Egypt And The Muslim Brotherhood: A Stratfor Special Report

Tyler Durden's picture

If indeed as Credit Suisse speculated gold's move was predicated by concerns that the Muslim Brotherhood may end the peace treaty with Israel, then the relationship between Egypt and the country's largest Islamist movement, the Muslim Brotherhood, deserves a special focus. Below we publish a special report by Stratfor focusing precisely on this relationship, and what the future may hold for either.

Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood: A Special Report

With Egypt’s nearly 60-year-old order seemingly collapsing, many are
asking whether the world’s single-largest Islamist movement, the Muslim
Brotherhood (MB), is on the verge of benefiting from demands for
democracy in Egypt, the most pivotal Arab state.

Western fears to the contrary, the MB is probably incapable of
dominating Egypt. At best, it can realistically hope to be the largest
political force in a future government, one in which the military would
have a huge say.

The MB and the Egyptian State

The fear of Islamism for years allowed the single-party state to
prevent the emergence of a secular opposition. Many secular forces were
aligned with the state to prevent an Islamist takeover. Those that did
not remained marginalized by the authoritarian system. As a result, the
MB over the years has evolved into the country’s single-largest
organized socio-political opposition force.

Even though there is no coherent secular group that can rival the
MB’s organizational prowess, Egypt’s main Islamist movement hardly has a
monopoly over public support. A great many Egyptians are either secular
liberals or religious conservatives who do not subscribe to Islamist
tenets. Certainly, the bulk of the people out on the streets in the
recent unrest are not demanding that the secular autocracy be replaced
with an Islamist democracy.

Still, as Egypt’s biggest political movement, the MB has raised
Western and Israeli fears of an Egypt going the way of Islamism,
particularly if the military is not able to manage the transition. To
understand the MB today — and thus to evaluate these international fears
— we must first consider the group’s origins and evolution.

Origins and Evolution of the MB

Founded in the town of Ismailia in 1928 by a schoolteacher named
Hassan al-Banna, the MB was the world’s first organized Islamist
movement (though Islamism as an ideology had been in the making since
the late 19th century). It was formed as a social movement to pursue the
revival of Islam in the country and beyond at a time when secular
left-leaning nationalism was rising in the Arab and Muslim world.

It quickly moved beyond just charitable and educational activities to
emerge as a political movement, however. Al-Banna’s views formed the
core of the group’s ideology, which are an amalgamation of Islamic
values and Western political thought, which rejected both traditional
religious ideas as well as wholesale Westernization. The MB was the
first organizational manifestation of the modernist trend within Muslim
religio-political thought that embraced nationalism and moved beyond the
idea of a caliphate. That said, the movement was also the first
organized Islamic response to Western-led secular modernity.

Its view of jihad in the sense of armed struggle was limited to
freedom from foreign occupation (British occupation in the case of Egypt
and the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land). But it had a more
comprehensive understanding of jihad pertaining to intellectual
awakening of the masses and political mobilization. It was also very
ecumenical in terms of intra-Muslim issues. Each of these aspects
allowed the movement to quickly gain strength; by the late 1940s, it
reportedly had more than a million members.

By the late 1930s, there was great internal pressure on the MB
leadership to form a military wing to pursue an armed struggle against
the British occupation. The leadership was fearful that such a move
would damage the movement, which was pursuing a gradual approach to
socio-political change by providing social services and the creation of
professional syndicates among lawyers, doctors, engineers, academics,
etc. The MB, however, reluctantly did allow for the formation of a
covert militant entity, which soon began conducting militant attacks not
authorized by al-Banna and the leadership.

Until the late 1940s, the MB was a legal entity in the country, but
the monarchy began to view it as a major threat to its power —
especially given its emphasis on freedom from the British and opposition
to all those allied with the occupation forces. The MB was at the
forefront of organizing strikes and nationalist rallies. It also
participated, though unsuccessfully, in the 1945 elections.

While officially steering clear of any participation in World War II,
the MB did align with Nazi Germany against the United Kingdom, which
saw the movement become involved in militancy against the British. MB
participation in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war further energized the
militants. That same year, the covert militant entity within the
movement assassinated a judge who had handed prison sentences to a MB
member for attacking British troops.

It was at this point that the monarchy moved to disband the movement
and the first large-scale arrests of its leadership took place. The
crackdown on the MB allowed the militant elements the freedom to pursue
their agenda unencumbered by the movement’s hierarchy. The assassination
of then-Prime Minister Nokrashy Pasha at the hands of an MB militant
proved to be a turning point in the movement’s history.

Al-Banna condemned the assassination and distanced the movement from
the militants but he, too, was assassinated in 1949, allegedly by
government agents. Al-Banna was replaced as general guide of the
movement by a prominent judge, Hassan al-Hudaybi, who was not a member
of the movement but held al-Banna in high regard. The appointment, which
conflicted with the MB charter, created numerous internal problems and
exacerbated the rift between the core movement and the militant faction.

Meanwhile, the Egyptian government’s October 1951 decision to
abrogate the 1936 Anglo-Egyptian treaty set off nationwide agitation
against British rule. Armed clashes between British forces and Egyptians
broke out. The MB’s militant faction took part while the core movement
steered clear of the unrest. It was in the midst of this unrest that the
1952 coup led by Gamal Abdel Nasser against the monarchy took place.
The MB supported the coup, thinking they would be rewarded with a
political share of the government. The cordial relationship between the
new Free Officers regime and the MB did not last long, however, largely
because the military regime did not want to share power with the MB and,
like the monarchy, saw the MB as a threat to its nascent state.

Initially, the new regime abolished all political groups except the
MB. The Nasser regime, in an attempt to manage the power of the MB,
asked it to join the Liberation Rally — the first political vehicle
created by the new state. Unsuccessful in its attempts to co-opt the MB,
the Nasser regime began to exploit the internal differences within the
movement, especially over the leadership of al-Hudaybi. The MB leader
faced mounting criticism that he had converted the movement into an
elite group that had reduced the movement to issuing statements and had
taken advantage of the notion of obedience and loyalty to the leader to
perpetuate his authoritarian hold. Al-Hudaybi, however, prevailed and
the MB disbanded the covert militant entity and expelled its members
from the movement.

In 1954, the regime finally decided to outlaw the MB, accusing it of
conspiring to topple the government and arresting many members and
leaders, including al-Hudaybi. Meanwhile, the military regime ran into
internal problems with Nasser locked in a power struggle with Gen.
Muhammad Naguib, who was made the first president of the modern republic
(1953-54). Nasser succeeded in getting the support of al-Hudaybi and
the MB to deal with the internal rift in exchange for allowing the MB to
operate legally and releasing its members.

The government reneged on its promises to release prisoners and the
complex relationship between Nasser and al-Hudaybi further destabilized
the MB from within, allowing for the militant faction to regain
influence. The MB demanded the end of martial law and a restoration of
parliamentary democracy. Cairo in the meantime announced a new treaty
with London over the Suez Canal, which was criticized by the
al-Hudaybi-led leadership as tantamount to making Egypt subservient to
the United Kingdom.

This led to further police action against the movement and a campaign
against its leadership in the official press. The Nasser government
also tried to have al-Hudaybi removed as leader of the MB. Between the
internal pressures and those from the regime, the movement had moved
into a period of internal disarray.

The covert militant faction that was no longer under the control of
the leadership because of the earlier expulsions saw the treaty as
treasonous and the MB as unable to confront the regime, so it sought to
escalate matters. Some members allegedly were involved in the
assassination attempt on Nasser in October 1954, which allowed the
regime to engage in the biggest crackdown on the MB in its history.
Thousands of members including al-Hudaybi were sentenced to harsh prison
terms and tortured.

It was during this period that another relative outsider in the
movement, Sayyid Qutb, a literary figure and a civil servant, emerged as
an influential ideologue of the group shortly after joining up. Qutb
also experienced long periods of imprisonment and torture, which
radicalized his views. He eventually called for the complete overthrow
of the system. He wrote many treatises, but one in particular,
Milestones, was extremely influential — not so much within the
movement, as among a new generation of more radical Islamists.

Qutb was executed in 1966 on charges of trying to topple the
government, but his ideas inspired the founding of jihadism.
Disenchanted with the MB ideology and its approach, a younger generation
of extremely militant Islamists emerged. These elements, who would
found the world’s first jihadist groups, saw the MB as having
compromised on Islamic principles and accepted Western ideas. Further
galvanizing this new breed of militant Islamists was the Arab defeat in
the 1967 war with Israel and the MB’s formal renunciation of violence in

Anwar Sadat’s rise to power after Nasser’s death in 1970 helped the
MB gain some reprieve in that Sadat gradually eased the restrictions on
the movement (but retained the ban on it) and tried to use it to contain
left-wing forces. After almost two decades of dealing with state
repression, the MB had been overshadowed by more militant groups such as
Tandheem al-Jihad and Gamaa al-Islamiyah, which had risen to prominence
in the 1980s and 1990s. Close ties with Saudi Arabia, which sought to
contain Nasserism, also helped the organization maintain itself.

While never legalized, the MB spent the years after Sadat’s rise
trying to make use of the fact that the regime tolerated the movement to
rebuild itself. Its historical legacy helped the MB maintain its status
as the main Islamist movement, as well as its organizational structure
and civil society presence. Furthermore, the regime of Sadat’s
successor, Hosni Mubarak, was able to crush the jihadist groups by the
late 1990s, and this also helped the MB regain its stature.

The MB thus went through different phases during the monarchy and the
modern republic when it tried to balance its largely political
activities with limited experiments with militancy, and there were
several periods during which the state tried to suppress the MB. (The
first such period was in the late 1940s, the second phase in the
mid-1950s when the Nasser regime began to dismantle the MB and the third
took place in the mid-1960s during the Qutbist years.)

MB beyond Egypt

Shortly after its rise in Egypt, the MB spread to other parts of the
Arab world. The Syrian branch founded in the late 1930s to early 1940s
grew much more radical than its parent, wholeheartedly adopting armed
struggle — which sparked a major crackdown in 1982 by Syrian President
Hafez al Assad’s regime that killed tens of thousands. In sharp
contrast, the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan in the early 1940s very early
on established an accommodationist attitude with the Hashemite monarchy
and became a legal entity and founded a political party.

Until the Israeli capture of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the 1967
war, the Palestinian and Jordanian branches constituted more or less a
singular entity. The Gaza-based branch was affiliated with the Egyptian
Muslim Brotherhood, which Israel used to weaken the Palestine Liberation
Organization (PLO). Those elements went on to form Hamas in 1987, which
has pursued its activities on a dual track — political pragmatism in
intra-Palestinian affairs and armed struggle against Israel. Hamas also
emerged in the West Bank though not on the same scale as in Gaza.

Similarly, in the Arabian Peninsula states, Iraq and North Africa,
there are legal opposition parties that do not call themselves MB but
are ideological descendants of the MB. The parent MB, by contrast, was
never legalized and has never formed a political party per se. While the
Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is the parent body and there is a lot of
coordination among the various chapters in different countries, each
branch is an independent entity, which has also allowed for a variety of
groups to evolve differently in keeping with the circumstances in the
various countries.

Despite dabbling in militancy, Egypt’s MB always remained a pragmatic
organization. Egypt’s true militant Islamists in fact represent a
rejection of the MB’s pragmatism. Decades before al Qaeda came on the
scene with its transnational jihadism, Egypt was struggling with as many
as five different jihadist groups (born out of a rejection of the MB
approach) fighting Cairo. Two of them became very prominent: Tandheem
al-Jihad, which was behind Sadat’s assassination, and Gamaa
al-Islamiyah, which led a violent insurgency in the 1990s responsible
for the killings of foreign tourists. The jihadist movement within the
country ultimately was contained, with both Tandheem al-Jihad and Gamaa
al-Islamiyah renouncing violence though smaller elements from both
groups joined up with al Qaeda-led transnational jihadist movement.

Global perceptions of the MB and of political Islamists have not
distinguished between pragmatist and militant Islamists, especially
after the 9/11 attack and rising fears over Hamas and Hezbollah’s
successes. Instead, the MB often has been lumped in with the most
radical of the radicals in Western eyes. Very little attention has been
paid to the majority of Islamists who are not jihadists and instead are
political forces. In fact, even Hamas and Hezbollah are more political
groups than simply militants.

There is a growing lobby within the United States and Europe, among
academics and members of think tanks, that has sought to draw the
distinction between pragmatists and radicals. For more than a decade,
this lobby has pushed for seeking out moderates in the MB and other
Islamist forces in the Arab and Muslim world to better manage radicalism
and the changes that will come from aging regimes crumbling.


Because Egypt has never had free and fair elections, the MB’s
popularity and its commitment to democracy both remain untested. In
Egypt’s 2005 election, which was less rigged than any previous Egyptian
vote, given the Bush administration’s push for greater democratization
in the Middle East, MB members running as independents managed to
increase their share of the legislature fivefold. It won 88 seats,
making it the biggest opposition bloc in parliament.

But the MB is internally divided. It faces a generational struggle,
with an old guard trying to prevent its ideals from being diluted while a
younger generation (the 35-55 age bracket) looks to Turkey’s Justice
and Development Party (AKP) as a role model.

The MB also lacks a monopoly over religious discourse in Egypt. A
great many religious conservatives do not support the MB. Egypt also has
a significant apolitical Salafist trend. Most of the very large class
of theologians centered around Al-Azhar University has not come out in
support of the MB or any other Islamist group. There are also Islamist
forces both more pragmatic and more militant than the MB. For example,
Hizb al-Wasat, which has not gotten a license to operate as an official
opposition party, is a small offshoot of the MB that is much more
pragmatic than the parent entity. What remains of Tandheem al-Jihad and
Gamaa al-Islamiyah, which renounced violence and condemned al Qaeda, are
examples of radical Islamist groups. And small jihadist cells inspired
by or linked to al Qaeda also complicate this picture.

Taken together, the MB remains an untested political force that faces
infighting and competitors for the Islamist mantel and a large secular
population. Given these challenges to the MB, confrontation with the
West is by no means a given even if the MB emerged as a major force in a
post-Mubarak order.

The MB is also well aware of the opposition it faces within Egypt,
the region and the West. The crumbling of the Mubarak regime and perhaps
the order that damaged the MB for decades is a historic opportunity for
the movement, which it does not wish to squander. Therefore it is going
to handle this opportunity very carefully and avoid radical moves. The
MB is also not designed to lead a revolution; rather, its internal setup
is such that it will gradually seek a democratic order.

The United States in recent years has had considerable experience in
dealing with Islamist forces with Turkey, under the AKP, being the most
prominent example. Likewise in Iraq, Washington has dealt with Islamists
both Sunni (Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashmi for many years was a
prominent figure in the Iraqi chapter of the MB called the Iraqi Islamic
Party) and Shiite (Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Islamic Supreme
Council of Iraq leader Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, Muqtada al-Sadr, etc.) as
part of the effort to forge the post-Baathist republic.

That said, the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt is viewed as a very opaque
organization, which increases U.S. and Israeli trepidations. Neither of
these powers are willing to place their national security interests on
the assumption that the Muslim Brotherhood would remain a benign force
(as it appears to be) in the event that it came into power. Concerns
also exist about potential fissures within the organization that may
steer the movement into a radical direction, especially when it comes to
foreign policy issues such as the alliance with the United States and
the peace treaty with Israel.

The possible looming collapse of the 60-year Egyptian order presents a
historic opportunity for the MB to position itself. Even though the
movement has remained pragmatic for much of its history and seeks to
achieve its goals via constitutional and electoral means and has opted
for peaceful civil obedience and working with the military as a way out
of the current impasse, its commitment to democratic politics is
something that remains to be seen. More important, it is expected to
push for a foreign policy more independent from Washington and a tougher
attitude toward Israel.

At this stage, however, it is not clear if the MB will necessarily
come to power. If it does, then it will likely be circumscribed by other
political forces and the military. There are also structural hurdles in
the path of the MB taking power. First, the ban on the movement would
have to be lifted. Second, the Constitution would have to be amended to
allow for religious parties to exist for the MB to participate as a
movement. Alternatively, it could form a political party along the lines
of its Jordanian counterpart. Being part of a future coalition
government could allow the United States to manage its rise. Either way,
the MB — an enormously patient organization — senses its time finally
may have come.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Quantum Nucleonics's picture

"Western fears to the contrary, the MB is probably incapable of dominating Egypt. At best, it can realistically hope to be the largest political force in a future government,..."

The same was said of Iran's religious party at the time.  Recall that after the Shah's departure, Iran had a weak secular government nominally supported by the Iranian military.

Cocomaan's picture

The difference is that the 1979 revolution was inspired, if not led by, Khomeni. This is not even remotely the situation in Egypt. To compare the two is stupid.

Michael's picture

Egypt will remain a tolerant secular society.

No way the people will give up their multi billion dollar tourism industry.

Cocomaan's picture

They have a Wonder of the world. Having lived in Egypt, I can completely agree: they know a money maker when they see one. 

The other one they have is the Suez.

High Plains Drifter's picture

Khomeni was a member of the Islamic Brotherhood. He was a agent of British Intelligence. He was approached about this while he was living in exile in France.  He was paid $12M to for this job. The Shah was one of the boys too. He was chosen to lead Iran but he got too big for his britches or at least in the eyes of some. He started talking about doing the right thing for Iran and daring to speak of Iranian nationistic interest, interest. Such silly ideas as national interest  are of no concern to people who have no country and who are internationalist and parasites. So you see how it is. They control both sides of the conflict and whichever way it goes, it really doesn't matter. All it takes is some cash and most people have a price. If they don't, then they are eliminated.  Such is the game that is played day in and day out , games that destroy men and build up others, games that affect the lives of human beings all over this planet. IT has been this way for a very long time now.

Templar X's picture

Obama is no more in control of the Islamic Revolution taking place in Egypt than Jimmy Carter was when the Shah was overthrown by the Islamic Revolution in Iran. The Shah was our U.S. installed puppet dictator in Iran, just as Mubarak is our puppet dictator in Egypt. The people in the Middle East do not want democracy, but they do want to be free from American imposed secular dictatorship. They prefer Islamic dictatorship! Even Israel is not a democracy, based upon how they mistreat the Arab portion of their population (second class, at best).
Catullus's picture

I think it's fair to include Justin Raimondo's insight into the Muslim Brotherhood narrative.  I like Stratfor, if for no other reason to get an unadulterated neo-con view at times.



Ham Wallet's picture

You didn't even read the Stratfor article, did you?  *facepalm*

Hedgetard55's picture

Stratfor has a great track record. They are correct at least 10% of the time.

The down low Muslim in chief Pharaoh Soetoro will make sure the MB gets control of Egypt, just as planned.


Alienated Serf's picture

hedgetard (appropriate name btw), stop listening to everything glen beck tells you.

Hedgetard55's picture



     Don't listen to Glenn, he sounds too much like a preacher to me nowadays - can't listen.

     Michael Savage is the shnizzle, though. Give him a listen.


Alienated Serf's picture

i only listen to the voices in my head....

DosZap's picture

You listen to a JEW?.

And your on the ZH, well at least I have one compadre.

Alienated Serf's picture

11 junks, new record for me.  hi there, glenn beck fans.

downwiththebanks's picture

I agree - MB is a backup option to ElBaradei - but I doubt he'll succeed.  If he does, it will require bombers or helicopters. 

Especially after tomorrow.

Babalooee's picture

10% is generous. Stratfor is brilliant making you feel like you've been brought up to the 'next level' without actually getting there.

tarsubil's picture

Am I the only that remembers their analysis of the housing collapse and how it wasn't that big of a deal? Pretty much stopped reading them after that one.

GeoFizz's picture

Recall their 2008 year-in-review where they acknowledged pretty much missing the financial crisis.  Quit reading them too.

litoralkey's picture

LOlz, statfor.

FOr real indebth analysis, you go to DEBKAfile.

Come on, I thought ZH was a serious blog.

The internet is serious business.


hangemhigh's picture

the media-con charm school analysts, debka-stratfor-michael savage, are 0-3, can't get around on the fast balls, and have no chance of ever hitting the hard breaking stuff..............

Turd Ferguson's picture

Hitler (with a similar message of destroying Judaism) came to power with "only" a plurality, too.

ZerOhead's picture

Hitler was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood?

Funny... I always thought he was a Catholic.

Hugh_Jorgan's picture

Hitler campaigned as a Christian, but he was Atheist.

nmewn's picture


Well, there ya go.

ZerOhead's picture

From Wiki...

According to Hitler's chief architect Albert Speer, Hitler remained a formal member of the Catholic Church until his death, although it was Speer's opinion that "he had no real attachment to it."[11]

If you don't mind... since I am an atheist... I'm gonna call him a lukewarm Catholic. Now we just have to figure out that German vs. Austrian thing.


Hugh_Jorgan's picture

This was his cover story to gain the ear of the Germans. This has been reinforced by the Elitist, Atheist academia would LOVE to tie Hitler to Christianity to denegrate it any way they can. Germany was a strong majority Christian country before WWII. There is no way ANYONE would listen to a man unless he was a self ascribed Christian of some kind. He was not raised in the church according to what I've read.


So, IMHO at best he was a heretical member of the Catholic church, and I proably should have called him some kind of Pagan vs. a staunch Atheist. Just do a search for Hitler+occult and ready about the insane things he was involved in.

ZerOhead's picture

Heretical member of the Catholic Church it is then!


We atheists don't like to let too many pagan/occult members into our club... it kinda destroys the atheism aspect.

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4][5] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[5][6]

Paganism (from Latin paganus, meaning "country dweller", "rustic"[1]) is a blanket term, typically used to refer to polytheistic religious traditions.

Occultism is the study of occult or hidden wisdom (forbidden knowledge). To the occultist it is the study of "truth", a deeper truth that exists beneath the surface: "The truth is always hidden in plain sight". It can involve such subjects as magic (alternatively spelled and defined as magick), alchemy, extra-sensory perception, astrology, spiritualism, lithomancy, and numerology. There is often a strong religious element to these studies and beliefs, and many occultists profess adherence to religions such as Gnosticism, Hermeticism, Luciferianism, Satanism, Thelema, and Neopaganism.

nmewn's picture

Whatever else Hitler was...he was not a christian.

He did however happily allow Catholicism/religion and used it for state purposes...which distresses me to no end to say;

The atheists have a point, as did our Founding Fathers, that there should be no state religion.

While I have zero problem with an invocation before a high school football game, others would, as the grounds are operated and funded through the state.

Everyone knows my solution to that so I won't bother elaborating, outside of the fact that the same amount of money to fund it is being taken out of my hide now ;-)

DosZap's picture


Hitler was a member of the Occult.

Said to have practiced Satanic rituals.

He was Catholic in name only.

I oft wonder why as a part Jew(he was), he hated them so much.

Missing_Link's picture

Hitler was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood?


Funny... I always thought he was a Catholic.


Hugh_Jorgan's picture

True. He actually lost his first election, but was able to become supreme Chancellor a few months later with a series of deft maneuvers, aided by naive world and clueless German parliament. The only difference is that in Egypt there is no strong personality with the leadership skills and vision to take the helm. El Baradei is a sycophant socialist puppet who will likely be just a stepping stone toward the real desired destination; a member state in a radical Muslim Caliphate. Until western world leaders emerge that place their something selfless above their personal megalomania, the near future will get darker and darker...

Freddie's picture


What was one of the catalysts for Hitler?  Greedy bankers looting Germany for reparations including - The JP Morgue.  A bit like the IMF and Ireland.  An Ireland that voted once against the EU but were made to vote again to get it "right."

Where are all the Obama Democrats who last night were fawning over the Muslim Brotherhood? 

DavidPierre's picture

George W. Bush's great grandfather, Herbert Walker, who played a vital role in financing the takeover of Germany by the Nazis, decides to help them out even more by acting as front man in the U.S. for Nazi-linked businesses including the Harriman family-controlled Hamburg-Amerika Steamship Line.

The Hamburg-Amerika line carried weapons, largely manufactured by Rockefeller-owned Remington Arms, from the United States to Germany to be used by the Nazis in their rise to power through the intimidation of the German population and the murder of anti-Nazi politicians.

Hamburg-Amerika also routinely carried Nazi propagandists and propaganda materials into the U.S. The shipping line will later served as an important conduit for the introduction of German spies into the United States and for the transportation of hundreds of stolen American defense secrets to Germany.
Harriman family errand boy and front man, Prescott Bush, takes time out from financing the rise of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis to organize the finance for William Paley to buy the Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS), at the time a radio network but soon to evolve into America's largest television network.

Paley will be forever grateful to Bush, Harriman and the rest of the Hitler Project gang and will happily make CBS available to the CIA for propaganda and psychological warfare operations against the people of the United States.

Herr Doktor Erich Traub leads a varied and interesting life.

In the 1930s, the German scientist is trained in the fine art of manipulating bacteria and viruses at the Rockefeller Institute in Princeton, New Jersey. He rounds out his first term in the U.S. with membership in the Amerika-Deutscher Volksbund, a German-American ‘club’ also known as Camp Sigfried. Camp Sigfried is the national headquarters of the American Nazi movement.

At the outbreak of World War Two, Traub will return to his native Germany and apply his Rockefeller-acquired skills to Nazi germ warfare, working directly under SS Reichsfuehrer Heinrich Himmler, and conducting grotesque experiments on live victims.

Among his many accomplishments for Nazi Germany will be the release of live virus sprays over the occupied Soviet Union.

At the close of World War Two, Traub's life will come full circle when, along with thousands of other Nazi war criminals and mass murderers, he is rescued from prosecution by Allen Dulles' Operation Paperclip and, nicely de-Nazified, goes to work for the government of the United States of America. Traub finds a satisfying new job in the U.S. Navy's biological warfare program at the Naval Medical Research Institute in Bethesda, Maryland.

America sure is the land of opportunity.

nmewn's picture

You forgot John Maynard Keynes and Joe "Pa" Kennedy who were infinitely more destructive than Prescott's descendants.

At some point you will go all the way to the academic lounges scattered across America and those who inhabited them in those years and there you will find your answer.

Good luck.

DavidPierre's picture

JMK & Pa K never ran the CIA.

The Bush Crime Family ... now that's another story.


 Yes, Prescott, there is a Santa Claus. Prescott Bush, whose recent run for the Senate has been unsuccessful following revelations about his role in the American eugenics movement, hits the jackpot.

Front man and errand boy for the Harriman and Rockefeller families in their business dealings with the Nazis from 1926 to 1951, including the period throughout World War Two, Bush neatly evades prosecution with the legal assistance of ever-present Nazi shyster and fellow Hitler Project luminary Allen Dulles.

Instead of doing hard time in the slammer for treason, Bush is handed about $1.5 million in Nazi assets, primarily shares of the Nazi front Union Banking Corporation, which had been seized in 1942 under the Trading With The Enemy Act. The Nazi cash forms a big chunk of the Bush family fortune and will doubtless be of much help to Bush's son, George "Bailout" Bush, and his grandson, George "I'm A Lyin' Guy" Bush, in their successful quests for the presidency of the United States.

But Prescott Bush and his father-in-law, Herbert Walker, are only minority shareholders and front men of the Nazi front Union Banking Corporation.

It is really owned by none other than Roland and Averell Harriman along with a host of other Nazi operations which had been seized under the Trading With The Enemy Act. These include the Holland-American Trading Corporation, the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation and the Silesian-American Corporation which used slave labor from Auschwitz.

The estimated value of the Harrimans' Nazi assets is three billion dollars, a staggering amount of money in 1951.

nmewn's picture

Like I said...your journey is not me, it'll be worth it.

Marla And Me's picture

Hey DP,

Do you have more extensive sources for your information?

DavidPierre's picture
  • 1984, George Orwell: Old George was bang on with the techniques used by the rulers. "America" couldn't exist without doublethink.
  • A People's History of the United States, Howard Zinn: More history you're not supposed to know.
  • American Holocaust, David Stannard: The genocide of the American Indians.
  • Deadly Deceits, Ralph McGehee: A insider's look at one of the world's leading terrorist organizations, the CIA.
  • IBM and the Holocaust, Edwin Black: the Nazis and America's most powerful corporations in cahoots.
  • Imperial Brain Trust, Laurence Shoup and William Minter: The Rockefellers' Council on Foreign Relations.
  • Killing Hope, William Blum: A saddening record of America's use of overwhelming violence to crush democracy and hope around the world.
  • Lies My Teacher Told Me, James Loewen: American children are taught the lies from day one.
  • Rogue State, William Blum: All other rogue states pale into insignificance when compared with the U.S.
  • The Culture of Terrorism, Noam Chomsky: And he ain't talking about car bombs.
  • The Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover, Anthony Summers: America's leading law enforcment officer was a lifelong crook. Quelle surprise.
  • The Splendid Blond Beast, Christopher Simpson: Nazi war criminals rescued by the U.S. and hired by the U.S. government and military.
  • Western State Terrorism, Alexander George Editor: The title says it all.
nmewn's picture

Might I suggest John Taylor Gatto for your library.

Government sponsored primary education was formulated to make compliant worker drones and zombie citizens.

Not to make men of letters or critical thinkers.

So it follows, that schools of "higher learning" would not undo what would be that foundation.


DosZap's picture

The MB, only amounts to around 20% of Egyptians.

So, if they get invited to the table I do not see the Military turning the country over to radical Islamists.

IF they do not at least get a seat, then we have (what they are), another Radical bomb eating,murdering bunch of muslim idiots.

They are the same suit as the Taliban, the Hisbollah,Al Queda, just with a different label.

The END GOAL of all these groups is to Islamicize the WORLD.

All of it.

fragrantdingleberry's picture

Lenin had less than 20% support after the Russian revolution but his Bolshevik party was the most well organized. So it is with the MB. 

DosZap's picture


'Yep, but they are NOT in favor with the military, and its a strong one, well trained like our guys, and have most of the (our) latest weapons, M1A1 Abrams out the wazoo.

If anyone from the Hood got in, or an outside trouble maker like Bacardi(LOL), who hates the US, prepare for war, and one that will make the Iraq,Trashcanistani ones look like a picnic.

DoChenRollingBearing's picture

Trashcanistan, I like that DosZap!  I will use it a conversation sometime soon!

downwiththebanks's picture

This is true, indeed.  

How long before the logistical capability of the Resistance attains the same level?

Because, right now the MB are nothing more than a bunch of cowards.

Max Hunter's picture

The END GOAL of all these groups is to Islamicize the WORLD.

All of it.

I don't know about all that but... I'm hoping with every fiber of my being that the countries surrounding Israhell get together and kick the living shit right out of those self-righteous Jews..

signed, Cattle from the west

DosZap's picture


You know not what you wish.

Israel will be protected by the US, and they have over 6000 Tactical Nukes.

Game over before it starts.And(like me or you), if its your ass or theirs, you WILL use whatever it takes to survive.

Israel will never be defeated again, by any army, even ours,if we decided to use it.( not speaking conventionally here).

They have a special weapon never seen, and will be seen only once.

Max Hunter's picture

You may be right.. There is always that risk though.  I'm well aware of their "Sampson" option..

I personally have no fear of them and will not allow them to convince me that I should..  Fuck em..

I don't believe in their special weapon and I don't believe they were chosen by god.  All of these things they claim with no proof.. Quite convenient.