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.  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.]  . . . .”
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.  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.”
In FTR #’s 891 and 895, we highlighted the Broadcasting Board of Governors, a Congressional fig leaf instituted to dilute CIA control over American foreign broadcast outlets such as Radio Free Europe, Voice of America and Radio Free Asia. In addition to the broadcast outlets discussed in the story that follows, we note that the change from a “board of governors” to a “CEO” to be appointed by Trump also gives the nominee power over Radio Free Asia’s Open Technology Fund, developer of numerous apps and other technological methodologies favored by the so-called “privacy advocates.”
The replacement of the governors is seen as a potential boon to the Trump administration. “ . . . . ‘There’s some fear among the folks here, that the firewall will get diminished and attacked and this could fall victim to propaganda,’ the Republican official said. ‘They will hire the person they want, the current CEO does not stand a chance. This will pop up on Steve Bannon’s radar quickly. They are going to put a friendly person in that job.’ . . . . ”
The change will affect domestic broadcast media as well. ” . . . . Because of the modification of the Smith-Mundt Act in 2013, the BBG can now broadcast in the U.S., too. But the influence on the domestic market could be even more subtle, the Republican official warned. A BBG CEO influenced by the administration could penetrate established media outlets with packages, series or other news products produced by the BBG’s networks but picked up and aired by traditional media like Fox News or Breitbart. Many U.S. outlets currently use content from VOA. ‘No money would even change hands, you’ve had no effect on the budget,’ the official said. ‘But it will denigrate the product. . . . ‘ ”
In the context of the changes made to the BBG, we review the political inclinations of Bannon: ” . . . The late Andrew Breitbart, founder of the website Bannon went on to lead, called Bannon the “Leni Riefenstahl of the Tea Party movement”—a reference to the infamous creator of Nazi propaganda films. While insisting to a Wall Street Journal reporter in 2011 that his work isn’t propaganda, Bannon went on to cite Riefenstahl among his main influences . . . ”
Next, we turn to the subject of free trade, on which Trump has had much to say, bashing China and Mexico as countries the U.S. should “put right” in their trade relations with the U.S. It’s worth noting we haven’t heard Trump mention a trade war with Germany despite all his tirades against China and Mexico. It raises the question of why, since Germany’s unprecedented and damaging surpluses make it such an obvious trade war target.
” . . . . There is one potential trade war, however, that few people have so far noticed — but which could soon be his easiest target. Germany. Given the size of its population, it runs a far larger trade surplus than China — and a massive surplus with the U.S. in particular. Even better, the industries to pick off are relatively simple to identify, and would actually have a chance of creating well-paid American jobs. . . .
“. . . . Germany’s trade surplus is absolutely massive, and unprecedented in modern industrial history. Last year it hit 8.9% of gross domestic product, and it is likely to break through 9% before the end of 2016. Globally, it is second in size only to China’s, but given that Germany is a far smaller country, it is only fair to measure it on a per capita basis — and when you look at it that way, Germany’s surplus is seven times bigger than China’s. . . . Much of Germany’s trade surplus is clearly the result of currency manipulation. The euro has depressed the real value of the country’s exports, allowing it rack up those huge exports. You can argue about whether China’s currency is really at its fair value or not — but no one can really dispute that Germany’s currency is way, way below what it would be if it still had the deutschemark. . . .”
Obviously, part of the answer lies in the fact that Deutsche Bank–a key element of the Bormann capital network and the Underground Reich–is owed hundreds of millions of dollars by Trump. Trump’s other connections run in the direction of the Underground Reich as well. (The Trump/Deutsche Bank connection is discussed, in among other programs, FTR #’s 920, 921, 922 and 927.)
We note in passing that Germany is preparing for a trade war with the U.S.–we don’t think one will really take place, but we may be treated to Trumpian “fake news” and/or propaganda. Germany is asserting that the factors behind its enormous trade surplus can not be altered, because it is due to naturally occurring circumstances like a rapidly aging population.
” . . . There are plenty of reasons for that. Germany’s current account surplus has never been as high as it is this year and never before has that surplus represented such a significant share of the country’s gross domestic product. Making matters worse is the fact that the US is the largest consumer of German exports. . . .
“. . . . As high as it is, though, the current surplus is likely to continue growing. The recent fall in the euro’s value relative to the dollar following Trump’s election makes German products and services even more competitive. And many economists believe that the value of the dollar will continue to climb, which means that the value of the euro against the dollar will shrink correspondingly. Their predictions are based on recent indications that Trump’s announced economic stimulus policies will push up both America’s sovereign debt load and its interest rates. . . .”
The program concludes with analysis of how Trump’s continued involvement in his business empire (through his children) leaves him open to manipulation. The Philippines is a good example: “ . . . . So, under the deal, Trump’s children will be paid millions of dollars throughout their father’s presidency by Jose E.B. Antonio, the head of Century Properties.
“Duterte recently named Antonio the special government envoy to the United States. The conflicts here could not be more troubling or more blatant: President Trump will be discussing U.S. policy in Southeast Asia with one of his (or his children’s) business partners, a man who is the official representative of a foreign leader who likens himself to Hitler. Also note that the Trump family has an enormous financial interest in Duterte’s deadly campaign: Rooting out crime in the Philippines is good for the real estate values. . . . Duterte recently named Antonio the special government envoy to the United States. The conflicts here could not be more troubling or more blatant: President Trump will be discussing U.S. policy in Southeast Asia with one of his (or his children’s) business partners, a man who is the official representative of a foreign leader who likens himself to Hitler. Also note that the Trump family has an enormous financial interest in Duterte’s deadly campaign: Rooting out crime in the Philippines is good for the real estate values. . . . .”
Program Highlights Include: Trump’s business dealings in India, where members of the BJP party figure in the disposition of the operations in that country; Trump’s consideration of Bernie Sanders supporter Tulsi Gabbard for a cabinet position; “Alt-Right” kingpin Steve Bannon’s high regard for Gabbard; Gabbard’s strong support for Modi and networking with the BJP; Gabbard’s networking with the RSS, the Indian fascist organization for which the BJP serves as a front.
Continuing analysis of Donald Trump’s candidacy, this program highlights Trump’s successful use of Hitler’s rhetorical style and principles. Blogger Josh Marshall noted: ” . . . This was as wild and as unbridled a speech as I’ve seen from Trump. Even if you couldn’t understand English, it would be stunning to watch the slashing hand gestures, the red face, the yelling. . . . Watching this speech, compared to the press conference today in Mexico City, what kept coming to my mind was the contrast between Hitler’s uniformed rally speeches from the hustings and the suited, statesman Hitler we see in the old news reels in Munich and at other iconic moments in the late 1930s. . . . the demagogic style, the frenzied invocation of familial blood sacrificed to barbaric outsiders – these are not unique to him [Hitler]. When we see this lurid, stab-in-the-back incitement, the wild hyperbole, the febrile railing against outsiders who will make us no longer a country – the similarities are real. More than anything, perhaps the most chilling part of this day is the contrast between the two men – a measured, calm statesman figure we saw this afternoon and this railing, angry demagogue figure who captured the emotional tenor of a Klan rally. . . .” The similarity does not appear to be coincidental: “. . . . Donald Trump appears to take aspects of his German background seriously. John Walter works for the Trump Organization, and when he visits Donald in his office, Ivana told a friend, he clicks his heels and says, ‘Heil Hitler,’ possibly as a family joke. . . . Ivana Trump told her lawyer Michael Kennedy that from time to time her husband reads a book of Hitler’s collected speeches, ‘My New Order,’ which he keeps in a cabinet by his bed. . . .” The principles of the book have been put into action: “. . . . But it appears that one way or another, much of the content in ‘My New Order’ about how Hitler says propaganda works, and how he structures his speaking style, and how Hitler targets the lowest-common denominator as his intended audience, has seeped into Trump: the way he speaks, argues, rages and responds in public. . . .” Trump’s rhetorical reincarnation of Hitler corresponds to political support from a bevy of fascists and white supremacists, old and new, as discussed in FTR #’s 882 and 920. Furthermore, the financing for his complex, mysteriously opaque real estate operations comes from institutions and individuals linked to the remarkable and deadly Bormann capital network, as highlighted in FTR #920. Continuing to manifest “dog whistles” directed at the Nazi faithful, Trump’s campaign presented the unlikely number of 88 high-ranking military officers who support his candidacy, channeling the “88” device used by postwar Nazis to code “Heil Hitler.” (“H” is the 8th letter of the alphabet.) One of the few observers to correctly analyze the scandalous role of the media in their coverage of Trump’s campaign is former CNN host Soledad O’Brien: ” . . . ‘If you look at Hillary Clinton’s speech where she basically pointed out that what Donald Trump has done — actually quite well — has normalized white supremacy,’ O’Brien explained to CNN host Brian Stelter on Sunday. ‘I think she made a very good argument, almost like a lawyer. . . . The former CNN host argued that the question that journalists should be asking is if Trump is ‘softening the ground for people — who are white supremacists, who are white nationalists, who would self-identify that way — to feel comfortable with their views being brought into the national discourse to the point where they can do a five minute interview happily on national television? And the answer is yes, clearly,’ she said. ‘And there is lots of evidence of that.’ . . .” The program concludes with a reading from “They Thought They Were Free: The Germans 1933-1945”–listeners should compare their subjective experience of the present with that of a professor who lived through Hitler’s ascension. Program Highlights Include: review of Deutsche Bank’s primary role in backing Trump’s business operations; review of George Soros’ backing of Trump’s business dealings; review of Soros’s role in “Aryanizing” Jewish property during the Holocaust; review of the links of the Bormann capital network’s pivotal role in Deutsche Bank and the Union Bank of Switzerland, another financier of Trump properties; an early manifestation of German “Ostpolitik,” in which the SS intelligence service floated the idea to Allen Dulles that Germany would ally with Russia.
Continuing our analysis of Donald Trump as a political animal, the program returns to the subject of traditional German “Ostpolitik.” As set forth in FTR #918, Germany has–for centuries–sought to stabilize its relationship with Russia in order to further its geopolitical hegemonic goals. Beginning with the subject of former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort’s work for the Russia-allied Yanukovich government in Ukraine, we note that available evidence points to Manafort as a cat’s paw for covert action and regime change. His clients in the past include former Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos, who did not share the Golden Lily wealth to the satisfaction of the United States and was subsequently overthrown in a U.S.-backed coup. After reviewing German Ostpolitik as articulated in the early 1950s by the Adenauer government in Germany and Underground Reich Fifth Column elements in the U.S., the program notes that the basic goals of that early 1950s manifestation of the policy have either been reached or are under development: a German-dominated unified Europe, a German-dominated European military structure; a German-dominated EU/Russian/Eurasian economic union stretching from “Lisbon to Vladivostok,” and the gradual pivot from the U.S. to Russia as a critical German ally (as reflected in an important recent German poll.) The program notes that the complex, altogether opaque Trump real estate empire apparently fronts for, among other interests, powerful German corporations, families and individuals. Those interests, as we have seen in FTR #305, are under the control of the remarkable and deadly Bormann capital network. Key Trump foreign policy adviser Joseph E. Schmitz is obsessed “with all things Steuben” and “all things German” according to a former colleague at the Pentagon. Schmitz’s brother John P. Schmitz is works with dominant German corporations, placing him in the same corporate landscape as Trump and his real estate empire. It is our view that Trump’s pronouncements about Russia, Ukraine and NATO are similar in functional intent to the “Open Letter to Stalin” published in the “Buerger Zeitung.” His stances in this regard are meant to precipitate what pro-Adenauer media sources termed “a bidding war” between the U.S. and Russia, with Germany as the beneficiary of a ” . . . heated atmosphere of an auction room where two eager opponents outbid each other. . . .” Program Highlights Include: Review of John P. Schmitz’s relationship to the Robert Bosch Foundation; review of the Bosch Foundation’s links to the Carl Duisberg Gesellschaft, which sponsored Mohamed Atta’s entry into the United States; John P. Schmitz’s links to Matthias Wissman, and Wissman’s links to Holocaust-related lawsuits; Joseph E. Schmitz’s reported anti-Semitism and Holocaust revisionism: “ . . . .’His summary of his tenure’s achievement reported as ‘…I fired the Jews,’ . . . . ‘In his final days, he allegedly lectured [former Pentagon Inspector General] Mr. [John] Crane on the details of concentration camps and how the ovens were too small to kill 6 million Jews,’ . . . .”; review of Joseph E. Schmitz’s post-Pentagon work as head of the parent company of Blackwater.
Donald Trump’s pronouncements about Russia’s policy vis a vis Ukraine and Crimea, his relatively benign statements about Putin, Putin’s relatively benign statements about Trump, Trump’s comments that are critical of NATO and the relationship between former Trump campaign aide Paul Manafort and Victor Yanukovich (the pro-Russian former president of Ukraine) have led many to view Trump as a “Putin/Kremlin/Russian” “dupe/agent.” In the first of two broadcasts, we analyze Trump’s views and associations in this regard in the context of traditional German “Ostpolitik,” as manifested by the postwar Federal Republic of Germany and the Underground Reich in particular. It is our considered opinion that Trump, far from being a “Putin/Kremlin/Russian” “dupe/pawn/agent” is an associate and operative of the Underground Reich and his attitudes toward Russia, Putin, Crimea and NATO reflect German “Ostpolitik.” For centuries, German and Prussian leaders and strategists have sought practical alliances and non-aggression pacts with Russia as a vehicle for securing their Eastern frontier, enhancing their commercial trade infrastructure and furthering their European and global hegemonic goals. In the Cold War and “New Cold War” eras, this Ostpolitik serves as a “good cop/bad cop” dynamic, giving Germany leverage with the U.S. and Russia/U.S.S.R. by creating ” . . . the heated atmosphere of an auction room where two eager opponents outbid each other. . . .” After presenting a synopsis of German Ostpolitik as practiced by German leaders over the centuries, the program highlights the manifestation of ostpolitik in the early Cold War period. In a 1949 letter in the “Buerger Zeitung,” the journalistic outlet for the Steuben Society, an open courting of Stalin and the U.S.S.R. is presented by Nazi and SA veterans Bruno Fricke and Dr. Otto Strasser. Despite its far-right and McCarthyite orientation, the paper openly advocates an alliance between a re-armed Germany and the Soviet Union, managed on the German side by Third Reich veterans. This signaled a “bidding war,” and was followed three years later by the Soviet Note of 3/10/1952, which echoed the call for the goals of the Fricke letter and which, in turn, heralded Germany’s drive for a unified Europe under German control and a re-armed Germany, which, ultimately, would leave NATO, along with the rest of Europe. ” . . . . The reaction of the German strategists to the Soviet Note of March 10, 1952, however, exposes their true designs. German geo-political journals speak of it as “the highest trump card in the hands of the Chancellor” which will enable him to mow down the resistance of France against Germany’s concept of a united Europe. The pro-Adenauer press interpreted the Russian Note as a tremendous asset in speeding up the timetable for the creation of a European army under German domination. . . .” Analyzing the nature of the Steuben Society, whose “Open Letter to Stalin” signaled the drive for the realization of the creation of a German-Dominated Third Power Bloc, the broadcast sets forth the Steuben Society’s position as part of the Nazi Fifth Column in pre-war America, and its continued activities as part of the postwar Underground Reich. Joseph E. Schmitz, of the far-right and Germanophile Schmitz family of California, is a key adviser to Donald Trump. Former Inspector General of the Pentagon under George W. Bush, Schmitz was, in the words of a former Pentagon colleague, “consumed with all things German and all things Von Steuben.” Is Schmitz a generative source for Trump’s resonance with German Ostpolitik? With the EU and the development of an EU military apparatus, contemporary Germany is manifesting the geopolitical goals of Adenauer’s and the “Buerger Zeitung’s” ostpolitik. Program Highlights Include: Joseph E. Schmitz’s involvement with a Von Steuben-linked German security network; Schmitz’s son’s involvement with the Von Steuben milieu; the “Buerger Zeitung’s” position as a key journalistic outlet for German-Americans; the “Buerger Zeitung’s” far-right, pro-McCarthy position.
The spokesman–and apologist–for the Nazi Azov Battalion in Ukraine is Roman Zvarych. Zvarych was the personal secretary to Jaroslav Stetsko–the head of the World War II Nazi collaborationist OUN/B government. Azov is now receiving U.S. government funding. 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.
This broadcast concludes our review of Fara Mansoor’s heroic, ground-breaking research on what we call “The Deep October Surprise,” and references the historical lessons to be drawn from the inquiry to the contemporary political scene. Usually, the term “October Surprise” refers to an alleged deal between the Reagan/Bush campaign and the Khomeini regime in Iran to withhold the U.S. hostages taken from the American Embassy until after Jimmy Carter’s humiliation and consequent election defeat were assured. Fara’s research goes farther and deeper, suggesting that the CIA learned of the Shah’s cancer in 1974 (from former CIA director Richard Helms), withheld the information from Jimmy Carter, installed Khomeini’s Islamic fundamentalists as an anti-communist bulwark on the Soviet Union’s Southern flank and then micro-managed the hostage crisis to insure the ascension of the Reagan/Bush/Casey forces. What has become known as the Iran-Contra Scandal was an outgrowth of this dynamic. In this program, we flesh out the networking involving the Shah’s intelligence specialist Hossein Fardoust, who selected the personnel for Khomeini’s military general staff and became the head of his secret police. Another of the Bush/CIA operatives–Ibrahim Yazdi–helped Khomeini move from Iraq to Paris, served as his de facto chief of staff in Paris, served as his PR flack in the U.S., and was instrumental in maneuvering Mashallah Khashani into place as security coordinator for the U.S. Embassy in Teheran. Program Highlights Include: Khashani’s leadership in the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in November of 1979; the partial disarming of the Marine guards at the embassy prior to the takeover; a prior takeover attempt on 2/14/1979 by Khomeini forces disguised as “leftists;” networking between some of Fardoust’s selections for Khomeini’s general staff and prominent figures in the Iran-Contra scandal; the counter-terrorism background of Linda Tripp, the Bush White House holdover who helped de-stabilize the Bill Clinton administration; Mitt Romney backer and FBI director James Comey’s initiation of the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s e-mail server.
With the recent Iranian nuclear deal and the lifting of economic sanctions against Iran, the history of U.S./Iranian relations has attained greater relevance. In that context, we present the third of several shows revisiting Fara Mansoor’s landmark research on what we have termed the “Deep October Surprise.” Fara’s research suggests that the CIA learned of the Shah’s cancer in 1974 (from former CIA director Richard Helms), withheld the information from Jimmy Carter, installed Khomeini’s Islamic fundamentalists as an anti-communist bulwark on the Soviet Union’s Southern flank and then micro-managed the hostage crisis to insure the ascension of the Reagan/Bush/Casey forces. After a series of violent incidents that sowed chaos in Iran, the Shah himself realized that U.S. intelligence was engineering his removal. ” . . . . By late August [of 1977], the Shah was totally confused. U.S. Ambassador Sullivan recorded the Shah’s pleadings over the outbreak of violence: ‘He said the pattern was widespread and that it was like an outbreak of a sudden rash in the country…it gave evidence of sophisticated planning and was not the work of spontaneous oppositionists…the Shah presented that it was the work of foreign intrigue…this intrigue went beyond the capabilities of the Soviet KGB and must, therefore, also involve British and American CIA. The Shah went on to ask ‘Why was the CIA suddenly turning against him? What had he done to deserve this sort of action from the United States?’ . . . .” Program Highlights Include: the disappearance and probable assassination in Libya of a key Shiite clerical rival of Khomeini’s–Ayatollah Mosa Sadr; a provocation in which a theater was burned down, killing 750 occupants–an attack blamed on the SAVAK and the Shah; an article placed in an Iranian paper that inflamed the populace against the Shah and coalesced the Shiite clergy against him; key Shah aide General Hossein Fardoust’s authorship of the provocative article; the pivotal role played in “the Deep October Surprise” by Dr. Ibrahim Yazdi; the Nazi intelligence background of Fazollah Zahedi, who replaced Mohammed Mossadegh after the CIA coup in 1953.
This broadcast is the second of several programs reviewing and highlighting material first presented in early 1993, featuring the landmark research of Fara Mansoor, a heroic, longtime member of the Iranian resistance. Usually, the term “October Surprise” refers to an allege deal between the Reagan/Bush campaign and the Khomeini regime in Iran to withhold the U.S. hostages taken from the American Embassy until after Jimmy Carter’s humiliation and consequent election defeat were assured. Fara’s research goes farther and deeper, suggesting that the CIA learned of the Shah’s cancer in 1974 (from former CIA director Richard Helms), withheld the information from Jimmy Carter, installed Khomeini’s Islamic fundamentalists as an anti-communist bulwark on the Soviet Union’s Southern flank and then micro-managed the hostage crisis to insure the ascension of the Reagan/Bush/Casey forces. What has become known as the Iran-Contra Scandal was an outgrowth of this dynamic. In this program we present analysis of the first phase(s) of the operation, noting that former CIA director Richard Helms learned of the Shah’s cancer in 1975 from General Hossein Fardoust. Withholding this information from President Carter, the CIA fed the administration disinformation asserting that the Shah’s reign well into the 1980’s was assured. Meanwhile, the Agency was maneuvering to install Khomeini as a bulwark against the left, and, as we shall see, a vehicle to destabilize the Carter administration and guarantee the victory of the Reagan/Bush team in the 1980 elections. Program Highlights Include: the presence in Iran in April of 1978 of George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher; the long association of the Shah-to-be, Richard Helms and General Hossein Fardoust dating to their days together in a Swiss boarding school; Carter’s “Halloween massacre” in which he fired some 800 CIA covert operators, who coalesced as part of the Bush team that installed Khomeini and the fundamentalists in power.
This broadcast begins several programs reviewing and highlighting material first presented in early 1993, featuring the landmark research of Fara Mansoor, a longtime, heroic member of the Iranian resistance. Usually, the term “October Surprise” refers to an alleged deal between the Reagan/Bush campaign and the Khomeini regime in Iran to withhold the U.S. hostages taken from the American Embassy until after Jimmy Carter’s humiliation and consequent election defeat were assured. Fara’s research goes farther and deeper, suggesting that the CIA learned of the Shah’s cancer in 1974 (from former CIA director Richard Helms), withheld the information from Jimmy Carter, installed Khomeini’s Islamic fundamentalists as an anti-communist bulwark on the Soviet Union’s Southern flank and then micro-managed the hostage crisis to insure the ascension of the Reagan/Bush/Casey forces. What has become known as the Iran-Contra Scandal was an outgrowth of this dynamic. In this program, we begin our analysis with an overview of the covert operation, both in the U.S. and Iran, highlighting the key players and the networking in which they engaged to ensure Carter’s downfall and Khomeini’s rise to power. Of particular interest is the “deep-networking” between U.S. operatives such as Richard Cottam and Iranian agents such as General Hossein Fardoust and Viallollah Qarani. Cottam, Fardoust and Qarani’s association stretch from the 1953 coup that installed the Shah and the 1979 “op” that installed Khomeini in Iran and the Reagan/Bush team in the U.S. The program highlights the extent to which American domestic politics, national security policy and overseas diplomacy are controlled by what amounts to a “secret state.”