Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.
The tag 'Soviet Union' is associated with 64 posts.

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.


“Sachsenhausen:” Bernie Sanders’ Neo-Liberal Buddy Jeffrey Sachs

We have not­ed Bernie Sanders’ many “inter­est­ing con­nec­tions” in–among oth­er programs–FTR #953. One of Sanders’ eco­nom­ic advis­ers dur­ing the 2016 cam­paign is now a mem­ber of the Sanders Insti­tute, hav­ing for­mer­ly been a major archi­tect of the eco­nom­ic dis­as­ter that befell post-Cold-War Rus­sia under Yeltsin. 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 #973 They Are All Bound on the Wheel, Part 2: Reflections on Charlottesville

The title of the pro­gram comes from a Robin­son Jef­fers poem, repro­duced at the begin­ning of this descrip­tion. It sums up Mr. Emory’s feel­ings about Char­lottesville and much of what has tran­spired since the ascen­sion of the Trump admin­is­tra­tion.

With the main­stream media, the so-called “alter­na­tive media,” the so-called “pro­gres­sive sec­tor” and the GOP beat­ing their breasts over Don­ald Trump’s pre­dictably equiv­o­cal reac­tion to the vio­lence in Char­lottesville (Vir­ginia), we high­light the pro­found com­plic­i­ty with all of these ele­ments with the very white suprema­cist, Nazi and Neo-Con­fed­er­ate move­ments that are at the foun­da­tion of the events in ques­tion.

Par­tic­u­lar­ly grotesque is the right­eous pos­tur­ing of the GOP, whose mem­bers have scram­bled to go “on record” decry­ing racism and Nazism, inton­ing that such things are “un-Amer­i­can,” or words to that effect. In fact, the GOP is joined at the hip with the Anti-Bol­she­vik Bloc of Nations, formed in 1943 by Adolf Hitler as the Com­mit­tee of Sub­ju­gat­ed Nations. A con­sor­tium of East­ern and Cen­tral Euro­pean fas­cist groups, the ABN became a major play­er in the GOP’s eth­nic out­reach orga­ni­za­tion.

The mar­riage of the GOP and the ABN was effect­ed under the aus­pices of the Cru­sade for Free­dom, a dual-sided covert oper­a­tion with the GOP/ABN nexus at the root of a domes­tic polit­i­cal oper­a­tion and the com­bat sup­port afford­ed guer­ril­las from the OUN/B and oth­er East­ern Euro­pean fas­cist fight­ing by the Office of Pol­i­cy Coor­di­na­tion (which mor­phed into the CIA’s Direc­torate of plans): ” . . . . There is a very high cor­re­la­tion between CIA domes­tic sub­si­dies to Fas­cist ‘free­dom fight­ers’ dur­ing the 1950’s and the lead­er­ship of the Repub­li­can Party’s eth­nic cam­paign groups. The motive for the under-the-table financ­ing was clear: Nixon used Nazis to off­set the Jew­ish vote for the Democ­rats. . . .

. . . . In 1952, Nixon had formed an Eth­nic Divi­sion with­in the Repub­li­can Nation­al Com­mit­tee. Dis­placed fas­cists, hop­ing to be returned to pow­er by an Eisen­how­er-Nixon ‘lib­er­a­tion’ pol­i­cy signed on with the com­mit­tee. In 1953, when Repub­li­cans were in office, the immi­gra­tion laws were changed to admit Nazis, even mem­bers of the SS. They flood­ed into the coun­try. Nixon him­self over­saw the new immi­gra­tion pro­gram. [This is a Repub­li­can pro-immi­gra­tion program–D.E.] . . .”

The key fig­ures in the CFF became the cream of the Rea­gan admin­is­tra­tion. ” . . . . As a young movie actor in the ear­ly 1950s, Rea­gan was employed as the pub­lic spokesper­son for an OPC front named the ‘Cru­sade for Free­dom.’ Rea­gan may not have known it, but 99 per­cent for the Crusade’s funds came from clan­des­tine accounts, which were then laun­dered through the Cru­sade to var­i­ous orga­ni­za­tions such as Radio Lib­er­ty, which employed Dulles’s Fas­cists. Bill Casey, who lat­er became CIA direc­tor under Ronald Rea­gan, also worked in Ger­many after World War II on Dulles’ Nazi ‘free­dom fight­ers’ pro­gram. When he returned to New York, Casey head­ed up anoth­er OPC front, the Inter­na­tion­al Res­cue Com­mit­tee, which spon­sored the immi­gra­tion of these Fas­cists to the Unit­ed States. Casey’s com­mit­tee replaced the Inter­na­tion­al Red Cross as the spon­sor for Dulles’s recruits. . . . 

. . . . It was [George H.W.] Bush who ful­filled Nixon’s promise to make the ‘eth­nic emi­gres’ a per­ma­nent part of Repub­li­can pol­i­tics. In 1972, Nixon’s State Depart­ment spokesman con­firmed to his Aus­tralian coun­ter­part that the eth­nic groups were very use­ful to get out the vote in sev­er­al key states. Bush’s tenure as head of the Repub­li­can Nation­al Com­mit­tee exact­ly coin­cid­ed with Las­z­lo Pasztor’s 1972 dri­ve to trans­form the Her­itage Groups Coun­cil into the party’s offi­cial eth­nic arm. The groups Pasz­tor chose as Bush’s cam­paign allies were the émi­gré Fas­cists whom Dulles had brought to the Unit­ed States. . . . ”

We note that the GOP “eth­nics” are inex­tri­ca­bly linked with the Gehlen spy outfit–itself an exten­sion of the Third Reich’s nation­al secu­ri­ty establishment–and the Bor­mann flight cap­i­tal net­work, an under­ground per­pet­u­a­tion of the Third Reich.

We note that the same hypocrites–GOP, main­stream media, “alter­na­tive” media and the so-called “pro­gres­sive” sector–who stri­dent­ly pos­tured against racism/fascism after Char­lottesville have remained duti­ful­ly silent about the re-instate­ment of the OUN/B in Ukraine, as well as that regime’s res­o­nance with the Aryan Nations milieu in the U.S.

The hypocrisy of the GOP in their mealy-mouthed con­dem­na­tions of racism and Trump’s reac­tion to it exceed even the mar­row-deep hypocrisy of the main­stream media and the so-called “proges­sive sec­tor,” which have spent years lion­iz­ing the very “Alt-right” forces that man­i­fest­ed in Char­lotesville. Those very “Alt-right” forces we saw in Charlottesville–including the Neo-Con­fed­er­ate movment–are embod­ied in Eddie Snow­den, Wik­iLeaks, Green­wald and Pierre Omid­yar, as dis­cussed in–among oth­er programs–FTR #‘s 755, 756, 888, 889, 917.

Con­clud­ing the pro­gram, we reviewed infor­ma­tion about Bernie Sanders and his right-wing con­nec­tions, not­ing that:

1.-The ide­o­log­i­cal petri dish in which Sanders was cul­tured was the Social­ist Work­ers Par­ty, a Trot­skyite polit­i­cal par­ty that was so infil­trat­ed by Nazis and spooks estab­lish­ing a “left cov­er” that it was lit­tle more than a fas­cist intel­li­gence front. Lyn­don LaRouche was cul­tured in the same petri dish.
2.-Trotskyite pol­i­tics was seen by Hitler as a use­ful par­a­digm for under­ground infil­tra­tion of a tar­get­ed polit­i­cal milieu.
3.-Sanders’ cam­paign was financed by Karl Rove.
4.-Sanders pro­posed to have all Demo­c­ra­t­ic Pres­i­den­tial pri­maries “open,” mean­ing Repub­li­cans could vote in the pri­ma­ry, per­mit­ting the GOP to select the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Pres­i­den­tial can­di­date. It is a safe bet that this was a major rea­son for Rove’s finan­cial back­ing of Sanders.
5.-Tulsi Gab­bard is joined at the hip with Sanders. Gab­bard is a left-cov­er Hin­dut­va fas­cist, as dis­cussed in FTR #‘s 941, 942, 945.
6.-Jeremy Chris­t­ian (Port­land, Ore­gon) and James Hodgkin­son (alleged­ly shot Steve Scalise) were both Sandernistas. Are fas­cists infil­trat­ing the Sanders move­ment, to give them­selves a “left cov­er” for the per­pe­tra­tion of vio­lence, much as they had the SWP?


FTR #972 They Are All Bound on the Wheel: Reflections on Charlottesville

With the main­stream media, the so-called “alter­na­tive media,” the so-called “pro­gres­sive sec­tor” and the GOP beat­ing their breasts over Don­ald Trump’s pre­dictably equiv­o­cal reac­tion to the vio­lence in Char­lottesville (Vir­ginia), we high­light the pro­found com­plic­i­ty with all of these ele­ments with the very white suprema­cist, Nazi and Neo-Con­fed­er­ate move­ments that are at the foun­da­tion of the events in ques­tion.

For the last sev­er­al years, the main­stream media, the so-called “alter­na­tive media,” and the so-called “pro­gres­sive sec­tor” have man­i­fest­ed an almost erot­ic obses­sion with the over­lap­ping activ­i­ties of Eddie the Friend­ly Spook (Snow­den), Julian Assange and Wik­iLeaks, Glenn Green­wald and Green­wald’s media finan­cial angel Pierre Omid­yar.

All of the focal points of their col­lec­tive adu­la­tion are at one with the very white suprema­cist, Nazi and Neo-Con­fed­er­ate forces that coa­lesced on behalf of the preser­va­tion of the Con­fed­er­ate memo­ri­als in Char­lottesville. Key points of dis­cus­sion and analy­sis include:

1.-Eddie Snow­den’s strong links to the Ron Paul polit­i­cal milieu. Snow­den gave mon­ey to Paul’s cam­paign, whose super-PAC was cap­i­tal­ized large­ly by Peter Thiel, a key Trump sup­port­er.
2.-The fact that Ron Paul has been net­work­ing with David Duke for decades. (Duke was promi­nent at Char­lottesville.)
3.-The fact that Snow­den’s first attor­ney (and the attor­ney for the Snow­den fam­i­ly) was Bruce Fein, the chief legal coun­sel for Ron Paul’s 2012 Pres­i­den­tial cam­paign.
4.-Fein also net­worked with the Ger­man-based Schiller Insti­tute, run by the fas­cist orga­ni­za­tion of Lyn­don LaRouche.
5.-Ron Paul is very close to the Neo-Con­fed­er­ate move­ment and the heav­i­ly-over­lapped Lud­wig von Mis­es Insti­tute.
6.-Ron Paul aide Wal­ter Block, anoth­er of Paul’s sup­port­ers and a res­i­dent schol­ar at the Lud­wig von Mis­es Insti­tute is not only sup­port­ive of the neo-Con­fed­er­ate move­ment but advanced a the­o­ry of “vol­un­tary slav­ery.” Vol­un­tary slav­ery could be viewed as the ulti­mate col­lat­er­al­ized debt oblig­a­tion!
7.-Julian Assange is also a big Ron and Rand Paul fan. Fur­ther­more, Assange and his fas­cist aide, doc­tri­naire Holo­caust-denier Joran Jer­mas (aka “Israel Shamir”) are inex­tri­ca­bly linked with a Swedish, Russ­ian and Ukrain­ian fas­cist milieu that enfolds Carl Lund­strom, Daniel Friberg and David Duke.
8.-Glenn Green­wald spent years run­ning legal inter­fer­ence for Nazi mur­der­ers and the “lead­er­less resis­tance” strat­e­gy Mr. Fields used to fatal­ly-injure one of the demon­stra­tors in Char­lottesville. Green­wald worked pro-bono.
9.-In addi­tion to lion­iz­ing Snow­den, Assange and Greenwald–all of whom are, basi­cal­ly, “Alt-Right,” the main­stream media, the so-called “alter­na­tive media” and the so-called “pro­gres­sive” sec­tor have oozed all over Pierre Omid­yar and his media under­tak­ings, which have been the foun­da­tion for Snow­den, Green­wald and Assange’s media pre­sen­ta­tions.
10.-Omidyar helped finance the coup in Ukraine, which brought OUN/B suc­ces­sor orga­ni­za­tions to pow­er and also aid­ed in the rise of Naren­dra Modi in India. Mod­i’s BJP Par­ty is a cat’s paw for the Hin­du nationalist/fascist RSS, the orga­ni­za­tion that mur­dered Gand­hi. Roy Proster­man, Omid­yar’s pri­ma­ry admin­is­tra­tor of his phil­an­thropic under­tak­ings, was a vet­er­an of the Phoenix assas­si­na­tion pro­gram in Viet­nam.
11.-Particularly grotesque is the right­eous pos­tur­ing of the GOP, whose mem­bers have scram­bled to go “on record” decry­ing racism and Nazism, inton­ing that such things are “un-Amer­i­can,” or words to that effect. In fact, the GOP is joined at the hip with the Anti-Bol­she­vik Bloc of Nations, formed in 1943 by Adolf Hitler as the Com­mit­tee of Sub­ju­gat­ed Nations. A con­sor­tium of East­ern and Cen­tral Euro­pean fas­cist groups, the ABN became a major play­er in the GOP’s eth­nic out­reach orga­ni­za­tion.

The mar­riage of the GOP and the ABN was effect­ed under the aus­pices of the Cru­sade for Free­dom, a dual-sided covert oper­a­tion with the GOP/ABN nexus at the root of a domes­tic polit­i­cal oper­a­tion and the com­bat sup­port afford­ed guer­ril­las from the OUN/B and oth­er East­ern Euro­pean fas­cist fight­ing by the Office of Pol­i­cy Coor­di­na­tion (which mor­phed into the CIA’s Direc­torate of plans): “. . . . Frus­tra­tion over Truman’s 1948 elec­tion vic­to­ry over Dewey (which they blamed on the “Jew­ish vote”) impelled Dulles and his pro­tégé Richard Nixon to work toward the real­iza­tion of the fas­cist free­dom fight­er pres­ence in the Repub­li­can Party’s eth­nic out­reach orga­ni­za­tion. As a young con­gress­man, Nixon had been Allen Dulles’s con­fi­dant. . . .

. . . . Vice Pres­i­dent Nixon’s secret polit­i­cal war of Nazis against Jews in Amer­i­can pol­i­tics was nev­er inves­ti­gat­ed at the time. The for­eign lan­guage-speak­ing Croa­t­ians and oth­er Fas­cist émi­gré groups had a ready-made net­work for con­tact­ing and mobi­liz­ing the East­ern Euro­pean eth­nic bloc. There is a very high cor­re­la­tion between CIA domes­tic sub­si­dies to Fas­cist ‘free­dom fight­ers’ dur­ing the 1950’s and the lead­er­ship of the Repub­li­can Party’s eth­nic cam­paign groups. The motive for the under-the-table financ­ing was clear: Nixon used Nazis to off­set the Jew­ish vote for the Democ­rats. . . .

. . . . In 1952, Nixon had formed an Eth­nic Divi­sion with­in the Repub­li­can Nation­al Com­mit­tee. Dis­placed fas­cists, hop­ing to be returned to pow­er by an Eisen­how­er-Nixon ‘lib­er­a­tion’ pol­i­cy signed on with the com­mit­tee. In 1953, when Repub­li­cans were in office, the immi­gra­tion laws were changed to admit Nazis, even mem­bers of the SS. They flood­ed into the coun­try. Nixon him­self over­saw the new immi­gra­tion pro­gram. [This is a Repub­li­can pro-immi­gra­tion program–D.E.] . . .”

The key fig­ures in the CFF became the cream of the Rea­gan admin­is­tra­tion. ” . . . . As a young movie actor in the ear­ly 1950s, Rea­gan was employed as the pub­lic spokesper­son for an OPC front named the ‘Cru­sade for Free­dom.’ Rea­gan may not have known it, but 99 per­cent for the Crusade’s funds came from clan­des­tine accounts, which were then laun­dered through the Cru­sade to var­i­ous orga­ni­za­tions such as Radio Lib­er­ty, which employed Dulles’s Fas­cists. Bill Casey, who lat­er became CIA direc­tor under Ronald Rea­gan, also worked in Ger­many after World War II on Dulles’ Nazi ‘free­dom fight­ers’ pro­gram. When he returned to New York, Casey head­ed up anoth­er OPC front, the Inter­na­tion­al Res­cue Com­mit­tee, which spon­sored the immi­gra­tion of these Fas­cists to the Unit­ed States. Casey’s com­mit­tee replaced the Inter­na­tion­al Red Cross as the spon­sor for Dulles’s recruits. . . . 

. . . . It was [George H.W.] Bush who ful­filled Nixon’s promise to make the ‘eth­nic emi­gres’ a per­ma­nent part of Repub­li­can pol­i­tics. In 1972, Nixon’s State Depart­ment spokesman con­firmed to his Aus­tralian coun­ter­part that the eth­nic groups were very use­ful to get out the vote in sev­er­al key states. Bush’s tenure as head of the Repub­li­can Nation­al Com­mit­tee exact­ly coin­cid­ed with Las­z­lo Pasztor’s 1972 dri­ve to trans­form the Her­itage Groups Coun­cil into the party’s offi­cial eth­nic arm. The groups Pasz­tor chose as Bush’s cam­paign allies were the émi­gré Fas­cists whom Dulles had brought to the Unit­ed States. . . . ”


FTR #943 The Gehlen Gang, the High-Profile Hacks and the New Cold War

With a new Cold War gain­ing momen­tum and charges of Russ­ian inter­fer­ence in the U.S. elec­tion, this pro­gram takes stock of infor­ma­tion point­ing in the oth­er direc­tion. After review­ing pre­vi­ous dis­cus­sion of why the DNC, John Podes­ta and NSA “hacks” do not with­stand scruti­ny, the broad­cast sets forth infor­ma­tion indi­cat­ing that Ukrain­ian fas­cists and relat­ed ele­ments may well be the authors of a “cyber false-flag” oper­a­tion.

Not only is the so-called “evi­dence” char­ac­ter­is­tic of a rel­a­tive­ly clum­sy false-flag operation–albeit one con­duct­ed on the internet–but the so-called “experts,” link to the milieu of the Rein­hard Gehlen “Org.”

The joint CIA/FBI/NSA declas­si­fied ver­sion of the Intel­li­gence Report on Russ­ian hack­ing came out. There is no sub­stan­tive detail in the report:“ . . . . To sum­ma­rize, the report says that the CIA, FBI, and Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Agency believe that Russ­ian hackers—directed ulti­mate­ly by Vladimir Putin—hacked email accounts belong­ing to the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Nation­al Com­mit­tee and to Clin­ton cam­paign chair­man John Podes­ta and then passed the mate­r­i­al they obtained on to Wik­iLeaks through a third par­ty. This was done, the report asserts, because the Rus­sians believed that Don­ald Trump would be friend­lier to their country’s inter­ests, as pres­i­dent, than Hillary Clin­ton. And … that’s about it. Not count­ing intro pages or appen­dices, the report is five pages long and does not include any descrip­tion of the actu­al evi­dence that Russ­ian actors were respon­si­ble for the DNC/Podesta hacks (an asser­tion that’s sup­port­ed by pub­licly avail­able evi­dence ana­lyzed by third par­ties) or the asser­tion that Putin ulti­mate­ly direct­ed the release of hacked mate­r­i­al in order to help elect Don­ald Trump (an asser­tion that’s hard­er to ver­i­fy inde­pen­dent­ly). . . . .”

The Bit­ly tech­nol­o­gy used in the hacks enabled the entire world to see what was going on! This strong­ly indi­cates a cyber-false flag oper­a­tion: ” . . . . Using Bit­ly allowed ‘third par­ties to see their entire cam­paign includ­ing all their tar­gets— some­thing you’d want to keep secret,’ Tom Finney, a researcher at Secure­Works, told Moth­er­board. It was one of Fan­cy Bear’s ‘gravest mis­takes,’ as Thomas Rid, a pro­fes­sor at King’s Col­lege who has close­ly stud­ied the case, put it in a new piece pub­lished on Thurs­day in Esquire, as it gave researchers unprece­dent­ed vis­i­bil­i­ty into the activ­i­ties of Fan­cy Bear, link­ing dif­fer­ent parts of its larg­er cam­paign togeth­er. . . .”

It should be not­ed that while this report is signed off on by the CIA, NSA, and FBI, the FBI nev­er exam­ined the DNC’s hacked serv­er. Instead, accord­ing to the DNC, the job was out­sourced to Crowd­Strike! Nei­ther the FBI, nor any oth­er U.S. gov­ern­ment enti­ty has run an inde­pen­dent foren­sic analy­sis on the sys­tem! ” . . . Six months after the FBI first said it was inves­ti­gat­ing the hack of the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Nation­al Committee’s com­put­er net­work, the bureau has still not request­ed access to the hacked servers, a DNC spokesman said. No US gov­ern­ment enti­ty has run an inde­pen­dent foren­sic analy­sis on the sys­tem, one US intel­li­gence offi­cial told Buz­zFeed News. . . .The FBI has instead relied on com­put­er foren­sics from a third-par­ty tech secu­ri­ty com­pa­ny, Crowd­Strike, which first deter­mined in May of last year that the DNC’s servers had been infil­trat­ed by Rus­sia-linked hack­ers, the U.S. intel­li­gence offi­cial told Buz­zFeed News. . .‘Crowd­Strike is pret­ty good. There’s no rea­son to believe that any­thing that they have con­clud­ed is not accu­rate,’ the intel­li­gence offi­cial said, adding they were con­fi­dent Rus­sia was behind the wide­spread hacks. . . It’s unclear why the FBI didn’t request access to the DNC servers, and whether it’s com­mon prac­tice when the bureau inves­ti­gates the cyber­at­tacks against pri­vate enti­ties by state actors, like when the Sony Cor­po­ra­tion was hacked by North Korea in 2014. Buz­zFeed News spoke to three cyber­se­cu­ri­ty com­pa­nies who have worked on major breach­es in the last 15 months, who said that it was “par for the course” for the FBI to do their own foren­sic research into the hacks. None want­ed to com­ment on the record on anoth­er cyber­se­cu­ri­ty company’s work, or the work being done by a nation­al secu­ri­ty agency. . . .”

The FBI claims that the DNC denied them access to the servers! Right! Note the promi­nence of Crowd­Strike in this imbroglio. More about them below. ” . . . . The FBI struck back at the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Nation­al Com­mit­tee on Thurs­day, accus­ing it of deny­ing fed­er­al inves­ti­ga­tors access to its com­put­er sys­tems and ham­string­ing its inves­ti­ga­tion into the infil­tra­tion of DNC servers by Rus­sia-backed hack­ers. ‘The FBI repeat­ed­ly stressed to DNC offi­cials the neces­si­ty of obtain­ing direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the ini­tial com­pro­mise had been mit­i­gat­ed. This left the FBI no choice but to rely upon a third par­ty for infor­ma­tion,’ a senior law enforce­ment offi­cial told Buz­zFeed News in a state­ment. ‘These actions caused sig­nif­i­cant delays and inhib­it­ed the FBI from address­ing the intru­sion ear­li­er.’ . . . The war­ring state­ments are the lat­est twists in an extra­or­di­nary stand­off between the Democ­rats and fed­er­al inves­ti­ga­tors that reached a fever pitch over the bureau’s probe into Demo­c­ra­t­ic nom­i­nee Hillary Clinton’s pri­vate email serv­er. . . . The FBI announced it was inves­ti­gat­ing the hack of the DNC’s servers in July, after a third-par­ty com­put­er secu­ri­ty firm, Crowd­strike, said it had evi­dence of Krem­lin-backed hack­ers infil­trat­ing its sys­tem. . . .”

The DNC respond­ed to the FBI’s counter-asser­tion by reassert­ing that it’s giv­ing the FBI full access to what­ev­er it request­ed. If there’s a prob­lem with the FBI get­ting access to that serv­er, it’s a prob­lem between the FBI and Crowd­strike: ” . . . The FBI had pre­vi­ous­ly told law­mak­ers on the Hill that the DNC had not allowed fed­er­al inves­ti­ga­tors to access their servers. After Buz­zFeed News report­ed on Wednes­day that the DNC claimed FBI agents had nev­er asked for the servers, con­gres­sion­al offi­cials pres­sured the FBI for answers. A senior law enforce­ment offi­cial issued a pub­lic state­ment on the mat­ter Thurs­day night. ‘Some­one is lying their ass off,’ a US intel­li­gence offi­cial said of the war­ring state­ments. But offi­cials with the DNC still assert they’ve ‘coop­er­at­ed with the FBI 150%.They’ve had access to any­thing they want. Any­thing that they desire. Any­thing they’ve asked, we’ve coop­er­at­ed,’ the DNC offi­cial said. ‘If any­body con­tra­dicts that it’s between Crowd­strike and the FBI.’ . . .With­out direct access to the com­put­er net­work, anoth­er US intel­li­gence offi­cial told Buz­zFeed, fed­er­al inves­ti­ga­tors had been forced to rely on the find­ings of the pri­vate cyber­se­cu­ri­ty firm Crowd­strike for com­put­er foren­sics. From May through August of 2016, the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Nation­al Com­mit­tee paid Crowd­strike $267,807 dol­lars for main­te­nance, data ser­vices and con­sult­ing, among oth­er things, accord­ing to fed­er­al records. . . .”

An impor­tant arti­cle under­scores that many tech experts dis­agree with the gov­ern­men­t’s so-called analy­sis: ” . . . . Yet despite the scores of breath­less media pieces that assert that Russia’s inter­fer­ence in the elec­tion is ‘case closed,‘might some skep­ti­cism be in order? Some cyber experts say ‘yes.’ . . . Cyber-secu­ri­ty experts have also weighed in. The secu­ri­ty edi­tor at Ars Tech­ni­ca observed that ‘Instead of pro­vid­ing smok­ing guns that the Russ­ian gov­ern­ment was behind spe­cif­ic hacks,’ the gov­ern­ment report ‘large­ly restates pre­vi­ous pri­vate sec­tor claims with­out pro­vid­ing any sup­port for their valid­i­ty.’ Robert M. Lee of the cyber-secu­ri­ty com­pa­ny Dra­gos not­ed that the report ‘reads like a poor­ly done ven­dor intel­li­gence report string­ing togeth­er var­i­ous aspects of attri­bu­tion with­out evi­dence.’ Cyber­se­cu­ri­ty con­sul­tant Jef­frey Carr not­ed that the report ‘mere­ly list­ed every threat group ever report­ed on by a com­mer­cial cyber­se­cu­ri­ty com­pa­ny that is sus­pect­ed of being Russ­ian-made and lumped them under the head­ing of Russ­ian Intel­li­gence Ser­vices (RIS) with­out pro­vid­ing any sup­port­ing evi­dence that such a con­nec­tion exists.’ . . .”

CrowdStrike–at the epi­cen­ter of the sup­posed Russ­ian hack­ing con­tro­ver­sy is note­wor­thy. Its co-founder and chief tech­nol­o­gy offi­cer, Dmit­ry Alper­ovitch is a senior fel­low at the Atlantic Coun­cil, financed by ele­ments that are at the foun­da­tion of fan­ning the flames of the New Cold War: “In this respect, it is worth not­ing that one of the com­mer­cial cyber­se­cu­ri­ty com­pa­nies the gov­ern­ment has relied on is Crowd­strike, which was one of the com­pa­nies ini­tial­ly brought in by the DNC to inves­ti­gate the alleged hacks. . . . Dmitri Alper­ovitch is also a senior fel­low at the Atlantic Coun­cil. . . . The con­nec­tion between [Crowd­strike co-founder and chief tech­nol­o­gy offi­cer Dmitri] Alper­ovitch and the Atlantic Coun­cil has gone large­ly unre­marked upon, but it is rel­e­vant giv­en that the Atlantic Council—which is is fund­ed in part by the US State Depart­ment, NATO, the gov­ern­ments of Latvia and Lithua­nia, the Ukrain­ian World Con­gress, and the Ukrain­ian oli­garch Vic­tor Pinchuk—has been among the loud­est voic­es call­ing for a new Cold War with Rus­sia. As I point­ed out in the pages of The Nation in Novem­ber, the Atlantic Coun­cil has spent the past sev­er­al years pro­duc­ing some of the most vir­u­lent spec­i­mens of the new Cold War pro­pa­gan­da. . . . ”

There was an update back in Decem­ber from the Ger­man gov­ern­ment regard­ing its assess­ment of the 2015 Bundgestag hacks (attrib­uted to “Fan­cy Bear” and “Cozy Bear,” as men­tioned in the San­dro Gay­ck­en post above) that it attrib­uted to APT28 and Rus­sia: while it asserts the hacks did indeed take place, the leaked doc­u­ments were lat­er deter­mined to be an insid­er leak (via Google trans­late). “ . . . . Accord­ing to the report, fed­er­al secu­ri­ty author­i­ties are con­vinced that not hack­ers had stolen the 2420 doc­u­ments pub­lished by the Inter­net plat­form Wik­ileaks in ear­ly Decem­ber. There was cer­tain­ly no evi­dence that the mate­r­i­al had been stolen in the cyber attack on the Bun­destag in 2015, it was called into secu­ri­ty crises. . . . ”

Anoth­er arti­cle details at length the skep­ti­cism and out­right scorn many cyber­se­cu­ri­ty experts feel con­cern­ing the report. ” . . . . Did the Russ­ian gov­ern­ment hack the DNC and feed doc­u­ments to Wik­iLeaks? There are real­ly two ques­tions here: who hacked the DNC, and who released the DNC doc­u­ments? These are not nec­es­sar­i­ly the same. An ear­li­er intru­sion into Ger­man par­lia­ment servers was blamed on the Rus­sians, yet the release of doc­u­ments to Wik­iLeaks is thought to have orig­i­nat­ed from an insid­er. [35] Had the Rus­sians hacked into the DNC, it may have been to gath­er intel­li­gence, while anoth­er actor released the doc­u­ments. But it is far from cer­tain that Russ­ian intel­li­gence ser­vices had any­thing to do with the intru­sions. Julian Assange says that he did not receive the DNC doc­u­ments from a nation-state. It has been point­ed out that Rus­sia could have used a third par­ty to pass along the mate­r­i­al. Fair enough, but for­mer UK diplo­mat Craig Mur­ray asserts: ‘I know who the source is… It’s from a Wash­ing­ton insid­er. It’s not from Rus­sia.’ [We won­der if it might have been Tul­si Gabbard–D.E.] [36] . . . .”

Exem­pli­fy­ing some of the points of dis­sen­sion in the above-linked sto­ry: ” . . . . Cyber­se­cu­ri­ty ana­lyst Robert Gra­ham was par­tic­u­lar­ly blis­ter­ing in his assess­ment of the government’s report, char­ac­ter­iz­ing it as “full of garbage.” The report fails to tie the indi­ca­tors of com­pro­mise to the Russ­ian gov­ern­ment. ‘It con­tains sig­na­tures of virus­es that are pub­licly avail­able, used by hack­ers around the world, not just Rus­sia. It con­tains a long list of IP address­es from per­fect­ly nor­mal ser­vices, like Tor, Google, Drop­box, Yahoo, and so forth. Yes, hack­ers use Yahoo for phish­ing and mal­ad­ver­tis­ing. It doesn’t mean every access of Yahoo is an ‘indi­ca­tor of com­pro­mise’.’ Gra­ham com­pared the list of IP address­es against those accessed by his web brows­er, and found two match­es. ‘No,’ he con­tin­ues. ‘This doesn’t mean I’ve been hacked. It means I just had a nor­mal inter­ac­tion with Yahoo. It means the Griz­zly Steppe IoCs are garbage. . . .”

The source code used in the attacks traces back to Ukraine! ” . . . . In con­junc­tion with the report, the FBI and Depart­ment of Home­land Secu­ri­ty pro­vid­ed a list of IP address­es it iden­ti­fied with Russ­ian intel­li­gence ser­vices. [22] Word­fence ana­lyzed the IP address­es as well as a PHP mal­ware script pro­vid­ed by the Depart­ment of Home­land Secu­ri­ty. In ana­lyz­ing the source code, Word­fence dis­cov­ered that the soft­ware used was P.A.S., ver­sion 3.1.0. It then found that the web­site that man­u­fac­tures the mal­ware had a site coun­try code indi­cat­ing that it is Ukrain­ian. [Note this!–D.E.] The cur­rent ver­sion of the P.A.S. soft­ware is 4.1.1, which is much new­er than that used in the DNC hack, and the lat­est ver­sion has changed ‘quite sub­stan­tial­ly.’ Word­fence notes that not only is the soft­ware ‘com­mon­ly avail­able,’ but also that it would be rea­son­able to expect ‘Russ­ian intel­li­gence oper­a­tives to devel­op their own tools or at least use cur­rent mali­cious tools from out­side sources.’ To put it plain­ly, Word­fence con­cludes that the mal­ware sam­ple ‘has no appar­ent rela­tion­ship with Russ­ian intel­li­gence.’ . . .”

The pro­gram con­cludes with a fright­en­ing piece of leg­is­la­tion signed into law by Barack Oba­ma in Decem­ber. It is an omi­nous por­tent of the use of gov­ern­ment and mil­i­tary pow­er to sup­press dis­sent­ing views as being “Russ­ian” pro­pa­gan­da tools! “. . . . The new law is remark­able for a num­ber of rea­sons, not the least because it merges a new McCarthy­ism about pur­port­ed dis­sem­i­na­tion of Russ­ian ‘pro­pa­gan­da’ on the Inter­net with a new Orwellian­ism by cre­at­ing a kind of Min­istry of Truth – or Glob­al Engage­ment Cen­ter – to pro­tect the Amer­i­can peo­ple from ‘for­eign pro­pa­gan­da and dis­in­for­ma­tion.’ . . . As part of the effort to detect and defeat these unwant­ed nar­ra­tives, the law autho­rizes the Cen­ter to: ‘Facil­i­tate the use of a wide range of tech­nolo­gies and tech­niques by shar­ing exper­tise among Fed­er­al depart­ments and agen­cies, seek­ing exper­tise from exter­nal sources, and imple­ment­ing best prac­tices.’ (This sec­tion is an appar­ent ref­er­ence to pro­pos­als that Google, Face­book and oth­er tech­nol­o­gy com­pa­nies find ways to block or brand cer­tain Inter­net sites as pur­vey­ors of ‘Russ­ian pro­pa­gan­da’ or ‘fake news.’) . . .”

Pro­gram High­lights Include: review of infor­ma­tion from pre­vi­ous pro­grams link­ing the dis­in­for­ma­tion about the high-pro­file hacks to the milieu of Ukrain­ian fas­cism; review of Alexan­dra Chalu­pa’s role in dis­sem­i­nat­ing the “Rus­sia did it” meme; review of “Eddie the Friend­ly Spook” Snow­den’s role in the dis­in­for­ma­tion about the high-pro­file hacks; the imple­men­ta­tion of a fright­en­ing new law autho­riz­ing the Pen­ta­gon and oth­er gov­ern­ment agen­cies to act to counter any infor­ma­tion seen as “Russ­ian pro­pa­gan­da.”


Sign of the Times: “US Says Anti-Nazi Resolution at U.N. Restricts Free Speech”

“The Unit­ed States was one of three coun­tries to vote against a U.N. res­o­lu­tion con­demn­ing the glo­ri­fi­ca­tion of Nazism on Thurs­day, cit­ing free­dom of speech issues and con­cerns Rus­sia was using it to car­ry out polit­i­cal attacks against its neigh­bors. The res­o­lu­tion enti­tled ‘Com­bat­ing glo­ri­fi­ca­tion of Nazism, Neo-Nazism and oth­er prac­tices that con­tribute to fuel­ing con­tem­po­rary forms of racism, racial dis­crim­i­na­tion, xeno­pho­bia and relat­ed intol­er­ance,’ was approved by the U.N.’s human rights com­mit­tee on Fri­day with 131 in favor, 3 against with 48 absten­tions. Ukraine and Palau were the oth­er no votes. . . .” This was the sec­ond time in three years that the U.S. vetoed such a res­o­lu­tion. All of the con­tents of this web­site as of 12/19/2014–Dave Emory’s 35+ 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 #930 The Trumpenkampfverbande, Part 9: Alfa Males, Part 3 (German Ostpolitik, Part 3)

With the (jus­ti­fi­able) out­rage swirling around FBI direc­tor (and Mitt Rom­ney backer) James Comey’s pub­lic dis­cus­sion of the dis­cov­ery of more of Hillary Clin­ton’s e‑mails hav­ing been dis­cov­ered, anoth­er elec­tion-relat­ed inves­ti­ga­tion has gone large­ly unex­am­ined. Indeed, the impor­tance of the inves­ti­ga­tion has been down­played.

Com­put­er experts dis­cov­ered a link between a serv­er reg­is­tered to the Trump orga­ni­za­tion and two servers reg­is­tered to the Alfa Bank in Moscow, a bank that is part of the Alfa con­glom­er­ate dis­cussed in FTR #‘s 530 and 573.

In the Foer piece, and in attempt­ed dis­cred­it­ing arti­cles of same, it is appar­ent that the inves­ti­ga­tors do not under­stand the nature of the enti­ty they are inves­ti­gat­ing. The jour­nal­is­tic “spin” put on Alfa in the cov­er­age is “Russia/Putin/Kremlin” new Cold War con­text. Alfa is very, very dif­fer­ent.

In FTR #‘s 530, 573 we examnined the nature of Alfa’s his­to­ry, oper­a­tions and insti­tu­tion­al and eco­nom­ic foun­da­tions. It is any­thing BUT “Kremlin/Putin/Russia.”

It appears to be Under­ground Reich, all the way, with evi­den­tiary trib­u­taries run­ning in the direc­tion of: the Iran-Con­tra scan­dal; the Iraq­gate scan­dal; the oil-for-food scam vis a vis Iraq; malfeasanace by a coterie of GOP big­wigs includ­ing Dick Cheney and oth­ers close to George W. Bush, and Haley Bar­bour; mon­ey-laun­der­ing by pow­er­ful inter­na­tion­al drug syn­di­cates; Chechen war­lords and drug-traf­fick­ing syn­di­cates; the Roy­al fam­i­ly of Liecht­en­stein; the Bank al-Taqwa (which helped finance al-Qae­da); the Marc Rich oper­a­tions; East­ern Euro­pean and Russ­ian asso­ciates of Wolf­gang Bohringer, one of Mohamed Atta’s close asso­ciates in South Flori­da; and the Carl Duis­berg Fel­low­ship, which brought Mohamed Atta to Ger­many from Egypt and may have helped him into the U.S.

The pro­gram high­lights major aspects of the inves­ti­ga­tion into the Alfa/Trump link:

The Trump/Alfa link was not a mal­ware attack, as some of the com­put­er sci­en­tists ini­tial­ly thought: ” . . . . The researchers quick­ly dis­missed their ini­tial fear that the logs rep­re­sent­ed a mal­ware attack. The com­mu­ni­ca­tion wasn’t the work of bots. The irreg­u­lar pat­tern of serv­er lookups actu­al­ly resem­bled the pat­tern of human conversation—conversations that began dur­ing office hours in New York and con­tin­ued dur­ing office hours in Moscow. It dawned on the researchers that this wasn’t an attack, but a sus­tained rela­tion­ship between a serv­er reg­is­tered to the Trump Orga­ni­za­tion and two servers reg­is­tered to an enti­ty called Alfa Bank. . . .”

The set-up was high­ly unusu­al: ” . . . . The researchers had ini­tial­ly stum­bled in their diag­no­sis because of the odd con­fig­u­ra­tion of Trump’s serv­er. ‘I’ve nev­er seen a serv­er set up like that,’ says Christo­pher Davis, who runs the cyber­se­cu­ri­ty firm HYAS InfoS­ec Inc. and won a FBI Direc­tor Award for Excel­lence for his work track­ing down the authors of one of the world’s nas­ti­est bot­net attacks. ‘It looked weird, and it didn’t pass the sniff test.’ The serv­er was first reg­is­tered to Trump’s busi­ness in 2009 and was set up to run con­sumer mar­ket­ing cam­paigns. It had a his­to­ry of send­ing mass emails on behalf of Trump-brand­ed prop­er­ties and prod­ucts. Researchers were ulti­mate­ly con­vinced that the serv­er indeed belonged to Trump. (Click here to see the server’s reg­is­tra­tion record.) But now this capa­cious serv­er han­dled a strange­ly small load of traf­fic, such a small load that it would be hard for a com­pa­ny to jus­ti­fy the expense and trou­ble it would take to main­tain it. ‘I get more mail in a day than the serv­er han­dled,’ Davis says. . . .”
The arti­cle details more unusu­al aspects of the link: ” . . . . That wasn’t the only odd­i­ty. When the researchers pinged the serv­er, they received error mes­sages. They con­clud­ed that the serv­er was set to accept only incom­ing com­mu­ni­ca­tion from a very small hand­ful of IP address­es. . . . Eighty-sev­en per­cent of the DNS lookups involved the two Alfa Bank servers. ‘It’s pret­ty clear that it’s not an open mail serv­er,’ Camp told me. ‘These orga­ni­za­tions are com­mu­ni­cat­ing in a way designed to block oth­er peo­ple out.’ . . . .”

Paul Vixie–one of the pre­mier experts in the field–felt the con­nec­tion was high­ly unusu­al: ” . . . . Ear­li­er this month, the group of com­put­er sci­en­tists passed the logs to Paul Vix­ie. In the world of DNS experts, there’s no high­er author­i­ty. Vix­ie wrote cen­tral strands of the DNS code that makes the inter­net work. After study­ing the logs, he con­clud­ed, ‘The par­ties were com­mu­ni­cat­ing in a secre­tive fash­ion. The oper­a­tive word is secre­tive. This is more akin to what crim­i­nal syn­di­cates do if they are putting togeth­er a project.’ Put dif­fer­ent­ly, the logs sug­gest­ed that Trump and Alfa had con­fig­ured some­thing like a dig­i­tal hot­line con­nect­ing the two enti­ties, shut­ting out the rest of the world, and designed to obscure its own exis­tence. . . .”

The avail­able evi­dence indi­cates that the hookup indi­cat­ed “human-lev­el com­mu­ni­ca­tion”: ” . . . I put the ques­tion of what kind of activ­i­ty the logs record­ed to the Uni­ver­si­ty of California’s Nicholas Weaver, anoth­er com­put­er sci­en­tist not involved in com­pil­ing the logs. ‘I can’t attest to the logs them­selves,’ he told me, ‘but assum­ing they are legit­i­mate they do indi­cate effec­tive­ly human-lev­el com­mu­ni­ca­tion.’ . . . ”

More about the nature of the com­mu­ni­ca­tion, from the sci­en­tist using the code-name “Tea Leaves”: ” . . . . Tea Leaves and his col­leagues plot­ted the data from the logs on a time­line. What it illus­trat­ed was sug­ges­tive: The con­ver­sa­tion between the Trump and Alfa servers appeared to fol­low the con­tours of polit­i­cal hap­pen­ings in the Unit­ed States. ‘At elec­tion-relat­ed moments, the traf­fic peaked,’ accord­ing to Camp. There were con­sid­er­ably more DNS lookups, for instance, dur­ing the two con­ven­tions. . . .”

The sci­en­tists attempt­ed to get the pub­lic to pay atten­tion to their inves­ti­ga­tion and New York Times writ­ers turned their atten­tion to the case: ” . . . In Sep­tem­ber, the sci­en­tists tried to get the pub­lic to pay atten­tion to their data. One of them post­ed a link to the logs in a Red­dit thread. Around the same time, the New York Times’ Eric Licht­blau and Steven Lee Myers began chas­ing the sto­ry.* (They are still pur­su­ing it.) Licht­blau met with a Wash­ing­ton rep­re­sen­ta­tive of Alfa Bank on Sept. 21, and the bank denied hav­ing any con­nec­tion to Trump. . . .”

Things got “inter­est­ing” after that. Accord­ing to the com­put­er sci­en­tists, the Trump Orga­ni­za­tion shut down the serv­er! As the bril­liant Berke­ley researcher Peter Dale Scott not­ed, in a dif­fer­ent con­text, “The cov­er-up obvi­ates the con­spir­a­cy. ” . . . . In Sep­tem­ber, the sci­en­tists tried to get the pub­lic to pay atten­tion to their data. One of them post­ed a link to the logs in a Red­dit thread. Around the same time, the New York Times’ Eric Licht­blau and Steven Lee Myers began chas­ing the sto­ry.* (They are still pur­su­ing it.) Licht­blau met with a Wash­ing­ton rep­re­sen­ta­tive of Alfa Bank on Sept. 21, and the bank denied hav­ing any con­nec­tion to Trump. . . . The com­put­er sci­en­tists believe there was one log­i­cal con­clu­sion to be drawn: The Trump Orga­ni­za­tion shut down the serv­er after Alfa was told that the Times might expose the con­nec­tion. Weaver told me the Trump domain was ‘very slop­pi­ly removed.’ Or as anoth­er of the researchers put it, it looked like ‘the knee was hit in Moscow, the leg kicked in New York.’. . . . Four days lat­er, on Sept. 27, the Trump Orga­ni­za­tion cre­at­ed a new host name, trump1.contact-client.com, which enabled com­mu­ni­ca­tion to the very same serv­er via a dif­fer­ent route. When a new host name is cre­at­ed, the first com­mu­ni­ca­tion with it is nev­er ran­dom. To reach the serv­er after the reset­ting of the host name, the sender of the first inbound mail has to first learn of the name some­how. It’s sim­ply impos­si­ble to ran­dom­ly reach a renamed serv­er. ‘That par­ty had to have some kind of out­bound mes­sage through SMS, phone, or some non­in­ter­net chan­nel they used to com­mu­ni­cate [the new con­fig­u­ra­tion],’ Paul Vix­ie told me. The first attempt to look up the revised host name came from Alfa Bank. ‘If this was a pub­lic serv­er, we would have seen oth­er traces,’ Vix­ie says. ‘The only look-ups came from this par­tic­u­lar source.‘According to Vix­ie and oth­ers, the new host name may have rep­re­sent­ed an attempt to estab­lish a new chan­nel of com­mu­ni­ca­tion. But media inquiries into the nature of Trump’s rela­tion­ship with Alfa Bank, which sug­gest­ed that their com­mu­ni­ca­tions were being mon­i­tored, may have deterred the par­ties from using it. Soon after the New York Times began to ask ques­tions, the traf­fic between the servers stopped cold. . . .”

Not sur­pris­ing­ly, the FBI has dis­missed the rel­e­vance of the com­put­er link.

This dis­missal comes against the back­ground of sev­er­al late-break­ing devel­op­ments:

The unsuc­cess­ful attempt by Alfa sub­sidiary Crown Resources to buy Marc Rich’s com­modi­ties firm: ” . . . A deal to sell the Swiss-based com­modi­ties oper­a­tion of for­mer U.S. fugi­tive financier Marc Rich to Rus­sia-owned ener­gy trad­ing group Crown Resources is off. . . . Crown is owned by the Alfa Group con­glom­er­ate. . . . .”

The sub­se­quent suc­cess­ful attempt by Alfa play­er Mikhail Frid­man to pur­chase the Marc Rich firm: ” . . . Mikhail Frid­man: ‘Defen­dant Mikhail Frid­man cur­rent­ly serves as Chair­man of the Board of Direc­tors of co-con­spir­a­tor Alfa Bank and as Chair­man of the Board of Direc­tors of Defen­dant Con­sor­tium Alfa Group. Frid­man fur­ther served on the Board of Vim­pel­Com, a NYSE com­pa­ny, and has con­trol over Gold­en Tele­com, a NASDAQ com­pa­ny ... pur­chased the Unit­ed States trad­ing firm owned by Amer­i­can, Mark Rich, the one time com­modi­ties baron par­doned by Pres­i­dent Clin­ton with much con­tro­ver­sy. . . .”

The FBI’s long-dor­mant Twit­ter account began tweet­ing files about Bill Clin­ton’s par­don of Marc Rich, short­ly after the offi­cial dis­missal of inves­ti­ga­tions into the Alfa/Trump link: ” . . . . Now, a new inter­a­gency mys­tery is rais­ing ques­tions about whether the F.B.I. has become politi­cized, just days before the pres­i­den­tial elec­tion. On Sun­day, a long-dor­mant F.B.I. Twit­ter account sud­den­ly sprung to life, blast­ing out a series of links to case files that cast the Clin­tons in a decid­ed­ly neg­a­tive light. . . . Then, on Tues­day, the “FBI Records Vault” account—which had not tweet­ed at all between Octo­ber 2015 and Sunday—published a link to records relat­ed to the 15-year-old, long-closed inves­ti­ga­tion into for­mer Pres­i­dent Bill Clinton’s par­don­ing of one­time com­modi­ties trad­er turned fugi­tive Marc Rich. The post, which was quick­ly retweet­ed thou­sands of times, links to a heav­i­ly redact­ed doc­u­ment that repeat­ed­ly ref­er­ences the agency’s “Pub­lic Cor­rup­tion” unit—less-than-ideal optics for Hillary Clin­ton, who has spent her entire cam­paign fight­ing her image as a cor­rupt politi­cian. . . .”

FBI Direc­tor James Comey was in charge of the orig­i­nal Marc Rich inves­ti­ga­tion and the par­don of Rich by Bill Clin­ton. Is there a con­nec­tion between the offi­cial dis­missal of the inves­ti­ga­tion into the Alfa/Trump link by the FBI, the tweet­ing by the FBI of the files on the Clin­ton par­don of Marc Rich and the fact that it was Comey who presided over the Marc Rich inves­ti­ga­tions? ” . . . . In 2002, Comey, then a fed­er­al pros­e­cu­tor, took over an inves­ti­ga­tion into Pres­i­dent Bill Clin­ton’s 2001 par­don of financier Marc Rich, who had been indict­ed on a laun­dry list of charges before flee­ing the coun­try. The deci­sion set off a polit­i­cal firestorm focused on accu­sa­tions that Rich’s ex-wife Denise made dona­tions to the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty, the Clin­ton Library and Hillary Clin­ton’s 2000 Sen­ate cam­paign as part of a plan to get Rich off the hook. Comey ulti­mate­ly decid­ed not to pur­sue the case. The kick­er: Comey him­self had over­seen Rich’s pros­e­cu­tion between 1987 and 1993. . . .”

Pro­gram High­lights Include: details of the Carl Duis­berg Soci­ety’s links to Atta and to major Ger­man cor­po­ra­tions; dis­cus­sion of the Alfa Fel­lowhip against the back­ground of Ger­man Ost­poli­tik dis­cussed in FTR #‘s 918 and 919; detailed analy­sis of Vik­tor Kozeny asso­ciates Frid­man and (Pyotr) Aven (Kozeny employed Bohringer as a pilot); a sum­ma­ry analy­sis of the major points in FTR #‘s 530 and 573.


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.


FTR #925 Painting Oswald “Red,” Part 1

One of the nick­names Mr. Emory has bestowed upon “Eddie the Friend­ly Spook” Snow­den is “The Obverse Oswald.” Where­as Lee Har­vey Oswald was a U.S. intel­li­gence offi­cer infil­trat­ed into the Sovi­et Union, repa­tri­at­ed and infil­trat­ed into left­ist orga­ni­za­tions, giv­en a “left cov­er” and then framed for the assas­si­na­tion of J.F.K. (and killed before he could exon­er­ate him­self), Snow­den has been infil­trat­ed into Rus­sia and por­trayed as a hero. Snow­den, like Oswald, is involved in an “op.”
Just as Oswald was “paint­ed Red,” Rus­sia appears to have been framed in the U.S. media for the hack of the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Nation­al Com­mit­tee and the non-hack of NSA cyber­weapons by the so-called Shad­ow Bro­kers.

In this first of two pro­grams, we review the process of “paint­ing Oswald Red,” by way of gain­ing his­tor­i­cal per­spec­tive on the Snow­den “op” and the fram­ing of Rus­sia for the high-pro­file hacks in the New Cold War.

After review­ing par­tic­u­lars con­cern­ing the fram­ing of Rus­sia for the hacks, we detail the fram­ing of Lee Har­vey Oswald and the Sovi­et Union for the assas­si­na­tion of Stephan Ban­dera, the head of the fas­cist Ukrain­ian OUN/B.

Sup­pos­ed­ly exe­cut­ed by the KGB, the killing was almost cer­tain­ly done by the West, with the BND being the most like­ly agency involved.

Ele­ments of the W.A.C.C.F.L. (the fore­run­ner of the World Anti-Com­mu­nist League) dis­sem­i­nat­ed the dis­in­for­ma­tion that Oswald was trained by the same KGB sub-group that man­aged Bog­dan Stashyn­sky, the killer of Ban­dera.

After Oswald returned to the U.S., he was infil­trat­ed into the Fair Play For Cuba Com­mit­tee (he was its only New Orleans mem­ber). Oswald’s alleged pro-Cas­tro stance received con­sid­er­able expo­sure as a result of an inter­view he did with WDSU in New Orleans. That inter­view, arranged by the Infor­ma­tion Coun­cil of the Amer­i­c­as, fea­tured Oswald dis­cussing his Marx­ist sym­pa­thies and his “defec­tion” to the Sovi­et Union.

The Infor­ma­tion Coun­cil of the Amer­i­c­as had close links to the U.S. intel­li­gence com­mu­ni­ty. The net effect of the paint­ing of Oswald Red was to moti­vate lib­er­als and Pres­i­dent John­son to cov­er-up the truth con­cern­ing the assas­si­na­tion, out of fear that if the Amer­i­can pub­lic believed that Kennedy was killed as a result of a Com­mu­nist con­spir­a­cy, it could lead to a Third World War.

Pro­gram High­lights Include: Oswald’s WDSU gaffe in which he dis­closed his rela­tion­ship with the U.S. gov­ern­ment while in the U.S.S.R.; the high­ly unlike­ly fact that alleged K.G.B. oper­a­tive Stashyn­sky had the bro­ken key to Bandera’s apart­ment in his pos­ses­sion when he went to tri­al two years lat­er; the equal­ly unlike­ly propo­si­tion that the oth­er half of the bro­ken key was still in the lock of Bandera’s apart­ment two years lat­er!


FTR #920 The Trumpenkampfverbande, Part 3: The Underground Reich Emerges Into Plain View

QUICK: How many Pres­i­den­tial can­di­dates can you name who kept a book of Adolf Hitler’s speech­es by their bed­side? Don­ald Trump does. For many years, what Mr. Emory terms “The Under­ground Reich” has been a fun­da­men­tal point of dis­cus­sion and analy­sis in these broad­casts and posts. In the third pro­gram ana­lyz­ing the Don­ald Trump cam­paign, we exam­ine the “Trumpenkampfver­bande,” its polit­i­cal antecedents and adher­ents. Exem­pli­fy­ing, and net­work­ing with, gen­er­a­tions of fas­cists and fas­cist orga­ni­za­tions, the Trumpenkampfver­bande embod­ies the emer­gence of the Under­ground Reich into plain view. A sig­na­ture ele­ment of Trump’s cam­paign is his resus­ci­ta­tion of the “Amer­i­ca First” slo­gan and con­cept, a man­i­fes­ta­tion both of his thin­ly-veiled appeal to Nazi and white suprema­cist ele­ments and his will­ing­ness to cede dom­i­nance over world affairs to a Ger­man-dom­i­nat­ed “third pow­er bloc.” The Amer­i­ca First con­cept mobi­lizes pow­er­ful feel­ings among those feel­ing over­whelmed and left behind by polit­i­cal and eco­nom­ic devel­op­ments glob­al­ly and in the Unit­ed States. We note that the “orig­i­nal” Amer­i­ca First was financed by Nazi Ger­many. Trump’s invo­ca­tion of Amer­i­ca First exem­pli­fies the nature of his polit­i­cal her­itage and alle­giances. One of his top advis­ers Joseph E. Schmitz, “obsessed with all things Ger­man” and, accord­ing to asso­ciates, some­one who “fired the Jews” (from the Pen­ta­gon) and man­i­fest­ed Holo­caust denial. This is not atyp­i­cal of “Team Trump.” One of the most impor­tant fig­ures in main­stream­ing “alt right” (i.e. Nazi, white nation­al­ist and anti-Semit­ic) atti­tudes has been Breitbart’s Steve Ban­non, now essen­tial­ly run­ning the Trump cam­paign. Trump and his cam­paign have a habit of re-tweet­ing infor­ma­tion from “alt right” web­sites and mes­sage boards. Of pri­ma­ry sig­nif­i­cance in ana­lyz­ing Trump con­cerns the main finan­cial backer of his real estate projects–Deutsche Bank. In addi­tion to the fact that this places a poten­tial Pres­i­dent in the posi­tion of owing upwards of $100 mil­lion to an insti­tu­tion that has open­ly defied U.S. reg­u­la­to­ry posi­tions, Deutsche Bank is a pri­ma­ry ele­ment of the remark­able and dead­ly Bor­mann cap­i­tal net­work, about which we speak so often. Pro­gram High­lights Include: Analy­sis of the pos­si­bil­i­ty that Trump’s father was in the Ku Klux Klan; review of Trump’s asso­ci­a­tion with for­mer Axis spy Nor­man Vin­cent Peale; review of Trump’s counsel–Senator Joe McCarthy aide Roy Cohn; Trump’s addi­tion­al finan­cial back­ing from George Soros, who got his start in busi­ness “Aryaniz­ing” Jew­ish prop­er­ty dur­ing the Holo­caust; Trump’s tweet­ing of a cam­paign ad fea­tur­ing Waf­fen SS-clad World War II re-enac­tors; The enthu­si­as­tic sup­poprt Trump has received from David Duke.