Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.
The tag 'USSR' is associated with 149 posts.

FTR #938 The Trumpenkampfverbande, Part 12: Settling In, Part 2 (The Underground Reich Comes Into Plain View, Part 5)

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.


FTR #921 The Trumpenkampfverbande, Part 4: Trump on the Stump (The Underground Reich Emerges Into Plain View, Part 2)

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.


FTR #919 The Trumpenkampfverbande, Part 2: German Ostpolitik, Part 2

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.


FTR #918 The Trumpenkampfverbande, Part 1: German Ostpolitik, Part 1

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.


Jaroslav Stetsko’s Personal Secretary Serves as the Azov Battalion’s Spokesman

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.


FTR #899 Fara Mansoor on “The Deep October Surprise,” Part 4

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.


FTR #898 Fara Mansoor on “The Deep October Surprise,” Part 3

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.


FTR #897 Fara Mansoor on the “Deep October Surprise,” Part 2

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.


FTR #896 Fara Mansoor on “The Deep October Surprise,” Part 1

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.”


FTR #893 Interview with Robert Parry about Ukraine

Return­ing to our air­waves for the first time in sev­er­al years, award-win­ning jour­nal­ist Robert Par­ry high­lights some of his research on the Ukrain­ian cri­sis. After dis­cussing Russ­ian pres­i­dent Putin’s ban­ning of for­eign-based NGO’s from oper­at­ing in Rus­sia, Robert notes the role of the Nation­al Endow­ment of Democ­ra­cy in orches­trat­ing the Ukraine coup, as well as the orga­ni­za­tion’s evo­lu­tion from William Casey’s CIA.

High­light­ing Amer­i­can jour­nal­ists’ unwill­ing­ness to call the Maid­an events as what they obvi­ous­ly were–a coup–Robert sets forth Assis­tant Sec­re­tary of State Vic­to­ria Nuland’s plot­ting with the Amer­i­can ambas­sador to Ukraine and her dis­cus­sion of a $5 bil­lion cap­i­tal invest­ment the U.S. had made in Ukraine.

After review­ing the World War II fas­cist her­itage of orga­ni­za­tions like Svo­bo­da and Pravy Sek­tor, Robert sets forth the deep involve­ment of those orga­ni­za­tions in the Maid­an events, as well as the “point” posi­tion of Nazi ele­ments like the Azov bat­tal­ion in the con­flict in Ukraine’s East­ern regions.

One of the most impor­tant top­ics of dis­cus­sion is the Orwellian nature of the cov­er­age of events in Ukraine. Not­ing that there was no “Russ­ian inva­sion” of the coun­try (as report­ed by the U.S. media), Robert also dis­cuss­es Crimea’s long-stand­ing, clear­ly expressed sen­ti­ment to re-unite with Rus­sia, to which that region belonged since the 19th cen­tu­ry.

A sig­na­ture ele­ment of Amer­i­can pro­pa­gan­da against Rus­sia has been the alle­ga­tion that Putin was behind the shoot­down of Malaysian Air Lines Flight 17. After dis­cussing U.S. pho­to recon­nais­sance indi­cat­ing that Ukrain­ian gov­ern­ment troops were behind the shoot­down of the Malaysian air­lin­er, Robert decon­structs an Aus­tralian “60 Min­utes” pro­pa­gan­da piece that pur­ports to prove Russ­ian author­ship of the down­ing of the air­lin­er.

Pro­gram High­lights Include: analy­sis of the burn­ing alive of anti-gov­ern­ment pro­test­ers by Nazi pun­ish­er bat­tal­ions; the assas­si­na­tion of crit­ics of the Ukrain­ian gov­ern­ment; Ukrain­ian-Amer­i­can Natal­ie Jaresko’s assump­tion of the finance min­istry of Ukraine; Jaresko’s finan­cial chi­canery while work­ing for U.S. intel­li­gence cutout AID; for­mer Geor­gian pres­i­dent Mikhail Saakashvil­i’s appoint­ment as gov­er­nor of Odessa; the import of ISIS-linked Chechens to fight along­side the Nazi for­ma­tions in Ukraine; analy­sis of the Maid­an sniper shoot­ings as a provo­ca­tion.