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. . . .
“Whither the Muslim Brotherhood?” by Tariq Ramadan; The New York Times; 2/8/2011.
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. . . .
“What the Muslim Brothers Want” by Essam el-Errian; The New York Times; 2/9/2011.
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.[1] 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.[3] In 1953–54, Sharp was jailed for nine months after protesting the conscription of soldiers for the Korean War.[1] In 1968, he received a Doctor of Philosophy in political theory from Oxford University.[3]
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.[1] 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.[4] . . .
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.[1]
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. . . .
“Robert R. Bowie”; wikipedia.org.
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.” [4]
“United States Institute of Peace”; Sourcewatch.
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.[10]
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. . . .
“Peter Ackerman”; Sourcewatch.
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.
“Islam in Office” by Stephen Glain; Newsweek; 7/3–10/2006.
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? . . .
“A Politics of Inclusion:An Interview with Saad Eddin Ibrahim”; Dissent Magazine; Spring/2007.
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. . . .
“If Not Now, When?” by Thomas Friedman; The New York Times; 2/22/2011.
[...] am suggesting as well Dave Emory’s last show, FTR #736, which continues the analysis on the coup d’état that was perpetrated in Egypt. Bring your [...]
Taqqiya isn’t actually a widely held idea in Islam, but rather it is an concept that was created by the Ismaili, or more accurately the Nizari Ismaili. The sect was hunted by other Muslims due to its ability to infiltrate and kill not only Crusaders in their castles but also other Muslim leaders it saw as being in the way of the Ismaili plans on dominating all of the countries in the Middle East. If the Muslim Brotherhood or other islamist groups are employing taqqiya then you can be assured that they themselves have been infiltrated by a radical Muslim group that aims to destroy or co-opt both Sunni and Shia sects.
It’s a tangled web in the Middle East. Some books you may be interested in are:
The secret order of assassins : the struggle of the early Nizârî Ismâʻîlîs against the Islamic world by Marshall G.S. Hodgson
The Assassins : a radical sect in Islam by Bernard Lewis
The assassins : The story of Islam’s medieval secret sect
by W. B. Barlett
The Assassins, or Hashishanni, were the impetus behind the legends of the Old Man of the Mountain in Crusader lore, as well as possibly being the source for the image of Heaven awaiting those who died in Ismaili service. Their “Heaven” was possibly real; it could have been a certain grotto in one of the many assassin castles in the Middle East where assassins who were about to be sent out on a mission would be drugged with hashish, then set free among a group of dark haired “angels” who would encourage the assassins to complete their missions. The hook was you got to spend time with the “angels” who would be awaiting you, if you were successful in eliminating your target, but only in Heaven.
Other than that I think your analysis is spot on.
Thank you for referencing my post. Effectively, Hasan al-Banna’s 50-Point Manifesto is a must read to get the picture about the Muslim Brotherhood. As you say yourself, “read or bleed, learn or burn”.
I just have one observation to add to enrich the analysis on something that is already extremely complex and sometimes messy, as one of your listeners pointed out.
First, the Arab populations have been ruled by autocrats for thousands of years. They don’t know anything else. So, in order to have a real transition toward democracy, social, communitarian and political structures must be put in place. This process takes years, decades before any attempt to install a viable and working democracy can succeed. And the European leaders know that so there is no reason (at least no progressive or liberal reasons...) to be in such of a hurry to topple Middle East leaders. The local populations are not ready anyway. Just look at the aftermath of the American and French revolutions. Did it change anything for the masses? I don’t think so. In fact, it took more or less two centuries before the real fruits of these revolutions came to ripen. One could argue that now we have much more experience than in the 19th century. It is true. However, those who want humanity to be thrown back into Antiquity have much more power and money than ever before, that is the other side of it. The people have to open their eyes and ears. Masters of deception are at work.
Have a great day.
[...] countries. The different points he makes present a considerable amount of overlap with Dave Emory‘s assessment of the situation. This interview is certainly a good complement to what Emory [...]
The CIA is letting us know that there are intelligence officers in Turkey secretly working with the arm-trafficking networks that are funneling weapons to the Syrian rebels. Part of their job appears to be helping to funnel the weapons to the non-super-scary groups operating in Syria:
So the weapons are being shipped into Syria via a shadowy network that includes the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood with the goal of keeping the weapons out of the hands of al Qaeda. Good luck with that!
Here’s a major development with a tie in to history of Gene Sharp’s regime-change strategies:
The situation in Venezuela took a turn for the worse after opposition leader Juan Guaido called for a military coup against the Maduro government. It appears to be a regime change operation conducted in coordination with the US government and some yet-to-be-revealed faction of the Venezuelan government. US National Security Adviser John Bolton is publicly claiming that three key Venezuelan officials, including Maduro’s defense minister and head of the supreme court, have private pledged to remove Maduro who allegedly pledged to US. And yet, as of the latest reports, the military backing for this coup appears to be limited.
Another interesting aspect of this call for regime change is that it coincided with the release of Leopoldo Lopez from house arrest. Lopez is Guaido’s political mentor and a key right-wing opposition activist. Lopez was standing beside Guaido when he made the calls for regime change today. So a key opposition leader was released from house arrest on the same day of this coordinated move for regime change, which would appear to indicate at least some degree of backing for the coup by the security forces, and yet there doesn’t actually appear to be very much support for this coup in the military so far, which is an interesting mix of signals:
“Violent street battles erupted in parts of Caracas in what was the most serious challenge yet to Maduro’s rule — kicked off with a video shot at dawn of Guaidó, flanked by several heavily armed national guardsmen, urging a final push to topple Maduro.”
Juan Guaido is finally get his coup. Or at least a coup attempt. And it all happened after the surprise release of Leopoldo Lopez from house arrest:
Guaido is even promising to release a list of top military commanders supporting the coup:
John Bolton also dangled the promise of high-level coup backers. More ominously, Bolton warned that “all options” are on the table:
And his this military support for Guaido doesn’t appear to actually be materializing, making Bolton’s warnings of “all options” all the more ominous:
So we’ll see how this plays out, but given that a coup led by Guaido and Lopez is actually underway, here’s a fascinating look at the rise of Juan Guaido published by Max Blumenthal back in January of this year. As Blumenthal lays out, while Guaido and his right-wing forces may not be very popular in Venezuela (they only have about 20 percent of public support), they are wildly popular in Washington DC. And that’s in part because Gauido is basically a product of US-backed regime-change groups.
As the article lays out, the US regime change plans against Venezuela really got underway in 2005 when five Venezuelan “student leaders” traveled to Belgrade, Serbia, where they received training from Center for Applied Non-Violent Action and Strategies, or CANVAS. CANVAS is largely funded through the National Endowment for Democracy and is a spinoff of Otpor, a Serbian protest group that mobilized the protests that eventually toppled Slobodan Milosevic. As Blumenthal describes it, Otpor is basically a small cell of regime change specialists operating according to the theories of Gene Sharp. It was in 2005 when CANVAS turned its regime-change sites on Venezuela.
In 2007, Guaido graduated from a university in Caracas and moved to Washington DC to enroll in the Governance and Political Management Program at George Washington University and studied under Luis Enrique Berrizbeitia, a top Latin American neoliberal economist. Guaido helped lead anti-government rallies that year and one of his allies, a street organizer named Yon Goicoechea, was identified by CANVAS as a “key factor” in the protests. The next year, Goicochea was rewarded with the Cato Institute’s Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty and a $500,000 prize.
In 2009, Guaido founded the political party Popular Will, which was led by Lepoldo Lopez. As Blumenthal describes it, Lopez is a Princeton-educated right-wing firebrand heavily involved in National Endowment for Democracy programs. He was elected as mayor of a district in Caracas that was one of the wealthiest in the country. Lopez was directly descended from Venezuela’s first president.
In 2010, Popular Will schemed with CANVAS and Stratfor to foment opposition to the Venezuelan government by exploiting the worst drought in decades leading to a collapse in hydroelectric energy. The scheme involved somehow collapsing the electricity supplies in the country by 70% and directing public anger at the government. In November 2010, Guaido, Goicoechea, and several other student activists attended a secret five-day training session in Mexico City run by Otpor. While the plan was never executed, it was a stepping stone down the path towards violent revolution.
In 2014, student demonstrators in a series of protests against the government. Evidence points towards Popular Will leading these protests. Protests that became violent and resulted in dozens of deaths. Guaido directly participated in these protests, and even tweeted video showing himself wearing a helmet and gas mask and surrounded by masked armed people who had shut down a highway. As a result of these violent protests that government cracked down on Popular Will, leading to Lopez’s house arrest.
In December 2018, Guaido sneaked across the Venezuelan border and traveled to Washington, Colombia and Brazil to coordinate the plan to hold mass demonstrations during the inauguration of President Maduro, generating extensive support from US politicians in the process. Within a week Trump agreed that if Guaido declared himself president, Trump would back him.
On January 21 of this year, Guaido’s wife delivered a video address calling on the military to rise up against Maduro.
So that’s some of the background a Juan Gauido: a man who appears to be tailor made for this kind of regime change because he was tailor made for it thanks to the training of groups like CANVAS and Otpor and the teachings of Gene Sharp:
“While Guaidó seemed to have materialized out of nowhere, he was, in fact, the product of more than a decade of assiduous grooming by the US government’s elite regime change factories. Alongside a cadre of right-wing student activists, Guaidó was cultivated to undermine Venezuela’s socialist-oriented government, destabilize the country, and one day seize power. Though he has been a minor figure in Venezuelan politics, he had spent years quietly demonstrated his worthiness in Washington’s halls of power.”
A product of more than a decade of grooming at a US-based regime change factory. It’s a helluva resume. And the kind of resume that’s going to make Guaido a lot more popular in places like Washington DC than his own country:
And much of that training comes from CANVAS, itself a spinoff of Otpor, the Serbian group that helped take down Slobodan Milosevic using the training of Gene Sharp:
In was 2007 when Guaido first traveled to study in Washington DC under Luis Enrique Berrizbeitia, one of the top neoliberal economists in Latin America:
Then, in 2009, Guaido helps start the Popular Will party along with Leopoldo Lopez, the Princeton-educated right-wing firebrand heavily involved in National Endowment for Democracy programs:
But Popular Will could never really generate much Popular Will, thanks, in part, to the violent protests of 2014 that resulted in a crackdown on Popular Will and Lopez’s house arrest. Flash forward to December 2018, and we find Guaido sneaking out to DC where he gets assurances from the Trump campaign that he’ll have the US’s backing if he declares himself president:
Then, on January 21, we have Guaido’s wife issuing an earlier call for a coup:
That earlier call for a coup obviously didn’t succeed. Will this latest call work for Guaido and his Popular Will movement? Only time will tell, but if it does succeed it’s pretty clear that it won’t happen as a result of genuine popular support. At least not in Venezuela. And if the latest coup attempt doesn’t work it will presumably be back to the Gene Sharp regime-change drawing board.
@Pterrafractyl–
One wonders how much blood will flow from this “Venezuelan Spring?”
Also: it won’t be surprising to see Maduro, Chavez et al linked in GOP campaign propaganda to St. Bernard and AOC, the “socialists” in the Democratic Party’s left.
Note also: Saikat Chakrabarti and his “Justice Democrats” were on fire to have Al Franken resign and be replaced by Keith Ellison, who has one foot in the Muslim Brotherhood and the other in the Nation of Islam.
https://alphanewsmn.com/progressive-group-calls-franken-replaced-ellison/
Of course, Ellison is now facing his own #MeToo allegations.
Biden’s first #MeToo accuser Lucy Flores is a Bernie Bot.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/437116-ex-sanders-staffer-calls-biden-accuser-lucy-flores-a-fraud-and-racist-on
Keep up the great work!
Dave Emory
The question of whether or not a military intervention in Venezuela is in the works as a ‘Plan B’ following the failed right-wing coup attempt of April 30th was already a pretty urgent question. But now that the Trump administration has once again ramped up the threat of a military confrontation with Iran less than two weeks after the failed coup attempt in Venezuela, the question of a ‘Plan B’ military option has suddenly become an become an even more urgent question. So it’s worth noting that, as the following article points out, it appears that President Trump has grown frustrated with John Bolton’s optimism that the coup attempt would work and now Trump apparently fears that Bolton has boxed him into a corner on Venezuela. But as the article also notes, the Trump administration is still officially leaving “all options on the table”:
“Trump has said in recent days that Bolton wants to get him “into a war” — a comment that he has made in jest in the past but that now betrays his more serious concerns, one senior administration official said.”
LOL! Trump apparently just found out that Bolton wants to get him “into a war.” The guy’s entire resume is trying to get the US into wars, sometimes successfully, but Trump is only figuring this out now. At least that’s the spin.
And yet, we are told that Bolton’s job is safe and officially all options are on the table. In addition, we’re also informed that the White House has repeatedly asked for military planning short of an invasion, including sending in US military personnel ostensibly for humanitarian responses:
That sure sounds like the Trump administration has been planning on some sort of US military activity in Venezuela, if only as a post-regime change security force for the new US-backed government. And as the article reminds us, Trump mused about a military invasion of Venezuela in 2017 (he publicly tweeted about it in August of 2017):
So it’s rather hard to see Trump’s complaints about Bolton trying to get him into a war in Venezuela as anything other than spin and frustration that the April 30th US-coordinated coup attempt failed so spectacularly.
But what about the Venezuelan opposition’s views on military intervention? Are they are in favor of US forces being involved in a regime-change operation or providing some other form of military support? Well, as the following article from just a few days after the failed coup in forms us, the Venezuelan opposition’s answer to the question of whether or not they would support US military assistance in overthrowing the Venezuelan government is a strong “maybe, if it’s deemed necessary”:
“Asked what he would do if national security adviser John Bolton called him up with an offer of U.S. intervention, Guaidó said he would reply: “Dear friend, ambassador John Bolton, thank you for all the help you have given to the just cause here. Thank you for the option, we will evaluate it, and will probably consider it in parliament to solve this crisis. If it’s necessary, maybe we will approve it.””
Yep, Juan Guaido is very frank about his views on a US military backing of regime change: definitely maybe...if it’s deemed necessary:
So what are the odds that the Venezuelan opposition is going to determine that, yes, US military backing is a necessity? Well, that appears to be largely hinge on whether or the opposition can get adequate backing from the Venezuelan military. And as we saw, they failed spectacularly. Beyond that, they don’t appear to have a coherent explanation for why they failed so spectacularly. For example, we’re learning that the coup attempt from preceded by secret negotiations with Maduro loyalists. And Leopoldo Lopez, the hard right neoliberal economist and mentor of Juan Guaido, was apparently one of the key architects of these secret negotiations. Lopez also notably was released from house arrest on the day of the coup attempt and publicly met with Guaido on the streets. This appearance by Lopez is apparently being blamed by some in the opposition for the lack of support for the coup within the Venezuelan military. Which seems like a highly questionable excuse given that Lopez has long been closely associatd with Guaido. It’s not like it was a secret that the two are allies. But those are the kinds of recriminations that are taking place within the Venezuelan opposition at this point. The fact that the lack of support in the military might have something to do with Guiado and Lopez representing the interests of wealth right-wing oligarchs and international backers and not the interests of average Venezuelans is never mentioned. And when those the kind of people who are leading the opposition it’s hard to see what exactly is going to bring about support for regime change within the Venezuelan military:
So it’s looking like the Venezuelan opposition is likely to remain relatively unpopular within Venezuela and with the military, and that means we should probably expect that opposition to determine US military back a necessity sooner or later. But will the Trump administration actually back the use of US military forces for the purposes of overthrowing the Maduro regime, which is what the opposition clearly needs? That remains to be seen. But as the following article that was remarkably published on April 30th, the same day of the failed coup attempt, informs us, there’s another option for outside military forces. An alarmingly familiar option at this point: Erik Prince wants to send in a mercenary military force to overthrow Maduro and he’s been lobbying the Trump administration for months:
“Over the last several months, the sources said, Prince has sought investment and political support for such an operation from influential Trump supporters and wealthy Venezuelan exiles. In private meetings in the United States and Europe, Prince sketched out a plan to field up to 5,000 soldiers-for-hire on behalf of Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido, according to two sources with direct knowledge of Prince’s pitch.”
Will 5,000 mercenaries provide the Venezuelan opposition the military might it needs to overthrow Maduro? In terms of raw numbers for actually fighting and defeating the Venezuelan military it doesn’t seem like that would be remotely enough. But note Prince’s plan is for starting the regime change plan with intelligence operations and creation some sort of “dynamic event”. In other words, asymmetric warfare:
And as we should expect at this point, it sounds like the Venezuelan opposition is quite open to Prince’s proposal:
And while the source close to the Trump administration is claiming that the Trump administration wouldn’t support such a plan, note that Prince was apparently holding these meetings as recently as mid-April, just two weeks before the failed coup attempt. Recall that this article was published the day of the failed coup, so that source was reporting the administration’s thinking before the coup failed. Did that thinking change?
Also note how Prince’s plans are for the Venezuelan opposition to pay for this mercenary force using $40 million from private investors and the Venezuelan assets seized by foreign governments and private investors. So financial cost may not be an issue, assuming governments allow the opposition to access those funds:
It’s also worth recalling that while Prince does indeed have extensive ties to the Trump administration and was one of the key figures in the Mueller investigation into the 2016 campaign, that investigation didn’t just reveal Prince’s ties to the Trump team. Prince was also acting as a representative of the Saudi and UAE governments in a bid to support Trump’s campaign. So it’s important to keep in mind that Prince has very close ties to two major oil exporters who happen to be key competitors with Venezuela in the global oil markets:
Might the Saudi and UAE governments have an interest in seeing Venezuela collapse into a protracted civil war? It’s a question we have to ask now that the master or mercenaries has set his sights on the country. Don’t forget that Prince literally relocated to the UAE in 2010. Also don’t forget that a protracted civil war just means more contracts for Erik Prince.
So as we can see, there are a lot more people than just John Bolton trying to push the US into a war in Venezuela.
One of the more remarkable aspects of the spectacular failure of the Venezuelan coup attempt from several weeks ago was the fact that US figures like John Bolton were openly naming the apparent co-conspirators in the Venezuelan government. In what appeared to be a kind of ‘name and shame’ tactic to coax them into backing the regime change push, figures like Venezuelan Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino, Supreme Court chief judge Maikel Moreno and presidential guard commander Ivan Rafael Hernandez Dala were openly called upon by Bolton to get behind the regime change effort. Bolton also claimed these figures had previously voiced their support for removing the Maduro government.
So why were potential co-conspirator openly called out by the US in this highly risky manner? Well, as we’re going to see, it’s a reflection of how high risk this coup attempt ultimately was in the end. Because it turns out that, yes, these figures were indeed in conversations with the Venezuelan opposition and the US in the weeks before the coup attempt and were indeed supportive of removing Maduro from power. But they were not on board with the entire plan.
At least that was the case with Supreme Court chief judge Maikel Moreno, who was seen as a crucial figure for the coup attempt to work because it was Moreno who could give the military legal legitimacy to move against Maduro, making the coup technically not a coup. As we’ll see, Moreno was in extensive talks with the opposition and claimed to be behind removing Maduro, but he had a different idea for who should replace Maduro: himself. Moreno felt that power should temporarily be transferred to the courts, instead of the National Assembly, and that would make Moreno the temporary head of the government.
So while Moreno agreed Maduro had to go, he never actually go on board with the opposition’s plan and did not agree that Guaido should replace Maduro. This was the case as of April 28th, just two days before the coup attempt. The plan was for a May 1st uprising, but then Maduro’s spy chief, Maj. Gen. Manuel Ricardo Cristopher Figuera, one of the other government insiders who was part of the scheme, got word that the Maduro government was planning on replacing him and also planning on some sort of unspecified crackdown on Guaido and the other opposition leaders. Figuera also learned that the Leopoldo Lopez (the neoliberal economist who was Juan Guaido’s mentor) was about to be transferred from house arrest back to jail. These pressures force the opposition to move up the planned coup date one day to April 30th.
And that’s how haphazard the coup attempt was: three days before the planned coup, they learn that Moreno, a key figure needed for it to work, isn’t on board with the plan. Then they learn that the Maduro government was planning on an imminent crackdown. So they decided to just roll the dice and go with the coup plan a day early and hoped they could pressure Moreno into going along with it. That’s the backstory of why you had John Bolton publicly naming and shaming potential coup co-conspirators:
““It’s still very important for three figures in the Maduro regime who have been talking to the opposition over these last three months to make good on their commitment to achieve the peaceful transition of power from the Maduro clique to interim president Juan Guaido,” Bolton told reporters.”
Behold! It’s John Bolton’s version of diplomacy: outing his fellow coup co-conspirators who got cold feet. It was one of the surreal aspects to a coup attempt where pretty much everything went wrong.
Now here’s a article from last week with the backstory on why Bolton was naming and shaming figure like Maikel Moreno: Bolton needed to do name and shame because his fellow coup plotters went ahead with coup plans without the backing of all the key plotters (which seems like a really bad plan):
“Maduro’s spy chief, Maj. Gen. Manuel Ricardo Cristopher Figuera, and Cesar Omaña, a 39-year-old Venezuelan businessman based in Miami, were trying to seal a deal hashed out over weeks with Maikel Moreno, the chief justice, according to one of the participants in the meeting. Figuera and Omaña were part of the plan to force Maduro out, but they needed Moreno’s help.”
Chief Justice Moreno was the linchpin of the plan. It was Moreno who would give the planned military’s move against Maduro legal legitimacy:
But on April 23, a week before the planned coup, Moreno was voicing doubts about plan. Specifically, doubts about putting Juan Guaido in power and the National Assembly directly in power. Moreno wanted the courts to temporarily rule ahead of new elections. It appeared that his concerns were placated but then, on April 28th, Moreno once again expressed doubts and insisted that the support from the military had to be demonstrated before the Supreme Court could issue its ruling. This was a rather big complication because it was the Supreme Court that was supposed to open the way for the military to back new government. So Moreno threw a big wrench in the plans just a few days before it was set to go:
Then, at 1 am on April 30th, General Figuera informed the opposition that he learned he was about to be replaced and there was going to be a move against the opposition figures. So they decided to move the coup plans to that day, without knowing whether or not chief justice Moreno would be on board:
As we should expect, opposition figures are spinning their debacle as a sign that Maduro lacks loyalty:
So was that just really bad luck for the opposition that a disloyal Maduro official backed out at the last minute for personal ambitions? Well, the fact that the Maduro government hasn’t actually move against figures like Moreno after the failed coup attempt raises one particularly embarrassing possibility: that the Maduro loyalists like Moreno who were just feigning interest the entire time in order to expose the plot. Don’t forget that Bolton was publicly naming and shaming more figures than just Moreno that day. There were multiple high-level figures who apparently pledged to back a coup but backed off at the last minute. Was that all because of Moreno’s decision not to give it the Supreme Court’s stamp of approval or were they playing the opposition the whole time?
But whether or not Moreno was misleading the opposition the whole time, there’s one figure who clearly feels misled: President Trump, who is reportedly quite upset over being misled by Bolton about how easy it would be to overthrow Maduro:
So that’s all something to keep in mind regarding both future Trump administration regime change schemes, whether it’s another attempt in Venezuela or ongoing threats of war with Iran: the Trump administration and its co-conspirators were willing to engage in an high risk regime-change gambit that didn’t even have all of the key co-conspirators on board. That’s quite an itchy trigger finger.