Category: Deep Politics
Pease, Lisa. “James Jesus Angleton and the Kennedy Assassination,” Probe Magazine, Vol. 7 No. 5, 2000
Pease, Lisa. “James Jesus Angleton and the Kennedy Assassination, Part II,” Probe Magazine, Vol. 7 No. 6, 2000
By Paul and Phillip D. Collins, March, 11, 2011
When democracy granted democratic methods for us in the times of opposition, this was bound to happen in a democratic system. However, we National Socialists never asserted that we represented a democratic point of view, but we have declared openly that we used democratic methods only in order to gain the power and that, after assuming the power, we would deny to our adversaries without consideration the means which were granted to us in the times of opposition. – Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda
The flames of revolution were stoked in Egypt on January 25 as tens of thousands of anti-government protesters took to the streets of Cairo on a day that was dubbed “the day of revolt against torture, poverty, corruption and unemployment” (“Egypt braces for nationwide protests”). The protesters’ selection of that day was certainly no accident. According to France 24, the organizers chose the day “to coincide with a national holiday to celebrate Police Day” (ibid). The day had originally been declared a formal public holiday by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in 2009, to celebrate the efforts of Egyptian police to maintain law and order in the streets of the Arab republic (Osman).
Apparently, protesters meant for the day to take on a new, revolutionary meaning. Relying on the Tunisian uprising to provide momentum, protest organizers called for economic and political reform and an end to what they considered to police state tactics. France 24 elaborates:
Among demands are the ouster of Interior Minister Habib al-Adly, whose police and security forces have been accused of heavy-handedness; the removal of the decades-old emergency law and a rise in minimum wages. The controversial law, which gives police wide powers of arrest, suspends constitutional rights and curbs non-governmental political activity, was renewed in 2010 for a further two years. (“Egypt braces for nationwide protests”)
by Paul & Phillip D. Collins, October 18, 2009
In May of 2009, respected American journalist Seymour Hersh shared a shocking revelation during an Arab TV interview. According to Hersh, Pakistan’s former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto, was a victim of a “special death squad formed by former U.S. vice-president Dick Cheney” (“U.S. special squad killed Benazir”). This squad was “headed by General Stanley McChrystal, the newly-appointed commander of U.S. army in Afghanistan” with Cheney using his position as chief of the Joint Special Operation Command to “clear the way for the U.S. by exterminating opponents through the unit and the CIA” (ibid).
Hersh has speculated that Bhutto was assassinated because she shared her opinion that Osama Bin Laden had been assassinated by Omar Saeed Sheikh (ibid). Could there be, however, a deeper reason for the Bhutto hit? These writers suggested as much during interviews on several radio shows shortly after the December 27, 2007 assassination. At that time, many in the media were blaming al Qaeda for the hit. The chief source for this claim seems to have been an “obscure Italian Web site” that alleged that its reporter had received a telephone call from Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, al Qaeda’s commander in Afghanistan (Ross). During the call, al-Yazid supposedly stated: “We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat [the] mujahedeen” (ibid). The Web site further contended that Ayman al Zawahri, al Qaeda’s number two leader, decided it was time to do away with Bhutto back in October 2007 (ibid). While all of this sounded like a smoking gun, the claim was anything but conclusive. According to ABC’s Brian Ross, U.S. intelligence officials said they could not confirm the claim of responsibility for the attack (ibid).
While al Qaeda may very well have been involved in the assassination, it should be understood that al Qaeda is merely part of a larger conspiratorial infrastructure, so it may not be accurate to place the blame solely at the doorstep of a single terrorist organization. Bhutto had vowed to do many things that would invite violent reprisal if she was re-elected prime minister. One promise that probably set off several alarm bells among the world’s wealthy and powerful appeared in a September 26, 2007 report in the Times of India. According to the report, Bhutto promised to allow inspectors from the United Nation’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to question A.Q. Khan, the metallurgist nuclear black marketer and father of Pakistan’s “Islamic Bomb” (“Bhutto commits to letting IAEA question A.Q. Khan”).
Silencing the Saber-Rattling: How the American Empire Threatens the Potential Iranian Counter-Revolution
by Paul David Collins, July 4th, 2009
John Loftus proved to be a treasure chest of information over the Middle East during an interview with this writer on March 21, 2009. In little over an hour, the former Justice Department prosecutor and former Army intelligence officer addressed the issues of postwar Nazi activity, the September 11 attacks, and fanaticism in the Arab world. The most fascinating information Loftus shared, however, concerns Iran.
The Central Eurasian Islamic Republic has been a hot topic for many observers of the international political landscape ever since Bush II referred to it as part of an “axis of evil” during his January 29, 2002 State of the Union speech. That speech helped create an absolutely schizophrenic political climate filled with saber-rattling and war-fever that has held sway for the last seven years. During that period of time, rumors of an invasion of Iran have periodically surfaced, causing people in both America and Iran to oscillate between anxiety and sighs of relief. Former CIA case officer Robert Baer has referred to Iran as “the third rail of American foreign policy in the world” (Interview: Robert Baer). It is the country that every administration has dared not touch since 1979. With Iran on the verge of possessing a nuclear power program, however, avoidance may no longer be an option. What will be Iran’s fate? For Loftus, the tide of history will soon make an invasion of Iran completely unnecessary.
“I believe the government will eventually collapse and Iran will return to democracy,” Loftus told this writer. “The clock will turn back to the way things were before the 1953 coup.”
Of course, this statement raised an eyebrow. “Do you mean to say another Mossadegh will rise,” I asked.
“Yes,” Loftus responded. (Loftus)
If democracy is a system of rules and procedures which define the parameters within which political action can take place, what happens when alongside this system there is another one whose rules are mysterious, its procedures unknown, its power immense and which is able to protect itself against the formal institutions of democracy by a wall of secrecy?
by Paul & Phillip D. Collins, Jan. 19, 2008
Inauguration: The Beast Enters the Gates
For many, the January 20 Presidential inauguration of Barack Obama is reason for celebration. Obama supporters everywhere believe that the event represents the introduction of the solution to America’s deepening crisis. It would break not a few hearts, however, if it was revealed that the enemies of America are going to be in attendance. According to a January 14 Associated Press article, a prayer will be offered at the inauguration by Ingrid Mattson, the first woman president of America’s largest Muslim group, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) (Zoll, “Muslim woman, rabbis to pray at inaugural service”). While many Americans may believe that this prayer offering represents a celebration of religious pluralism, the hidden message behind this display, which is only discernible to the power elite and the most astute observer, is that members of the Establishment will continue their torrent love affair with the Muslim Brotherhood. The first installment of this series established the Muslim Brotherhood as a dangerous organization that is partially responsible for spawning al Qaeda. Furthermore, the Brotherhood has a long running, symbiotic relationship with the power elite and the darker factions of the United States government and the intelligence community.
ISNA’s connection to the Muslim Brotherhood was revealed during the 2007 Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial. Before being shut down by the United States government, the HLF was the largest Islamic charity in America. In 2001, evidence began to surface that HLF was a fundraising entity for Hamas, a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot. One of HLF’s founders, Mousa Mohammed Abu Marzook, was even a Hamas political leader. This lead to the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Asset Control classifying HLF as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (“Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons”). During the HLF trial, ISNA was named as an unindicted co-conspirator that was “intimately connected with the HLF and its assigned task of providing financial support to Hamas” (Gerstein, “U.S.: Facts Tie Muslim Groups To Hamas Front Case”). The prosecution also introduced several exhibits into evidence that established ISNA’s “intimate relationship” with the Muslim Brotherhood (ibid). In a 1991 internal document written by Mohamed Akram for the Shura Council of the Muslim Brotherhood, HLF appears on a list of Brotherhood “friends” (Akram).
by Paul & Phillip D. Collins, Jan. 11, 2008
As these authors write these words, Israel is conducting a major ground assault in the Gaza Strip. Israeli ground troops and heavy armor have moved deep into the Gaza Strip (“Israeli forces split Gaza in two”). According to the BBC, the move has, in effect, cut the territory in two (ibid). This ground assault followed hot on the heels of Operation Cast Lead, a December 27-28 series of Israeli airstrikes conducted in Gaza in response to Hamas’ refusal to renew the truce brokered by Egypt in the summer of 2008 (Khalil, “The already-strained Hamas-Egypt relationship sours”). Hamas had been launching rocket attacks into Israel since December 24, when no less than 70 rockets hit the small Jewish state, and Israel decided to strike back (“Israeli jets hit Hamas target, killing 1”).
Doubtless, the conflict between Israel and Hamas is one of the many issues that Obama will have to address when he enters the Oval Office. Is the President-elect sincere in his opposition to the terrorists responsible for the current Middle East crisis? Obama has repeatedly condemned Hamas, calling the group a terrorist organization (Oinounou, “A Hamas problem for Obama?”) The President-elect even went as far as to condemn former President Jimmy Carter for meeting with Hamas (ibid). But the words of Ahmed Yousef, a top Hamas political advisor, during a WABC interview, seem to suggest that Obama’s opposition to Hamas may be a mere public relations ploy. During the interview, Yousef stated:
“We don’t mind-actually we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will (win) the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance.” (Ibid)
by Paul David Collins ©, April 10th, 2008
When the Spitzer scandal broke out, the first person this author thought to call was retired New York Police Detective James “Jim” Rothstein. Jim is a legend. As a cop, Jim took on organized pedophile rings, arrested Watergate burglar and CIA operative Frank Sturgis, and testified before the New York State Select Committee on Crime. Jim knows all about sexual blackmail operations, which he refers to as “human compromise” (Rothstein, no pagination). To Jim, the Spitzer scandal was a perfect example of “human compromise” (ibid). “It’s like déjà vu,” said Rothstein (ibid). And to Rothstein, GOP operative Roger Stone was the key to the compromising of Spitzer (ibid).
“Watch for this guy Stone,” Jim said. “I saw him in an interview about Spitzer a few days ago and thought I recognized him. I looked back at my old investigations and remembered that he was part of Roy Cohn’s whole thing.” (ibid)
Jim was referring to Roy Cohn’s sexual blackmail operation. According to Jim, this operation was conducted “under the guise of fighting communism” (ibid). During his time as a police detective, Rothstein had an opportunity to sit down with infamous McCarthy committee counsel Roy Cohn (ibid). Cohn admitted to Rothstein that he was part of a rather elaborate sexual blackmail operation that compromised politicians with child prostitutes (ibid). Roger Stone began working with Cohn when he was the northeast chairman of Reagan’s 1980 campaign (Labash, no pagination). Cohn and Stone had began building an alliance a year earlier when Cohn introduced Stone to mobster Fat Tony Salerno at Cohn’s Manhattan townhouse (ibid). According to the Weekly Standard’s Matt Labash, “Stone loved Cohn” (ibid). Stone said of Cohn: “He didn’t give a [expletive removed] what people thought, as long as he was able to wield power. He worked the gossip columnists in [New York] like an organ” (ibid).
by Paul David Collins ©, April 2nd, 2008
It’s a move that is causing fear among the left in Mexico. Mexican president Felipe Calderon intends to present an energy reform bill to the Mexican congress that would allow private investment in Pemex, Mexico’s state-owned oil monopoly (Grillo, no pagination). Calderon claims foreign oil companies can save Pemex from underinvestment and mismanagement by increasing Mexico’s technological and operational capacity, thus allowing the nation to tap its deep-water reserves. According to Calderon, if foreigners are not brought in, Mexico will not be able to tap its deep-water reserves and the nation will be importing petroleum in nine years. Critics of Calderon’s plan include 2006 presidential candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador and Rep. Alejandro Sanchez of the leftist Democratic Revolution Party. Obrador and Sanchez fear foreign investment will lead to a predatory form of privatization and Mexicans will lose control of their own oil industry. But the dangers related to foreign incursions into Mexico’s oil industry go deeper than the debate between proponents of nationalization and privatization. The oil industry and the intelligence community have always gone hand in hand. Pemex is certainly no exception.