With overt traitor ElBaradei outed, Successor Hamza now in imperialists’ lap.
by Tony Cartalucci
December 1, 2011 – Now almost a year after the US-engineered “Arab Spring” began, it seems protest leader Mohamed ElBaradei has predictably outlived his usefulness, albeit much sooner than expected. According to Egypt’s Almasry Alyoum, a member of ElBaradei’s own National Front for Change, Mamdouh Hamza, has outed him as “having strong ties to Zionist institutions” and sitting directly on the board of trustees of George Soros’ International Crisis Group. ElBaradei, who has been fighting similar (and true) accusations for months, is now facing perhaps an irrevocable setback emanating from within his own movement.
Speculation over Hamza’s latest accusations centers on his prominent role in helping ElBaradei carry out the Western-backed destabilization of Egypt and now the possibility of some sort of rift forming within the movement. News sources confirm Hamza’s role in facilitating the protests, where he has been providing logistical support to protesters in addition to his leadership role. He has also joined April 6 in Tahrir Square on several occasions and shared the stage at events with Google’s Wael Ghonim. His involvement with the US-trained, funded, and equipped April 6 movement stretch back as far as at least February, 2011.
Upon researching Hamza’s background, startling information can be found. In 2004, on invitation of the Queen of England he traveled to London for a “special reception.” He was then placed under house-arrest after being accused of plotting the assassination of four senior Egyptian government officials. The would-be London-based assassin allegedly approached by Hamza, turned out to be an undercover British agent running a “sting operation.” He was tried and finally acquitted in 2006. Both British MI5 and the US FBI are notorious experts at entrapment, and it may have been at this point Hamza became a compromised foreign collaborator.
Hamza and his “Hamza Associates” engineering conglomerate are now deeply rooted in British corporate-financier interests as well as a chief facilitator in bringing in Wall Street and London’s insidious NGO “civil society” overlay – a modern day imperial network.
Hamza’s Ties to Foreign Corporate-Financier Interests.
Hamza himself is listed as an individual member of the British-Egyptian Business Association (BEBA) and his Hamza Associates listed as a corporate member. BEBA of course includes the summation of London’s corporate-financier interests in Egypt including HSBC, Shell, Barclays Bank, British Petroleum, Hess, Sygenta (GMO), Financial Times, Standard Charter Bank, Unilever, Vodafone, GlaxoSmithKline, Credit Swiss, and G4S security contractors, while the board of directors includes the current British Ambassador to Egypt, Dominic Asquith and executives drawn from both Egyptian and British corporations.
Knowing full well that Hamza is at least one member of BEBA who played a leading role in the foreign-backed unrest in Egypt, Ambassador Asquith’s words in the BEBA 2011 annual report are quite revealing (emphasis added):
“These are truly historic times. To be a part of them is a privilege. Egypt had its popular uprising early, but the consequences will take some time to work through not least because the third Prime Minister and his team have yet to crystalise their policies – and there is likely to be a fourth before the year is out.
The birth pains of democracy have been felt by the economy. Economists forecast that overall growth for FY 2011 will be around 3% rather than the 5.7% which had been expected. The transition government has placed a real emphasis on the need to accelerate economic reform, tackle corruption and wastage and improve further the climate in Egypt for international investment. There is a silver lining to every cloud!”
Asquith would then go on to enumerate the vast potential in exploiting Egypt’s 80 million strong domestic market and concluded by stating that “British goods and services are held in high regard in Egypt and the UK enjoys a good reputation in the market.” That might change however, should Egyptians ever learn how those who make these highly esteemed “goods and services” conspired to destabilize their nation and fill their streets with chaos while they filled political offices with co-conspirators.
Hamza’s Ties to Globalist “Civil Society.”
Hamza’s conglomerate, Hamza Associates, also appears to be facilitating the creep of Wall Street and London’s “civil society” into Egypt. Hamza is listed next to Proctor & Gamble, USAID, Vodafone, and the European Commission as partners supporting the “National Council for Childhood and Motherhood.” Hamza is also cited as a supporter for Unicef’s Girls Education Initiative.
While these benignly titled organizations seem to be a force of good, and their websites rife with pages of smiling children enjoying their new UN-funded schools, in reality they represent the erosion of national and individual sovereignty as unelected, corporate-funded international arbiters featuring nebulous leadership and agendas, move in to socially engineer Egyptian society to conform to a contrived “international standard.” For Egypt, it is up to the people and their local and national governments to self-determine what constitutes their rights under their own laws, how their families function, how their children are cared for, raised, and educated, as well as how other social issues should be resolved.
Hamza’s Move to the Lead.
Quite clearly, while Mohamed ElBaradei represented a pliable and easily compromised puppet of the West, Mamdouh Hamza, his accuser and likely successor, possesses a better hidden and broader operational capacity to actually carry the current destabilization he is a leading member of and the building of a Wall Street-London centric order in the ashes of the premeditated Arab Spring he helped bring to fruition.
While it is not clear yet why Hamza has turned on ElBaradei, a likely explanation involves ElBaradei’s terminally negative public perception and an opportunity for Hamza to score political points as “exposing a collaborator” thus shoring up his movement’s hobbled legitimacy. Through Hamza’s skillful exploitation of the “Zionist” card and its expected Pavlovian response amongst protesters, he and his foreign-backers may believe they have succeeded in earning the trust of their impressionable followers where ElBaradei had failed. In any case, it appears that the entire leadership of the National Front for Change constitutes entirely compromised foreign collaborators, one worse than the other. Coupled with the presence and support of US-trained, equipped, and backed April 6, they are poised to lead the nation of Egypt into an unfortunate future.