You want the news behind the news? You want to know just how far from reality the official truth is? Consider the following story from today's UK Guardian:

You want the news behind the news? You want to know just how far from reality the official truth is? Consider the following story from today's UK Guardian:
UK to build ties with banned Islamist group

Friday February 17, 2006

A leaked Foreign Office memo published yesterday reveals that the government is to establish ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group banned by the Egyptian government.

Like other western countries, Britain is struggling with the dilemma posed by the electoral successes of Islamist groups either directly linked to terrorism or alleged to be fronts for violent organisations.

The memo, written on January 17 and leaked to the New Statesman, recommends increased engagement with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, the oldest Islamist group in the world. The recommendation has been accepted by Jack Straw, the foreign secretary.
Now reading the above, you could easily come away with the idea that the proposed contact between the British government and the Muslim Brotherhood is a first. In reality however...

The "Muslim Brotherhood" was founded in Egypt in the late 1920s by Hassan al-Banna, and has fought for over 70 years for the formation of a pure pan-Islamic theocratic state. Inside the Middle East, Egypt has been the most vigorous opponent of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Egyptian government has been at war with the Muslim Brotherhood since the early 1950s, when then Egyptian president Gamal Abdul Nasser banned the group and arrested many of its leaders.

As an organization committed to the establishment of a pan-Islamic state, the Muslim Brotherhood bitterly opposed Nasser's secular form of pan-Arab nationalism. The Muslim Brotherhood's staunch opposition to secular nationalism has also attracted financial support, particularly from Saudi Arabia.
The British War Against Nasser

In their dealings with Nasser (Egyptian Prime Minister 1952-1970) the British used any means necessary, including espionage, diplomacy, bribery and even direct military might to retain control over Egypt and the Suez Canal. The newly founded CIA also became interested in Egypt when Nasser showed signs of tilting to the Soviet Union. Aburish explains h ow this new avenue of intrigue evolved.

"According to CIA agent Miles Copeland, the Americans began looking for a Muslim Billy Graham around 1955... When finding or creating a Muslim Billy Graham proved elusive, the CIA began to cooperate with the Muslim Brotherhood, the Muslim mass organization founded in Egypt but with followers throughout the Arab Middle East... This signalled the beginning of an alliance between the traditional regimes and mass Islamic movements against Nasser and other secular forces." (1)

The CIA was following the example of British Intelligence and sought to use Islam to further its goals. They wanted to find a charismatic religious leader that they could promote and control and they began to cooperate with groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood. With the rise of Nasser the Brotherhood was also courted more seriously by the pro-Western Arab regimes of Saudi Arabia and Jordan. They needed all the popular support that they could muster against the rise of Nasser-inspired Arab nationalism to keep their regimes intact.

The Muslim Brotherhood was an obvious ally against Nasser, because he had abolished it from Egypt after it was involved in a failed assassination attempt on his life in 1954. The Brotherhood rejected Nasser's policy that, for the most part, kept religion out of politics. Officially the Brotherhood was an outlawed organization, but it remained influential and active within Egypt working against the secular regime, often hand-in-hand with British Intelligence. In June of 1955 MI6 was already approaching the Brotherhood in Syria to agitate against the new government that showed strong left-wing tendencies and a desire to merge with Egypt (2). The Brotherhood became an even more important asset after Nasser announced the Egyptian takeover of the Suez. Author Stephen Dorril documents how this move was viewed from Britain,

"On 26 July in Alexandria, in a calm speech, but one that was described by London as hysterical, Nasser made his nationalisation announcement, which from a strictly legal point of view was no more 'than a decision to buy out the shareholders.' That night in Downing Street, [British Prime Minister] Eden's bitterness at the decision was not concealed from his guests... Eden summoned a council of war, which continued until 4 a.m. An emotional Prime Minister told his colleagues that Nasser could not be allowed, in Eden's phrase, 'to have his hand on our windpipe.' The 'muslim Mussolini' must be 'destroyed.' Eden added: 'I want him removed and I don't give a damn if there's anarchy and chaos in Egypt.'" (3)

Former Prime Minister Churchill had fueled Eden's fire by counseling him about the Egyptians, saying, "Tell them if we have any more of their cheek we will set the Jews on them and drive them into the gutter, from which they should have never emerged." (4)

Sir Anthony Nutting, a member of the Foreign Office at the time, recalls an irate phone call from Eden who was upset at the slow pace of the campaign against Nasser. Eden raged, "What's all this poppycock you've sent me? ... What's all this nonsense about isolating Nasser or "neutralizing" him, as you call it? I want him destroyed, can't you understand? I want him murdered..." (5)

To prepare the way for the desired coup the British Information Research Department (IRD) was called into action. They ratcheted up their efforts to control radio broadcasts into Egypt and they planted false stories in the BBC, the London Press Service and the Arab News Agency. Forged documents were created that suggested that Nasser was planning to take over the entire Middle East oil trade, and a bogus report was disseminated that alleged that Egyptian dissidents were being sent to a concentration camp manned by ex-Nazis. (6)
Kurt Nimmo wrote in September 2004:
Larry Franklin: Just a Sideshow on the Road to Total War

By Kurt Nimmo

Wednesday, September 01, 2004

Isn't it curious that right smack in the middle of an investigation of Israel spying on its best "friend," Hamas pulls off back-to-back suicide bombings—after a lull of nearly six months—in Beersheba? Hamas declares the bombing was revenge for Israel's assassination of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi. Rantissi was assassinated on April 17 and Yassin on March 22.

Is there a reason Hamas waited so long to take revenge? Of course there is. Hamas is essentially an Israeli contrivance. It's used for effect when politically expedient.

Israel "aided Hamas directly—the Israelis wanted to use it as a counterbalance to the PLO," Tony Cordesman, Middle East analyst for the Center for Strategic Studies, told the UPI's Richard Sale in 2002. Hamas is a descendant of the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamic organization long ago penetrated by the CIA. "There is a long historic alliance between the CIA and the Muslim Brotherhood," writes Peter Goodgame. "The entire Bin Laden-CIA created ‘mujahideen' network came from the Muslim Brotherhood." As we now know, Prince Turki of Saudi intelligence, in cahoots with William Casey of the CIA and Pakistan's ISI, sent bin Laden to Afghanistan and bankrolled the Services Center (Makhtab al-Khidmat) of the Jordanian Palestinian Abdullah Azzam, in the offices of the World Muslim League and Muslim Brotherhood in Peshawar (see Rashid, Taliban, p.131). After Azzam was assassinated, Makhtab al-Khidmat became al-Qaeda, although bin Laden did not call his organization such.

It should be obvious by now that the CIA and Mossad manufactured a virulent strain of Islamic terrorism for their own purposes. For instance, as an excuse for the Zionists to never make peace with the Palestinians. "What does frighten Sharon," Yossi Sarid, chairman of the Meretz party, told Haaretz in 2002, "is any prospect or sign of calm or moderation. If the situation were to calm down and stabilize, Sharon would have to return to the negotiating table and, in the wake of pressure from within and without, he would have to raise serious proposals for an agreement. This moment terrifies Sharon and he wants to put it off for as long as he possibly can."

No doubt Sharon is also keen to deflect attention from the fact that Israel has a long-standing spy operation in America. Of course, considering how the Bushites and Congress bend over backwards to please the Likudites in Israel, such a spy operation may not even be necessary. Regardless, the casual relationship between the Zionist neocons in the Pentagon and the Zionists in Israel—for the moment splashed all over the front page—looks bad for Sharon, especially during the US election cycle. Hamas strikes when the Likudites need a diversion. Same thing for Bush and his facile cave dweller terror threats.

In addition, the latest terror attack in Israel gives Sharon all the more reason to push his 720-kilometre apartheid wall, as Reuters quoted Sharon as saying he would do hours after the attack. Last month the UN General Assembly put forward a resolution demanding Israel dismantle the apartheid wall after the International Court of Justice declared it to be in violation of international law. But then the Likudites and the Bushcons are above international law. International law is to be used as a crowbar against Iran as it scrambles to develop a few nukes, knowing full well what the Zionists in Tel Aviv and Washington have in mind for the Iranian people. As North Korea understands full well, saber-rattling enemies think twice when you have a few nuclear warheads under your belt.

Israel is truly an outlaw nation. Its criminal government is run by racist settlers who are pushing for war against Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinians. Israel realizes it cannot possibly wage war against the Arabs and the Iranians without America's military prowess—and its large supply of naive bullet-stoppers—so it has spent years undermining the US government and buying off Congress through AIPAC. It has exploited the mental problems of the Christian Zionists—who believe Israeli murder and hegemony are key to their fanatical biblical fantasies—and has worked tirelessly to subvert the highest reaches of the American government by installing the conniving Zionist neocons in the White House and Pentagon. Sharon really does not want John Kerry in the White House, but if push comes to shove Kerry will do in a pinch because he is also an avowed Zionist—some say more of a Zionist than even Bush—and he would be the first Jewish president of the United States (not only was his grandfather born Fritz Kohn, but his brother, Cameron Kerry, converted to Judaism when he married a Jewish woman, Kathy Weinman).

Lost in the chatter about Larry Franklin is the fact the neocons and Sharon are itching to invade Iran, possibly before the election in November. "News of the investigation of Larry Franklin, a middle-level functionary working for the Wolfowitz-Feith-Luti-Shulsky clique in the Pentagon, indicates that we are now approaching a critical choice-point on the road to war with Iran, and towards a synthetic terrorism attack inside the US which would be used as an additional pretext to start such a war," Webster Griffin Tarpley warns. "War with Iran means a military draft, just for starters. If Iran can close the Straits of Hormuz, it might mean rationing of food and fuel. ... [The] goal is now to establish a neocon fascist dictatorship in the United States, complete with martial law, special tribunals, press and media censorship, and the full pervasive apparatus of the modern police state." For the Straussian neocons, it would be a dream come true.

The FBI may copy the hard drive of Steve Rosen, AIPAC's director of foreign policy issues—and it may even arrest a neocon or two (certainly not Douglas Feith or Paul Wolfowitz)—but this momentary sideshow will not put an end to or even slow down appreciably the demented neocon Master Plan for war against Islam in the name of Greater Israel. "This is not an Israeli problem. This time it is a world problem," Yuval Steinitz, chairman of the Israeli parliament's foreign affairs and defense committee, said last month. "Iran is seeking to become a world power." In other words, Iran must be attacked soon, before it can patch together a few nukes and give Israel a run for its money—or, rather, a run for the money weaseled out of increasingly stressed American taxpayers. No number of FBI agents running around Washington, interviewing traitorous neocons and copying hard drives, will slow down the Zionists, not when the entire political establishment of the United States—both sides of the Property Party—are spoony over Arab killing Zionists.

Once again, Sharon has used Hamas—a Frankenstein monster devised by Mossad, as al-Qaeda was devised by the CIA—to not only distract from the minor problem presented by Larry Franklin, but also to remind the timorous and easily bamboozled (American and Israeli citizens alike) that terrorism is alive and well, even if it takes a long and inexplicable hiatus on occasion. Blowing up commuter buses drives home an unrelenting message: there is evil lurking out there, Muslim evil, and it is supported by malevolent mullahs in Tehran, the minions of Arafat in Ramallah, and the crafty cave dwellers of Osama. As Bush says, the war on terrorism cannot be won—terrorism is interminable, perpetual, and unending.
The point being made by these authors is that the current "clash of civilisations" is not a result of chance, "divine will" (at least not in the traditional sense), or the innate nature of humanity, but rather the concerted efforts of a small group of "power brokers" who, over a period of time spanning many generations, have sought to manufacture the right conditions that will facilitate the ushering in of a "new world order".

Such a theory is not new or groundbreaking by any means. There are many authors sounding the alarm over what they see as clear evidence of a "hegelian" plot to deliberately create facts on the ground (the clash of civilisations) so that, when things get bad enough, humanity will be ready to accept a "new paradigm", a new perception of reality - presented to us, of course, by these same "power brokers". To date, we are not aware of any theories about the deeper reasons, if any, for such a dastardly scheme, other than the accrual of power for its own sake.

No one will deny that our history, and in particular the successive human cultures and societies that have defined it, has been periodically subjected to powerful "forces", which washed away (usually with much bloodshed) the preceding status quo (or popular view of reality). But the question we must answer, and it is a question that goes to the very heart of the nature of our existence here on this planet, is: have such events occurred as a result of the chaotic, random and essentially unintelligent nature of life and the forces that drive it, or is there some necessarily intelligent "guiding hand" that has been shaping the course of our history, and which logically should have have very definite plans for our future.

If we take the former to be true, a brief look at our history will soon prompt the nagging question of, why then have we, as a species, repeatedly received such a "raw deal" from random fate? The repeated suffering that typifies the human experience in general, seems to lead those who take the time to ponder this "why" towards the conclusion that there must be some conscious, intelligent force that somehow intervenes in, shapes, and even creates, world events, and does so with decidedly negative results for the masses of humanity. By nature, such a force would have to be in some way 'supernatural', given that such consistent and generation-spanning manipulations would be difficult to maintain with any degree of success for the average mortal human being.

A third possibility is the idea that, while there is no supernatural intelligent force shaping world events, within each generation there have been intelligent and particularly self-centered individuals or groups who have taken advantage of the prevailing conditions of the day and merely profited from the apathy of the masses and their disinclination to facing into this unsavory reality and taking an active role in attempting to shape our collective future.

Ironically, this theory, in combining the two preceding and opposing arguments and creating a third supposedly more true thesis, uses the dictates of the very hegelian dialectic that many conspiracy authors accuse the "power brokers" of employing to usher in the New World Order/New Paradigm/New Reality.

From our point of view, there is more than enough evidence to suggest that the truth is a combination of the second and third theories - that there does indeed exist some 'supernatural power' or better said, a 'hyperdimensional control system' that overlays our own, the denizens of which, not being subject to or restricted by the laws of our third density reality, are able to control and manipulate (over many generations) the human power brokers who, in the final analysis, are little more than puppets of this 'higher power', whether they know it or not.