Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.
The tag 'Cold War' is associated with 45 posts.

FTR #1032 Interview #2 with Jim DiEugenio about “Destiny Betrayed”

The second of a planned long series of interviews with Jim DiEugenio about his triumphal analysis of President Kennedy’s assassination and New Orleans DA Jim Garrison’s heroic investigation of the killing, this program begins with discussion of President Kennedy’s precocious political vision. Possessed of a deep understanding of how the struggle for, and desire for, national independence by colonial possessions of America’s World War II allies undercut the casting of these nations’ affairs in a stark “East vs. West” Cold War context, Kennedy put his political vision into play in many instances. It was his attempts at realizing his political vision through concrete policy that precipitated his murder.

(Listeners can order Destiny Betrayed and Jim’s other books, as well as supplementing those volumes with articles about this country’s political assassinations at his website Kennedys and King. Jim is also a regular guest and expert commentator on Black Op Radio.)

When the United States reneged on its commitment to pursue independence for the colonial territories of its European allies at the end of the Second World War, the stage was set for those nations’ desire for freedom to be cast as incipient Marxists/Communists. This development was the foundation for epic bloodshed and calamity.

The program concludes with review of Kennedy’s stance on Algeria. A French colony in North Africa, Algerian independence forces waged a fierce guerrilla war in an attempt at becoming free from France. Once again, Kennedy opposed the Western consensus on Algeria, which sought to retain that property as a French possession.

Destiny Betrayed by Jim DiEugenio; Skyhorse publishing [SC]; Copyright 1992, 2012 by Jim DiEugenio; ISBN 978-1-62087-056-3; pp. 25-26.

. . . . On July 2, 1957, Senator Kennedy rose to speak in the Senate chamber and delivered what the New York Times was to call the next day, “the most comprehensive and outspoken arraignment of Western policy toward Algeria yet presented by an American in public office.” As historian Alan Nevins later wrote, “No speech on foreign affairs by Mr. Kennedy attracted more attention at home and abroad.” It was the mature fruition of all the ideas that Kennedy had been collecting and refining since his 1951 trip into the nooks and corners of Saigon, It was passionate yet sophisticated, hard-hitting but controlled, idealistic yet, in a fresh and unique way, also pragmatic. Kennedy assailed the administration, especially John Foster Dulles and Nixon, for not urging France into negotiations, and therefore not being its true friend. He began the speech by saying that the most powerful force international affairs at the time was not the H-bomb, but the desire for independence from imperialism. He then said it was a test of American foreign policy to meet the challenge of imperialism. If not, America would lose the trust of millions in Asia and Africa. . . . He later added that, “The time has come for the United States to face the harsh realities of the situation and to fulfill its responsibilities as leader of the free world . . . in shaping a course toward political independence for Algeria.” He concluded by saying that America could not win in the Third World by simply doling out foreign aid dollars, or selling free enterprise, or describing the evils of communism, or limiting its approach to military pacts. . . .”

The French people were divided over the Algerian struggle, and those divisions led to the fall of the Fourth Republic and the rise of Charles De Gaulle. De Gaulle granted Algeria its independence and then faced down the lethal opposition of the OAS, a group of military officers grounded in the fascist collaborationist politics of Vichy France. De Gaulle survived several assassination attempts against him and there are a number of evidentiary tributaries leading between those attempts and the forces that killed Kennedy.

Maurice Brooks Gatlin–one of Guy Banister’s investigators–boasted of having transferred a large sum of money from the CIA to the OAS officers plotting against De Gaulle. In addition, Rene Souetre–a French OAS-linked assassin was in the Dallas Fort Worth area on 11/22/1963.

After discussion of Algeria, the program begins analysis of Cuba, a major focal point of Jim’s book and one of the decisive factors in precipitating JFK’s assassination and one of the principal investigative elements in Jim Garrison’s prosecution of the murder.

A former Spanish colony, Cuba was drawn into the American sphere of influence after the Spanish-American war. Cuba bore the yoke of a succession of dictators in the 1920’s and 1930’s, ultimately giving way to the dictatorial reigns of Fulgencio Batista. As Batista cemented his dominion over the island nation, he institutionalized the suppression of pro-labor and pro-democracy forces, as well as creating the BRAC, an explicitly anti-communist secret police–a Cuban gestapo if you will.

Of particular significance is Batista’s role as a corporate satrap for U.S. commercial interests. Cuba’s agricultural wealth, coffee, tobacco and sugar in particular, as well as the country’s mineral resources were dominated by American corporate interests, who enjoyed what was, in essence, a corporate state under Batista. For all intents and purposes, Cuba was free of any substantive impediments to U.S. investment. In turn, Battista profited enormously from his role as point man for U.S. corporate development of Cuba.

In addition, American organized crime interests were deeply involved in Cuba, deriving great wealth from domination of the country’s gambling, hotel and prostitution industries. Ultimately, both corporate interests, manifesting through the CIA and the Mafia would join forces in an effort to oust Fidel Castro.

Interestingly, as Batista’s dictatorship was toppling amidst growing criticism from U.S. politicians and the forces supportive of Fidel Castro’s guerrillas, CIA officer and eventual Watergate burglar E. Howard Hunt was among those who attempted to ease him from power.

Destiny Betrayed by Jim DiEugenio; Skyhorse publishing [SC]; Copyright 1992, 2012 by Jim DiEugenio; ISBN 978-1-62087-056-3; p. 11.

. . . . In the face of this obstinacy, the CIA began to devise desperate tactics to save off a Castro victory. One alternative was to arrange a meeting between wealthy U.S. industrialist William Pawley and Batista. The goal, with Howard Hunt as the mediator, was to release from jail a former Batista opponent, General Ramon Barquin, in hopes that he could displace Batista and provide a viable popular alternative to Castro. Neither of these tactics came off as planned. After Ambassador Smith informed him that the U.S. could no longer support his government, Batista decided to leave the country on New Year’s Eve, 1958. No one knows how much money Batista embezzled and took with him. But estimates range well into the nine figures. On January 8, 1959, Castro and Che Guevara rolled their army into a jubilant Havana. . . .

Castro reversed the corporatist dynamic that had obtained under Batista, with the nationalization of key industries (including American-owned corporate interests). Castro and Che Guevara also liquidated BARC, executing key operatives, including some who had been trained in the United States.

This precipitated the CIA’s well known attempts to remove him from power, the best known episode of which is the Bay of Pigs invasion.

Begun under the Eisenhower administration and with then Vice-President Richard Nixon in charge of the development of the operation, the evolving plans for the invasion were never to Kennedy’s liking. JFK’s attitude toward the plans was described as the attitude a parent might have to an adopted orphan.

The invasion plan went through a number of iterations, culminating in a blueprint that called for some 1,400 Cuban exile invaders to “go guerilla” by making their way to the hills where, supposedly, a significant portion of the Cuban populace would rise up to join them against Castro.

There were many fundamental and, ultimately, fatal, flaws in the operational plan, including:

1.–The invasion force would have had to cross 70 miles of swamp to make it to the mountains from which they were supposed to mount their victorious resistance.
2.–The bulk of the Cuban populace was supportive of Castro and would not have joined an attempt to oust him.
3.–The one Anti-Castro Cuban political element that had support among portions of the Cuban population were the backers of Manolo Ray. Favored by JFK, Ray was viewed with disdain by Allen Dulles and the Bay of Pigs planners, who marginalized Ray and may well have been preparing to assassinate his followers in Cuba had the invasion plan been successful.
4.–There was no way that the invasion force, as constituted, could have possibly defeated the Castro military and militia, who outnumbered the invaders by roughly 100 to 1.
5.–Any possible success for the invasion would have depended on authorization of the use of American air power by President Kennedy. Such authorization was not forthcoming and the blame for the operation’s failure was laid at Kennedy’s doorstep.

Bitterness over the failure of the Bay of Pigs operation contributed significantly to the animosity toward Kennedy on the part of CIA, their anti-Castro Cuban proteges and the American right. This animosity ultimately contributed to the momentum to kill Kennedy.

An analytical report on the invasion by General Maxwell Taylor highlighted the fundamental flaws in the invasion plan.

Following the Bay of Pigs disaster, JFK publicly took responsibility for the operation’s failure, while privately taking steps to fundamentally alter the covert operation operational template for the future.

This alteration crystallized in the form of three National Security Action Memoranda, NSAM’s 55, 56, and 57:

Destiny Betrayed by Jim DiEugenio; Skyhorse publishing [SC]; Copyright 1992, 2012 by Jim DiEugenio; ISBN 978-1-62087-056-3; pp. 52-53.

. . . . NSAM 55 was directly delivered to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Lyman Lemnitzer. JFK was angry that the Pentagon had not delivered a trenchant critique of the Dulles-Bissell invasion plan. So from here on in he wanted their input into military and paramilitary operations of the Cold War. As both John Newman and Fletcher Prouty have noted, this was a real cannon shot across the bow of the CIA. Allen Dulles had instituted these types of paramilitary operations previously, and the CIA had run them almost exclusively. As Newman describes it, NSAM 55 was “The opening shot in Kennedy’s campaign to curtail the CIA’s control over covert paramilitary operations.” The other two national security memoranda flowed form the first one. NSAM 56 was an order to make an inventory of paramilitary assets and equipment the Pentagon had on hand and then to measure that against the projected requirements across the world and make up any deficit. NSAM 57 stated that all paramilitary operations were to be presented to the Strategic Resources Group. that group would then assign a person and department to run it. The CIA was only to be involved in paramilitary operations “wholly covert or disavowable,” and then only within the Agency’s “normal capabilities.” . . . . The consequence of these presidential directives was the first significant chink in the CIA’s covert armor since its creation. . . .

In stark contrast to the Taylor report is a Fortune magazine article written by Charles Murphy, acting in tandem with Allen Dulles and future Watergate burglar E. Howard Hunt. This piece laid the blame for the Bay of Pigs failure on JFK, feeding the virulent hatred of Kennedy in the corridors of power and the public at large.

Destiny Betrayed by Jim DiEugenio; Skyhorse publishing [SC]; Copyright 1992, 2012 by Jim DiEugenio; ISBN 978-1-62087-056-3; pp. 54-55.

. . . . Hunt went so far as to admit that he and Dulles reviewed the proofs of the above mentioned Fortune article by Charles Murphy on the Bay of Pigs before it was published. And further, that Hunt actually worked on the article for two days and furnished Murphy with classified background information for the piece. And what an article it was.

The Murphy/Hunt/Dulles piece begins by stating that Kennedy has been an ineffective president so far. The reason being because, unlike Eisenhower, he did not know how to manipulate the levers of power. Although the article is supposed to be about the Bay of Pigs, Murphy and his (secret) co-authors spend the first few pages discussing Laos. . . . The article now goes on to strike at two targets. First, quite naturally, it states that Kennedy reneged on the D-Day air strikes. . . .

. . . . The second target of the piece is the liberal coterie around Kennedy–Richard Goodwin, William Fulbright, Adlai Stevenson, and Arthur Schlesinger. In other words, the bunch that made Hunt swallow Manolo Ray. In fact, what the trio does here is insinuate that the original Dulles-Bissell plan was tactically sound and approved by the Pentagon. . . . . And at the very end, when they quote Kennedy saying that there were sobering lessons to be learned from the episode, they clearly insinuate that the president should not have let his “political advisers” influence operational decisions. Since Dulles later confessed that he never thought theop0eration could succeed on its own, but he thought Kennedy would save it when he saw it failing, this appears to be nothing but pure deception on his part, delivered his instruments Murphy and Hunt. . . .

After the Bay of Pigs, JFK fired Allen Dulles (who later served on the Warren Commission), Richard Bissell and Charles Cabell, whose brother Earl Cabell was the mayor of Dallas when Kennedy was killed and, as Jim reveals, a CIA asset.


FTR #1031 Interview #1 with Jim DiEugenio about “Destiny Betrayed”

The first of a planned long series of interviews with Jim DiEugenio about his triumphal analysis of President Kennedy’s assassination and New Orleans DA Jim Garrison’s heroic investigation of the killing, this program begins with discussion of President Kennedy’s precocious political vision. Possessed of a deep understanding of how the struggle for, and desire for, national independence by colonial possessions of America’s World War II allies undercut the casting of these nations’ affairs in a stark “East vs. West” Cold War context, Kennedy put his political vision into play in many instances. It was his attempts at realizing his political vision through concrete policy that precipitated his murder.

(Listeners can order Destiny Betrayed and Jim’s other books, as well as supplementing those volumes with articles about this country’s political assassinations at his website Kennedys and King. Jim is also a regular guest and expert commentator on Black Op Radio.)

When the United States reneged on its commitment to pursue independence for the colonial territories of its European allies at the end of the Second World War, the stage was set for those nations’ desire for freedom to be cast as incipient Marxists/Communists. This development was the foundation for epic bloodshed and calamity.

Jim details then Congressman John F. Kennedy’s 1951 fact-finding trip to Saigon to gain an understanding of the French war to retain their colony of Indochina. (Vietnam was part of that colony.)

In speaking with career diplomat Edmund Gullion, Kennedy came to the realization that not only would the French lose the war, but that Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh guerrillas enjoyed great popular support among the Vietnamese people.

This awareness guided JFK’s Vietnam policy, in which he not only resisted tremendous pressure to commit U.S. combat troops to Vietnam, but planned a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Vietnam. (We have covered this in numerous programs over the decades, including–most recently–FTR #978.)

In future discussion, we will analyze at greater length and in greater detail how Lyndon Baines Johnson reversed JFK’s Vietnam policy and authorized the enduring carnage that was to follow.

The fledgling nation of Laos was also part of French Indochina, and Jim notes how outgoing President Eisenhower coached President-Elect Kennedy on the necessity of committing  U.S. combat forces to Laos.

The CIA was already backing the Hmong tribesmen and financing their guerrilla warfare by assisting in the marketing of their primary revenue-earning crop–opium. (We discussed this at considerable length in AFA #24, among other programs.)

Again, Kennedy refused to commit U.S. ground forces and engineered a policy of neutrality for Laos.

 Destiny Betrayed by Jim DiEugenio; Skyhorse publishing [SC]; Copyright 1992, 2012 by Jim DiEugenio; ISBN 978-1-62087-056-3; p. 54.

” . . . . At his first press conference, Kennedy said that he hoped to  establish Laos as a “peaceful country–an independent country not dominated by either side.’ He appointed a task force to study the problem, was in regular communication with it and the Laotian ambassador, and decided by February that Laos must have a coalition government, the likes of which Eisenhower had rejected out of hand. Kennedy also had little interest in a military solution. He could not understand sending American troops to fight for a country whose people did not care to fight for themselves. . . . He therefore worked to get the Russians to push the Pathet Lao into a cease-fire agreement. This included a maneuver on Kennedy’s part to indicate military pressure if the Russians did not intervene strongly enough with the Pathet Lao. The maneuver worked, and in May of 1961, a truce was called. A few days later, a conference convened in Geneva to hammer out conditions for a neutral Laos. By July of 1962, a new government, which included the Pathet Lao, had been hammered out. . . . ”

A former Dutch colony, Indonesia was another emerging nation at the epicenter of the tug of war between East and West. Sukarno sought to remain a neutral, or non-aligned country, along with other leaders of what we call the Third World, such as India’s Nehru. Not seeking to align with the Soviet Union nor the West, Sukarno remained on good terms with the PKI, the large Indonesian communist party.

In 1955, Sukarno hosted a conference of non-aligned nations that formalized and concretized a “Third Way” between East and West. This, along with Sukarno’s nationalism of some Dutch industrial properties, led the U.S. to try and overthrow Sukharno, which was attempted in 1958.

Kennedy understood Sukarno’s point of view, and had planned a trip to Indonesia in 1964 to forge a more constructive relationship with Sukharno. Obviously, his murder in 1964 precluded the trip.

In 1965, Sukarno was deposed in a bloody, CIA-aided coup in which as many as a million people were killed.

Yet another area in which JFK’s policy outlook ran afoul of the prevailing wisdom of the Cold War was with regard to the Congo. A Belgian colony which was the victim of genocidal policies of King Leopold (estimates of the dead run as high as 8 million), the diamond and mineral-rich Congo gained a fragile independence.

In Africa, as well, Kennedy understood the struggle of emerging nations seeking freedom from colonial domination as falling outside of and transcending stereotyped Cold War dynamics.

In the Congo, the brutally administered Belgian rule had spawned a vigorous independence movement crystallized around the charismatic Patrice Lumumba. Understanding of, and sympathetic to Lumumba and the ideology and political forces embodied in him, Kennedy opposed the reactionary status quo favored by both European allies like the United Kingdom and Belgium, as well as the Eisenhower/Dulles axis in the United States.

 Destiny Betrayed by Jim DiEugenio; Skyhorse publishing [SC]; Copyright 1992, 2012 by Jim DiEugenio; ISBN 978-1-62087-056-3; pp. 28-29.

“. . . . By 1960, a native revolutionary leader named Patrice Lumumba had galvanized the nationalist feeling of the country. Belgium decided to pull out. But they did so rapidly, knowing that tumult would ensue and they could return to colonize the country again. After Lumumba was appointed prime minister, tumult did ensue. The Belgians and the British backed a rival who had Lumumba dismissed. They then urged the breaking away of the Katanga province because of its enormous mineral wealth. Lumumba looked to the United Nations for help, and also the USA. The former decided to help, . The United States did not. In fact, when Lumumba visited Washington July of 1960, Eisenhower deliberately fled to Rhode Island. Rebuffed by Eisenhower, Lumumba now turned to the Russians for help in expelling the Belgians from Katanga. This sealed his fate in the eyes of Eisenhower and Allen Dulles. The president now authorized a series of assassination plots by the CIA to kill Lumumba. These plots finally succeeded on January 17, 1961, three days before Kennedy was inaugurated. 

His first week in office, Kennedy requested a full review of the Eisenhower/Dulles policy in Congo. The American ambassador to that important African nation heard of this review and phoned Allen Dulles to alert him that President Kennedy was about to overturn previous policy there. Kennedy did overturn this policy on February 2, 1961. Unlike Eisenhower and Allen Dulles, Kennedy announced he would begin full cooperation with Secretary Dag Hammarskjold at the United Nations on this thorny issue in order to bring all the armies in that war-torn nation under control. He would also attempt top neutralize the country so there would be no East/West Cold War competition. Third, all political prisoners being held should be freed. Not knowing he was dead, this part was aimed at former prime minister Lumumba, who had been captured by his enemies. (There is evidence that, knowing Kennedy would favor Lumumba, Dulles had him killed before JFK was inaugurated.) Finally, Kennedy opposed the secession of mineral-rich Katanga province. . . . Thus began Kennedy’s nearly three year long struggle to see Congo not fall back under the claw of European imperialism. . . . ”

Finally, the program concludes with analysis of Kennedy’s stance on Algeria. A French colony in North Africa, Algerian independence forces waged a fierce guerrilla war in an attempt at becoming free from France. Once again, Kennedy opposed the Western consensus on Algeria, which sought to retain that property as a French possession.

Destiny Betrayed by Jim DiEugenio; Skyhorse publishing [SC]; Copyright 1992, 2012 by Jim DiEugenio; ISBN 978-1-62087-056-3; pp. 25-26.

“. . . . On July 2, 1957, Senator Kennedy rose to speak in the Senate chamber and delivered what the New York Times was to call the next day, “the most comprehensive and outspoken arraignment of Western policy toward Algeria yet presented by an American in public office.” As historian Alan Nevins later wrote, ‘No speech on foreign affairs by Mr. Kennedy attracted more attention at home and abroad.’ It was the mature fruition of all the ideas that Kennedy had been collecting and refining since his  1951 trip into  the  nooks  and corners of Saigon,  It was passionate yet sophisticated, hard-hitting but controlled, idealistic yet, in a fresh and unique way, also pragmatic. Kennedy assailed the administration, especially John Foster Dulles and Nixon, for not urging France into negotiations, and therefore not being its true friend. He began the speech by saying  that the most powerful  force international  affairs at the time  was not the H-bomb, but the  desire  for  independence from imperialism. He then  said it was a test of  American foreign policy to meet the challenge of imperialism. If not, America would lose the trust of millions in Asia and Africa. . . . He later added that, ‘The time has come for the United States to face the harsh realities of the  situation  and to fulfill its responsibilities as leader of the free world . . . in shaping a course toward political independence for Algeria.’ He concluded by saying that America could not win in the Third World by simply doling  out foreign aid  dollars, or selling free enterprise, or describing the evils of  communism, or limiting its  approach  to military pacts. . . .” 

The French people were divided over the Algerian struggle, and those divisions led to the fall of the Fourth Republic and the rise of Charles De Gaulle. De Gaulle granted Algeria its independence and then faced down the lethal opposition of the OAS, a group of military officers grounded in the fascist collaborationist politics of Vichy France. De Gaulle survived several assassination attempts against him and there are a number of evidentiary tributaries leading between those attempts and the forces that killed Kennedy.

Maurice Brooks Gatlin–one of Guy Banister’s investigators–boasted of having transferred a large sum of money from the CIA to the OAS officers plotting against De Gaulle. In addition, Rene Souetre–a French OAS-linked assassin was in the Dallas Fort Worth area on 11/22/1963.


August, 1944: The Cold War Begins in Earnest

Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty has written about an August, 1944 mission in which he participated that indicated that the beginning of the Cold War was underway well before VE Day: ” . . . .On August 23, 1944, the Romanians accepted Soviet surrender terms and in Bucharest the OSS rounded up Nazi intelligence experts and their voluminous Eastern European intelligence files and concealed among a trainload of American POW’s who were being quickly evacuated from the Balkans via Turkey. Once in ‘neutral” Turkey, the train continued to a planned destination at a site on the Syrian border, where it was stopped to permit the transfer of Nazis and POW’s to a fleet of U.S. [Army] Air Force planes for a flight to Cairo. I was the chief pilot of that flight of some thirty aircraft . . . .” We note that it was in August of 1944 that the famous “Red House” meeting at which the Bormann flight capital network realized under the auspices of Aktion Adlerflug was launched.


BND Employed Gudrun Burwitz, Heinrich Himmler’s Daughter

Heinrich Himmler’s daughter–the late Gudrun Burwitz–worked for the BND, the last iteration of the remarkable Gehlen organization. We have discussed the Gehlen organization in many programs and posts. Burwitz continued her work for the postwar Stille Hilfe “Silent Help” SS-support organization almost until the end of her life.


Update on Ukraine, Maidan Snipers

In FTR #982, we highlighted indications that the Maidan sniper shootings may have been a provocation and that Paul Manafort may have encouraged the bloodshed. Among the perpetrators of ongoing, institutionalized corruption in Ukraine has been the son of Arsen Avakov, the interior minister and a patron of the Nazi Azov Battalion. ” . . . . Corruption continues at high levels. For example, the case of Interior Minister Arsen Avakov’s son, who sold backpacks to the army at six times their normal price, allegedly causing damage in the six-digit euros. . . .” “In an Italian TV documentary . . . . three Georgians, incriminating themselves for their own participation, report that some of the leaders of the protests . . . . had supplied weapons to the snipers, who, at the time, indiscriminately killed policemen and demonstrators. . . . The Georgians’ accusations also implicate, at least indirectly, the ‘Commander of the Maidan,’ Andriy Parubiy. Parubiy comes from the Ukrainian fascist scene. In the early 1990s he was one of the founders of the extreme right-wing Social National Party of Ukraine. Since 1996, he was the leader of its militarist street fighting subsidiary ‘Patriot of Ukraine.’ Following his retirement from the party, this experienced protest activist became one of the main organizers of the 2004 ‘Orange Revolution.’ In 2013, he assumed the same function at the Maidan, where he was responsible for none other than security and the ‘self-defense units,’ which were often made up of heavily armed thugs. In the Italian TV documentary, it was reported that Parubiy was going in and out of Hotel Ukraina, from where numerous deadly shots were being fired. . . .”


Gehlen Org Role in 1953 East Berlin Uprising?

An episode of the early Cold War (I) was an uprising in East Berlin in 1953. At least part of the revolt may have been spurred by Nazi (and CIA) spymaster Reinhard Gehlen, about whom we have spoken and written so often. “Some of the provocateurs captured by the Communist authorities were too well equipped with blueprints for sabotage to have managed the business alone,” the intelligence historian Andrew Tully has written. “Rioters had in their pockets plans for blowing up railroad bridges and railway terminals, and detailed floor plans of governmental buildings. They had forged food stamps and fake bank drafts to be used to spread confusion in the food-rationing system and to disrupt East German bank credits. It seemed indisputable that they were getting their espionage pay checks from the CIA’s top German spy . . . Reinhard Gehlen.” . . . . All of the contents of this website as of 12/19/2014–Dave Emory’s 37+ years of research and broadcasting–as well as hours of videotaped lectures are available on a 32GB flash drive. Dave offers his programs and articles for free–your support is very much appreciated.


Information Versus Confirmation

Over the years, we  have noted peoples’ reluctance and/or inability to adjust their views and perspectives in light of new information that would mandate such a correction. We have conceptualized that dynamic as “Information versus Confirmation.” Rather than having their views governed by information, many people’s outlooks are inclined in the direction of input that confirms their prejudices or views. Information presented in The Brothers: John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles and Their Secret World War by Stephen Kinzer frames this dynamic in the context of contemporary cognitive and social psychological theory. All of the contents of this website as of 12/19/2014–Dave Emory’s 37+ years of research and broadcasting–as well as hours of videotaped lectures are available on a 32GB flash drive. Dave offers his programs and articles for free–your support is very much appreciated.


FTR #958 Miscellaneous Articles and Updates

Updating various paths of inquiry and opening new ones, this program highlights some terrifying possibilities, present and future.

After setting forth Yale historian Timothy Snyder’s opinion that Trump would try to stage a Reichstag Fire type event, we chronicle Trump’s desire to amend or eliminate the First Amendment of the Constitution and “loosen” the libel laws.

Much of the program updates terrifying developments in the area of what we have called “technocratic fascism,” including Facebook’s plans to implement brain-to-computer interface that would permit Facebook (and others) to tap into the network’s users thoughts. This technology is being overseen and developed by Facebook’s head of R & D–Regina Dugan–the former head of DARPA. Facebook’s Building 8 R & D program is patterned after DARPA.

Amazon is introducing the new Echo Look, which will put a camera, connected to an artificial intelligence, in people’s bedrooms, ostensibly to provide them with real-time fashion critique.

Next, we highlight the fact that artificial intelligence quickly absorbs human racial and gender biases, which bodes poorly for our future.

The broadcast concludes with a look at the latest alleged “Russian” hack–that of French president Emanuel Macron. The hacked documents contained Cyrillic metadata, something Russian intelligence would NOT have done.

Program Highlights Include: Facebook’s communication of intimate data on stressed and troubled teenagers to advertisers and other third parties; the complete lack of civil liberties and privacy oversight of the impending Facebook and Amazon technologies; review of the analysis of the alleged “Russian” hacks, documenting the ludicrous nature of the assertions; the latest alleged hack by the Shadow Brokers, involving the communication of white supremacist ideology and an assertion that the culprits are pro-Trump U.S. Deep State insiders.


FTR #955 Syrian Chemical Weapons Attack? Not So Fast, Part 2

Supplementing FTR #954, this broadcast continues analysis of the alleged Assad government chemical weapons attack. Key points of discussion include:

1. Further analysis by MIT expert Theodore Postol, who sees the photographic evidence alleged to support the Trump administration’s allegations as questionable. ” . . . ‘This addendum provides data that unambiguously shows that the assumption in the WHR that there was no tampering with the alleged site of the sarin release is not correct. This egregious error raises questions about every other claim in the WHR. … The implication of this observation is clear – the WHR was not reviewed and released by any competent intelligence expert unless they were motivated by factors other than concerns about the accuracy of the report. . . .”

2. Particularly suspicious (laughable?) is a picture showing personnel examining the purported sarin attack site with woefully inadequate protective clothing. ” . . . . ‘If there were any sarin present at this location when this photograph was taken everybody in the photograph would have received a lethal or debilitating dose of sarin. The fact that these people were dressed so inadequately either suggests a complete ignorance of the basic measures needed to protect an individual from sarin poisoning, or that they knew that the site was not seriously contaminated. This is the crater that is the centerpiece evidence provided in the WHR for a sarin attack delivered by a Syrian aircraft.’ . . . . ”

3. Questionable analysis in the alleged chlorine gas attacks also attributed to the al-Assad regime. ” . . . In one of the chlorine cases, however, Syrian eyewitnesses came forward to testify that the rebels had staged the alleged attack so it could be blamed on the government. In that incident, the U.N. team reached no conclusion as to what had really happened, but neither did the investigators – now alerted to the rebels’ tactic of staging chemical attacks – apply any additional skepticism to the other cases. In one case, the rebels and their supporters also claimed to know that an alleged ‘barrel bomb’ contained a canister of chlorine because of the sound that it made while descending. There was no explanation for how that sort of detection was even possible. . . .”

4. A British doctor who was a focal point of PR coverage of the alleged sarin attack has a jihadist background. ” . . . . A British doctor who documented a suspected chemical weapons attack in Syria was considered a ‘committed jihadist’ by MI6 and was struck off the General Medical Council in 2016. Shajul Islam, 31, posted several videos on Twitter in the aftermath of the Tuesday’s (4 April) attack where he appeared to be treating patients in Khan Sheikhoun. He appeared on several television networks such as NBC to discuss what he saw, but it has now emerged Islam was previously charged on terror offences in the UK. . . .”

4. The underlying strategic reason for some of the Trump/Russian interface, one that dovetails with the Syrian provocation/escalation: ” . . . . The United Arab Emirates arranged a secret meeting in January between Blackwater founder Erik Prince and a Russian close to President Vladi­mir Putin as part of an apparent effort to establish a back-channel line of communication between Moscow and President-elect Donald Trump, according to U.S., European and Arab officials. The meeting took place around Jan. 11 — nine days before Trump’s inauguration — in the Seychelles islands in the Indian Ocean, officials said. Though the full agenda remains unclear, the UAE agreed to broker the meeting in part to explore whether Russia could be persuaded to curtail its relationship with Iran, including in Syria, a Trump administration objective . . . .”

5. George W. Bush administration officials are confident another terrorist attack is coming appear to be concerned that the Trump could use terror to grab and abuse executive powers. We present some of their thoughts against the background of our discussion in FTR #953 about Bernie Sanders’ paving the way for Muslim Brotherhood-linked elements: ” . . . . ‘We can assume there will be another terrorist attack in the U.S. If the executive order is in place, he will point to the attack as support for the executive order and the need to expand it to other countries with bad dudes (Muslims). If the executive order has been struck down, Trump will blame judges and Democrats for the attack. . . .’We both wholly believe that Trump needs a bogeyman. But, more importantly, he needs distraction and a blame source. In terrorists, he has his bogeyman. In his control of the prevailing press narrative via tweet, he has distraction. And, in the judiciary, he has a source of blame for why his way was right from the beginning.’ . . . . ‘I am fully confident that an attack is exactly what he wants and needs.’ . . . .”

Whereas the Syrian alleged sarin incident appears to have been effected by some of the West’s al-Qaeda surrogates in the conflict, past provocations have involved more direct involvement by elements of the intelligence community. In May of 1963, with then South Vietnamese president Diem pushing for a reduction in U.S. forces in Vietnam (against American wishes), a bombing occurred at a Hue radio station that was the focal point of Buddhist protests of the government’s policy toward Buddhists. The authorship of that attack and a 1952 Saigon bombing, was not the Vietcong.

Key points of analysis:

1. The May, 1963 attack in Hue: “ . . . . As Dang Sy and his security officers were approaching the area in armored cars about fifty meters away, two powerful explosions blasted the people on the veranda of the station, killing seven on the spot and fatally wounding a child. At least fifteen others were injured. . . .”

2. Forensic analysis of the wounds of the victims: “ . . . Dr. Le Khac Quyen, the hospital director at Hue, said after examining the victims’ bodies that he had never seen such injuries. The bodies had been decapitated. He found no metal in the corpses, only holes. There were no wounds below the chest. In his official finding, Dr. Quyen ruled that ‘the death of the people was caused by an explosion which took place in mid-air, blowing off their heads and mutilating their bodies.’ . . . ”

3. Dr. Quyen’s conclusions about the source of the victims’ wounds in the 1963 attack: “ . . . . The absence of any metal in the bodies or on the radio station’s veranda pointed to powerful plastic bombs as the source of the explosions. . . .”

4. Analysis of the 1952 bombing in Saigon: “ . . . . Who did possess such powerful plastic bombs? An answer is provided by Graham Greene’s prophetic novel The Quiet American, based on historical events that occurred in Saigon eleven years before the bombing in Hue. Greene was in Saigon on January 9, 1952, when two bombs exploded in the city’s center, killing ten and injuring many more. A picture of the scene, showing a man with his legs blown off, appeared in Life magazine as the ‘Picture of the Week.’ The Life caption said the Saigon bombs had been ‘planted by Viet Minh Communists’ and ‘signaled general intensification of the Viet Minh violence.’ In like manner, the New York Times headlined: ‘Reds’ Time Bombs Rip Saigon Center.’ . . .”

5. In the 1952 bombing, the operational coordination between U.S. media outlets and the perpetrators of the attack is noteworthy for our purposes: “ . . . . General The’s bombing material, a U.S. plastic, had been supplied to him by his sponsor, the Central Intelligence Agency. Greene observed in his memoir, Ways of Escape, it was no coincidence that ‘the Life photographer at the moment of the explosion was so well placed that he was able to take an astonishing and horrifying photograph which showed the body of a trishaw driver still upright after his legs had been blown off.’ The CIA had set the scene, alerting the Life photographer and Times reporter so they could convey the terrorist bombing as the work of ‘Viet Minh Communists’ to a mass audience. . . .”

6. South Vietnamese investigation of the May, 1963 attack, arrived at a conclusion similar to Graham Greene’s discovery in the 1952 attack: “ . . . . According to an investigation carried by the Catholic newspaper Hoa Binh. . . . a Captain Scott . . . . had come to Hue from Da Nang on May 7, 1963. He admitted he was the American agent responsible for the bombing at the radio station the next day. He said he used ‘an explosive that was still secret and known only to certain people in the Central Intelligence Agency, a charge no larger than a matchbox with a timing device.’. . . .”


FTR #926 Painting Oswald “Red,” Part 2: “Oswald” in Mexico City

Just as JFK’s assassination–pinned on the ersatz Communist Lee Harvey Oswald–destroyed JFK’s attempts at detente with the Soviet Union, the “op” fronted for by Edward Snowden–the “Obverse Oswald”–destroyed the Obama/Clinton State Department’s attempts at a “re-boot” with Russia. This program is the second in a series reviewing how Oswald was “painted red.” For purposes of convenience and continuity, we begin the discussion by reviewing and synopsizing information indicating that Russia has been framed for the “Shadow Brokers” alleged hack of the NSA, much as it appears to have been framed for the DNC hack.

Indeed, with both the DNC hack and the “Shadow Brokers” non-hack of the NSA, the evidence points increasingly toward “Team Snowden” (including WikiLeaks) and Eddie the Friendly Spook himself. The process of propagandizing the high-profile hacks as effected by “Russia” is analogous to the “painting of Oswald Red.” This broadcast details a visit to Mexico City by “Oswald,” in which the patsy-to-be of the JFK assassination went to lengths to reinforce the image of a Communist, linked to, among other elements, the KGB’s assassination expert Valery Kostikov.

The “Oswald” operating in Mexico City did not look like Oswald: ” . . . He was described as ‘apparent age 35, athletic build, circa 6 feet, receding hairline, balding top.’ In a CIA cable back to Mexico City on October 10, the Lee Oswald who defected to the U.S.S.R. in October 1959 was described as not quite 24, ‘five feet ten inches, one hundred sixty five pounds, light brown wavy hair, blue eyes.’ . . .” He did not speak like Oswald: ” . . . . Equally noteworthy in the October 9 cable is the evidence it provides that the “Lee Oswald” who made the October 1 phone call was an impostor. The caller, it said, “spoke broken Russian.” The real Oswald was fluent in Russian. . . .”

The “Oswald” in Mexico City had unusual credentials: ” . . . [Cuban diplomat Silvia] Duran was a little suspicious of Oswald. She felt the American was too eager in displaying his leftist credentials: membership cards in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee and the American Communist Party, old Soviet documents, a newspaper clipping on his arrest in New Orleans, a photo of Oswald being escorted by a policeman on each arm that Duran thought looked Phony. Duran also knew that belonging to the Communist Party was illegal in Mexico in 1963. For that reason, a Communist would normally travel in the country with only a passport. Yet here was Oswald documented in a way that invited his arrest. . . .”

The “Oswald” in Mexico City displayed unusual behavior: ” . . . He took a revolver from his jacket pocket, placed it on a table, and said, ‘See? This is what I must now carry to protect my life.’ The Soviet officials carefully took the gun and removed its bullets. They told Oswald once again they could not give him a quick visa. They offered him instead the necessary forms to be filled out. Oswald didn’t take them. Oleg Nechiporenko joined the three men as their conversation was ending. For the second day in a row, he accompanied a depressed Oswald to the gate of the embassy, this time with Oswald’s returned revolver and its loose bullets stuck back in his jacket pocket. Nechiporenko says that he, Kostikov, and Yatskov then immediately prepared a report on Oswald’s two embassy visits that they cabled to Moscow Center. . . .”

A CIA telephonic intercept of the “Oswald” appears to have been a fabrication: ” . . . . The CIA’s transcript states that the Saturday, September 28, call came from the Cuban Consulate. The first speaker is identified as Silvia Duran. However, Silvia Duran has insisted repeatedly over the years, first, that the Cuban Embassy was closed to the public on Saturdays, and second, that she never took part in such a call. ‘Duran’ is said to be phoning the Soviet Consulate. Oleg Nechiporenko denies in turn that this call occurred. He says it was impossible because the Soviet switchboard was closed. The ‘Duran’ speaker in the transcript says that an American in her consulate, who had been in the Soviet Embassy, wants to talk to them. She passes the phone to a North American man. The American insists that he and the Soviet representative speak Russian. They engage in a conversation, with the American speaking with the translator describes as ‘terrible hardly recognizable Russian.’ This once again argues against the speaker being Oswald, given his fluent Russian. . . .”

The net effect of the phony Oswald in Mexico City was to reinforce the notion that a Communist killed Kennedy, increasing pressure for retaliation against Russia and/or Cuba and escalating Cold War tensions. ” . . . . One must give the CIA (and the assassination sponsors that were even further in the shadows) their due for having devised and executed a brilliant setup. They had played out a scenario to Kennedy’s death in Dallas that pressured other government authorities to choose among three major options: a war of vengeance against Cuba and the Soviet Union based on the CIA’s false Mexico City documentation of a Communist assassination plot; a domestic political war based on the same documents seen truly, but a war the CIA would fight with every covert weapon at its command; or a complete cover-up of any conspiracy evidence and a silent coup d’etat that would reverse Kennedy’s efforts to end the Cold War. . . .” The propaganda blitzkrieg against Russia over the high-profile hacks, Ukraine and Syria have positioned Hillary Clinton in an analogous fashion. It will be VERY difficult for her to avoid being sucked into the New Cold War dynamics. Program Highlights Include: Review of the disinformation linking Oswald to the KGB’s alleged assassination of Stephan Bandera (head of the OUN/B); review of the role of Pierre Omidyar in the Maidan coup; review of Oswald’s altogether improbable activities in the U.S., given his supposed Communist status.