Muslim Brotherhood Gambit

Birger Elmér (1919-1999), former head of the illegal IB Swedish intelligence agency which remains affiliated with Sweden’s politically dominant Social Democratic Party.

Intelligence agencies of liberal democracies need defend open society without committing any legal infringements whatsoever and hence need all movements of totalitarianism become outlawed indeed.

The Islamist Muslim Brotherhood (MB) as a global Saudi Islamist intelligence agency tends as indeed many other intelligence agencies around the world to be pragmatic in terms of their political action abroad. Yet, this tactical opportunism must not be confused with so called “moderation” as the Crypto-Wahhabi MB engages in promotion of strategically sophisticated “soft Islamization policies” so as to pave the way for subsequent hardcore Salafi Islamization. This can in fact be seen in Muslim ghettos of Western Europe where the MB takeover of those neighborhoods and of Sunni Islam generally in those countries indeed have paved the way for increasing Salafization of those very neighborhoods indeed.

A similar situation can be observed in North Sudan where the anti-Sufi MB regime does not interfere with the Salafi takeover of previously predominantly Sufi Islam in North Sudanese society. Islamization even in MB-ruled Gaza has been gradual and incremental on the model of Nazi Germany by means of creeping Islamization.

The MB regime in Turkey has throughout its rule implemented policies of soft Islamization and has endeavored to further dismantle “sinful” open society although freedom of expression was always severely limited in Turkey. At the same time has the MB regime in Turkey increasingly weakened existing democratic institutions, democratic culture (to the degree of course that this existed in Turkey) as well democratic structures of discourse so as to increasingly empty those of actual democratic content.

The MB long since infiltrated and essentially took over Egyptian civil society and this (from the perspective of the Muslim Brotherhood) successful MB policy is implemented in countries around the world, including in Western Europe. This is predominantly done by means of setting up front organizations that will officially deny affiliation with the global Muslim Brotherhood as well as through usual intelligence methods, including prominently coercively recruiting active members of civil society by means sexual entrapment and subsequent sexual extortion.

While it is certainly true that the MB regime in Turkey is acting under very real political constraints of the Dönmeh-led Derin Devlet military intelligence agency which maintains ultimate control over the Turkish state is the MB position there from the perspective of the MB structurally similar to their position in those Western countries with major ethnic minority communities as immigrated from the broader Middle East. How is this so?

The MB in the West with much political success precisely implements soft Islamization policies while not being in ultimate control of those independent states. The MB has with considerable success managed to “align” with much of the left-wing and center-left in those Western countries in co-opting them into collaborating with a well-funded global Saudi Islamist intelligence agency as ideologically devoted to the very dismantlement of both open society and liberal democracy.

French-Swedish Maoist star journalist and admitted KGB-agent Jan Guillou (b. 1944) in 1973 publicly exposed the Swedish IB (Information Office, Swedish Informationsbyrån) intelligence agency which was then tasked with protecting the democratic left from Soviet intelligence infiltration and he was later sentenced to prison. However, what was not revealed at the time is that similar intelligence agencies were set up to protect democratic socialists in the other countries of Western Europe. Publicly but not actually neutral Sweden was indeed a major battleground for international intelligence warfare during the Cold War, yet similar intelligence organizations were set up in the other countries of Western Europe as well.

These intelligence organizations ought surely in recent decades have devoted themselves to protect the democratic left from Islamist infiltration as Islamism/Jihadism emerged as the next totalitarian threat after the respective defeats of Nazism and Communism in the course of the 20th century. Instead did they focus their attention on systematically surveilling and harassing active members of right-wing populist political parties in those countries.

While this was from their perspective somewhat understandable in the context of the early 1990s considering the fascist historical origins of European right-wing populism has the organized harassment continued despite the increasing deradicalization, democratization and transformation of these major political parties into mainstream neoconservatism. As formerly conservative political parties in Western Europe have transformed into right-of-center liberal parties has the conservative space on the political spectrum become increasingly vacated and instead been filled by now increasingly mainstream and neoconservative political parties which grew out of rightwing populism in Western Europe.

This is not to say that this transformation of deradicalization has been fully completed (and it certainly needs to become fully completed!) but rather that these political parties are preparing themselves to form neoconservative governments in Europe in many ways similar to the neoconservative Trump-Pence administration in the United States. Many on the left are allergic against neoconservatives because they simply do not understand what neoconservatives stands for.

Neoconservatism is founded in the thought of German-born American Jewish philosopher, political scientist and Chicago University professor Leo Strauss. What then is this about? While Strauss readily admitted the imperfections of liberal democracy did he emphasize the importance of supporting and promoting liberal democracy in defence of liberty against tyranny and especially so in fighting totalitarianism such as Nazism and Communism. Leo Strauss thus did in no way idealize liberal democracy yet understood perfectly well the importance of defending it from enemies of open society.

The United States government as the worldwide protector of freedom, open society and representative government needs therefore very significantly diplomatically intervene in using its considerable political clout in Western Europe to make sure that intelligence harassment against active members of neoconservative political parties ceases and indeed fully and completely so. It is furthermore the moral obligation of the neoconservative Trump-Pence administration to resolutely stand with European neoconservatives as systematically victimized by socialist intelligence entities of those countries. These illegal entities must clearly become abolished indeed and fully so.

While there is certainly much need to defend liberal democracy from enemies of open society as liberal democracy and open society are long since under permanent threat from totalitarianism needs any such activity be based on the rule of law without any unlawful acts whatsoever. This means that every liberal democracy needs its own highly transparent Office for the Protection of the Constitution (German Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz or BfV). Yet, the authority of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution needs to be carefully regulated by law with full transparency about the kind of activities undertaken by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution.

Movements as committed to the furtherance of totalitarianism need however become illegal by default under law. The intelligence community of liberal democracies must not be permitted to harass even persons overtly advocating totalitarian ideologies such as Communism, Islamism or Nazism and must certainly not infringe on their civil rights and civil liberties.

The Western intelligence community has in recent decades themselves increasingly resorted to totalitarian practices, including turning their own intelligence operatives into enslaved intelligence prostitutes. Law needs to become strictly enforced within the intelligence community of open societies and laws of non-democracies must only be broken as part of intelligence warfare as strictly in accordance with the international laws of war indeed.

Indeed, every liberal democracy needs its own highly transparent Office for the Protection of the Constitution as devoted to combating totalitarianism under law. In no way however must this in any way infringe on the civil liberties/right of citizens/residents of those nations. Combating totalitarianism must necessarily be the exclusive domain of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution and other intelligence agencies need therefore exclusively focus on different tasks that have been legally assigned to them.

Even protectors of liberal democracy can apparently transform into enemies of open society and that is in fact what happened in this case. Europe’s formerly populist and increasingly neoconservative political parties are now at the very forefront in the struggle against totalitarianism and as forming part of the pan-liberal democratic spectrum need they be respected as precisely passionate defenders of freedom, open society and liberal democracy indeed. Freedom is precious and it must precisely be defended no matter the price. Freedom is not free, yet the existential fight against totalitarianism needs take place as strictly under law.

While sometimes using mildly nationalist language are neoconservatives certainly most passionate defenders of freedom, open society and representative governance. This is clearly an issue that is far beyond left and right as the global intelligence war against the Muslim Brotherhood needs be given complete priority. Defending freedom, open society and representative governance requires constant vigilance and crucially the ability to distinguish between friends and enemies of open societies.

The Swedish IB and similar illegal intelligence entities in other Western European countries engaged in patently illegal practices from the start and this moral slippery slope ended up in the arms of the Muslim Brotherhood Saudi intelligence agency as they effectively became political tools for harassing clearly democratically legitimate opponents of the Muslim Brotherhood agenda of instituting “soft Islamization policies”, an agenda whose very purpose is to pave the way for hardcore Salafi Islamization as in the Islamic State Caliphate.

Others too have suffered extensive intelligence harassment in Europe, including the feminist PKK movement, the world’s most powerful anti-terrorist force which day and night eliminates patriarchal Jihadist war criminals in the empowered feminist struggle against each and every form of Islamism/Jihadism. Although Western governments clearly sympathize with the Kurdistani cause (Feminist Rojava is now a senior NATO partner) and do take a highly favorable view of the feminist PKK movement are they still  reluctant to yet lift the false formal designation of some PKK organizations as “terrorist” due to fears that this will alienate Turkish public opinion although they are certainly committed to do so when the time is deemed right politically speaking.

However, intelligence harassment against the fully law-abiding PKK movement needs however completely cease – indeed fully so. The Western intelligence community has no business harassing anyone whomsoever and so need commence adherence to both the rule of law and the international laws of war.

The Intelligence Entrapment Methods documentation project.