complained
about an ‘unjustified fear of modern Islamists’ and called for a policy of dialogue and
inclusion, saying ‘Hamas, Hezbollah, Muslim Brothers – these people you cannot
get rid of; you have to deal with them … the name of the game is inclusion.’ You deny
that these organisations are inimical to democracy, pointing out that Islamists have
never come to power via elections and then reneged on democracy. Warning that
‘the Islamist scare is propagated and marketed by autocratic regimes to intimidate
the middle class and the West, to ward off any serious democratic reforms,’ you
have urged a positive response to Hamas and Hezbollah’s participation in elections.
While you warn that ‘no sober analyst would consider this a final commitment by
Islamists to democracy,’ you believe ‘the process of transforming them into Muslim
democrats is clearly under way.’ Now, these views have raised some eyebrows. Can
you set out your thinking? . . .
8. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman highlighted the difficulties ahead for democracy activists in Egypt and elsewhere.
. . . . But fasten your seat belts. This is not going to be a joy ride because the lid is being blown off an entire region with frail institutions, scant civil society and virtually no democratic traditions or culture of innovation. The United Nations’ Arab Human Development Report 2002 warned us about all of this, but the Arab League made sure that that report was ignored in the Arab world and the West turned a blind eye. But that report — compiled by a group of Arab intellectuals led by Nader Fergany, an Egyptian statistician — was prophetic. It merits re-reading today  to appreciate just how hard this democratic transition will be.
The report stated that the Arab world is suffering from three huge deficits — a deficit of education, a deficit of freedom and a deficit of women’s empowerment. A summary of the report in Middle East Quarterly in the Fall of 2002 detailed the key evidence: the gross domestic product of the entire Arab world combined was less than that of Spain. Per capita expenditure on education in Arab countries dropped from 20 percent of that in industrialized countries in 1980 to 10 percent in the mid-1990s. In terms of the number of scientific papers per unit of population, the average output of the Arab world per million inhabitants was roughly 2 percent of that of an industrialized country.
When the report was compiled, the Arab world translated about 330 books annually, one-fifth of the number that Greece did. Out of seven world regions, the Arab countries had the lowest freedom score in the late 1990s in the rankings of Freedom House. At the dawn of the 21st century, the Arab world had more than 60 million illiterate adults, the majority of whom were women. Yemen could be the first country in the world to run out of water within 10 years.
This is the vaunted “stability” all these dictators provided — the stability of societies frozen in time. . . .