Colonia Dignidad Leader Dies

Com­ment: Although we haven’t dis­cussed the top­ic in some time, the Chilean Nazi enclave known as Colo­nia Dig­nidad has fig­ured promi­nent­ly in dis­cus­sions of Oper­a­tion Con­dor, the dias­po­ra of Nazi war crim­i­nals to Latin Amer­i­ca, as well as the Pinochet regime in Chile. “Cult Leader, ex-Nazi Schae­fer Dies in Chile” [CNN]; 4/25/2010. Paul Schae­fer, a […]

FTR#1177 The Jakarta Method in Latin America

With the esca­lat­ing rhetoric and impo­si­tion of sanc­tions for Chi­na’s alleged geno­cide against the Uighurs in Xin­jiang province, it is valu­able to recall Amer­i­can-assist­ed atroc­i­ties dur­ing the Cold War.

In numer­ous pro­grams, we have high­light­ed whole­sale slaugh­ter in Latin Amer­i­can coun­tries, imple­ment­ed by fas­cists oper­at­ing in an inter­na­tion­al con­stel­la­tion coa­lesc­ing around the USA.

That con­stel­la­tion was termed the Inter­na­tion­al Fascista (or “Fas­cist Inter­na­tion­al”) by Hen­rik Krueger, and is detailed in, among oth­er pro­grams, AFA #‘s 4, 19, and 22.

In addi­tion, the role of the for­mer World Anti-Com­mu­nist League in the death squad activ­i­ty in Cen­tral Amer­i­ca was set forth in AFA #15. 

In FTR#839, we pre­sent­ed Peter Lev­en­da’s account of his vis­it to Colo­nia Dig­nidad in Chile–a Nazi encamp­ment that served as an oper­a­tional epi­cen­ter for Oper­a­tion Con­dor, a CIA-assist­ed mass mur­der con­sor­tium com­posed of Latin Amer­i­can nations.

The essence of the Con­dor pro­gram was summed up by Argen­tin­ian Gen­er­al Anto­nio Domin­go. (“Sub­ver­sives” were killed for real or alleged: com­mu­nism, athe­ism, Jew­ish­ness or union activ­i­ties.) “. . . . First, we will kill all the sub­ver­sives, then we will kill all of their col­lab­o­ra­tors, then those who sym­pa­thize with the sub­ver­sives, then we kill those that remain indif­fer­ent, and final­ly we kill the timid. . . .”

A very, very impor­tant and superbly writ­ten and doc­u­ment­ed new book–The Jakar­ta Method: Wash­ing­ton’s Anti­com­mu­nist Cru­sade & the Mass Mur­der Pro­gram that Shaped Our World by Vin­cent Bevins–chronicles the slaugh­ter that the U.S. imple­ment­ed in the devel­op­ing world dur­ing the Cold War.

Lis­ten­ers are emphat­i­cal­ly encour­aged to pur­chase and read the book.

Key Points of Dis­cus­sion and Analy­sis Include: Review of the oper­a­tional fun­da­men­tals of Oper­a­tion Con­dor; the role of Colo­nia Dig­nidad as an epi­cen­ter of Con­dor activ­i­ties; the 1976 Argen­tin­ian coup; the so-called “Dirty War” that fol­lowed that coup; the role in the Dirty War of Argen­tin­ian mem­bers of the P‑2 Lodge (Admi­ral Emilio Massera, Jose Lopez Rega); the assis­tance giv­en by Ford Motor Com­pa­ny and Citibank in the mur­der of Argen­tin­ian union orga­niz­ers; col­lab­o­ra­tion of the Argen­tin­ian and oth­er Con­dor par­tic­i­pants with the fas­cist “Stay Behind” armies set up by Frank Wis­ner; the assas­si­na­tion of Orlan­do Lete­lier in Wash­ing­ton D.C.; The close rela­tion­ship between the coun­tries of Cen­tral Amer­i­ca; the accel­er­a­tion in the 1960’s of the ter­ror that had gripped Guatemala since the 1954 over­throw of Jacobo Arbenz; how the elim­i­na­tion of peace­ful, pro-democ­ra­cy activists and activism fed the growth of gueril­la move­ments; the birth of the “White Hand” death squad; assis­tance giv­en to the death squads by U.S. Green Berets; the prac­tice of “dis­ap­pear­ing” per­ceived polit­i­cal ene­mies or dis­si­dents to ter­ror­ize their asso­ciates; the ini­ti­a­tion of whole­sale exter­mi­na­tion of large pop­u­la­tions of indige­nous peo­ple; the ner­vous­ness and inse­cu­ri­ty felt by the Guatemalan dic­ta­tor­ship fol­low­ing the ascent of the San­din­istas in Nicaragua; Pres­i­dent Carter’s tamp­ing down of U.S. assis­tance to Cen­tral Amer­i­can dic­ta­tor­ships; the piv­ot­ing of those dic­ta­tor­ships to gain­ing mil­i­tary aid and train­ing from Israel and Tai­wan; the train­ing of the Con­tra rebels in Nicaragua by Argen­tine mil­i­tary death squad vet­er­ans; net­work­ing of Cen­tral Amer­i­can death squad per­son­nel with Con­dor oper­a­tives in Franco’s Spain; Rober­to D’Aubisson’s ascent in El Sal­vador; the assas­si­na­tion of Sal­vado­ran Arch­bish­op Romero; the mas­sacre of over 900 res­i­dents of the El Sal­vado­ran vil­lage of El Mozote; Ronald Reagan’s appoint­ment of Elliot Abrams as Assis­tant Sec­re­tary of State for Human Rights; Abrams’ char­ac­ter­i­za­tion of The New York Times’ reportage on the El Mozote as “com­mu­nist pro­pa­gan­da;” the role of The School of the Amer­i­c­as in the train­ing of death squads; the mil­i­tary coup that brought Evan­gel­i­cal Chris­t­ian Efrain Rios Montt to pow­er in Guatemala; Rios Montt’s spe­cial affin­i­ty with Ronald Rea­gan; Rios Montt’s imple­men­ta­tion of so-called “Mod­el Vil­lages;” the sys­tem­at­ic destruc­tion of the Guatemalan town of Ilom—part of the geno­ci­dal pro­gram enact­ed by the Guatemalan gov­ern­ment against the indige­nous Mayan pop­u­la­tion (termed geno­cide by Amnesty Inter­na­tion­al).

The pro­gram con­cludes with a pre­sen­ta­tion of the points of view of the Guatemalan sur­vivors of the liq­ui­da­tion cam­paigns, per­haps most expres­sive­ly com­mu­ni­cat­ed by one Domin­go: “ . . . . I asked them what com­mu­nism was. Domin­go, the own­er of the bus, had this answer: ‘Well, they said they were com­mu­nists and com­mu­nists were dan­ger­ous. But actu­al­ly, the gov­ern­ment are the ones who did all the killing. So if any­one was dan­ger­ous, if any­one was ‘com­mu­nist,’ it must be them. . . .’”

FTR #1130 Bio-Psy-Op Apocalypse Now, Part 6: The Magic Virus Theory, Part 3

In addi­tion to review­ing and high­light­ing cogent argu­ments that the SARS-Cov2 (Covid-19) virus may indeed have been made in a lab­o­ra­to­ry, the pro­gram exam­ines sig­nif­i­cant aspects of the hereto­fore puz­zling epi­demi­ol­o­gy of the virus. (We do NOT believe that the virus was syn­the­sized by Chi­na, as “Team Trump” is charg­ing.)

First, how­ev­er, the broad­cast sets forth infor­ma­tion about the quest for a Covid-19 vac­cine.

The make­up of Don­ald Trump’s “Oper­a­tion Warp Speed” pro­gram to devel­op a Covid-19 vac­cine in record time is alarm­ing. (No vac­cine has ever been devel­oped for human use in less than four years.)

“Oper­a­tion Warp Speed”:

1.–Is head­ed by Mon­cef Slaoui, for­mer­ly the chair­man of Mod­er­na’s prod­uct devel­op­ment com­mit­tee: ” . . . . Dr. Slaoui served on the board of Mod­er­na, a biotech­nol­o­gy com­pa­ny that has an exper­i­men­tal coro­n­avirus vac­cine that just entered Phase 2 of clin­i­cal tri­als to deter­mine if it is effec­tive. As the chair­man of the Mod­er­na board’s prod­uct devel­op­ment com­mit­tee, Dr. Slaoui might have been privy to the ear­ly indi­ca­tions of tests of whether the company’s approach appeared promis­ing, now that it is being inject­ed into human sub­jects. . . .”

2.–Is seen by Slaoui as promis­ing by Slaoui, who may well be ref­er­enc­ing tests on Mod­er­na’s mRNA vac­cine: “. . . . Dr. Slaoui, now a ven­ture cap­i­tal­ist, said that he had ‘recent­ly seen ear­ly data from a clin­i­cal tri­al with a coro­n­avirus vac­cine, and these data made me feel even more con­fi­dent that we will be able to deliv­er a few hun­dred mil­lion dos­es of vac­cine’ — enough to inoc­u­late much of the Unit­ed States — ‘by the end of 2020.’ . . . .”

3.–Will be assist­ed by a four-star gen­er­al: ” . . . . . . . . Mr. Slaoui will serve as the chief advis­er on the effort, and Gen. Gus­tave F. Per­na, a four-star gen­er­al who is in charge the Army Matériel Com­mand, will be the chief oper­at­ing offi­cer. . . .”

4.–Perna was recruit­ed by the Chair­man of the Joint Chiefs: ” . . . . Gen­er­al Per­na, who runs the Army’s com­plex sup­ply chain, said that he was asked by Gen. Mark A. Mil­ley, the chair­man of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to help run the man­u­fac­tur­ing logis­tics relat­ed to the vac­cine devel­op­ment. . . .”

Note that Mon­cef Slaoui holds 10 mil­lion dol­lars worth of Mod­er­na stock, which has tripled in val­ue since the Covid-19 out­break began:” . . . . The for­mer phar­ma exec­u­tive tapped by Pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump to lead the fed­er­al gov­ern­men­t’s hunt for a COVID-19 vac­cine has more than $10 mil­lion in stock options in one of the com­pa­nies receiv­ing fed­er­al fund­ing. . . . Described across four sep­a­rate fil­ings, Slaoui has 155,438 options in Mod­er­na. The stake is worth $10,366,000 at Mod­er­na’s cur­rent share price, $66.69 at the time of pub­li­ca­tion. Mod­er­na shares have almost tripled in val­ue dur­ing 2020. The $66.69 fig­ure rep­re­sents an increase of  184% from the $23.46 it was trad­ing for on Jan­u­ary 1. . . .” (The day the pro­gram was record­ed, Mod­er­na’s stock increased by 25% in val­ue, and Slaoui announced he would sell his stock.)

In past posts and pro­grams, we have not­ed the Moderna–one of the com­pa­nies select­ed to devel­op a Covid-19 vac­cine, has been sub­stan­tial­ly under­writ­ten by the Pen­ta­gon (DARPA). 

Key points of dis­cus­sion in that regard:

1.–Moderna is using nov­el vac­cine tech­nol­o­gy using the injec­tion of genet­ic mate­r­i­al to cre­ate anti­bod­ies. This tech­nol­o­gy has nev­er been used on human beings. “. . . . The sec­ond phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal com­pa­ny that was select­ed by CEPI to devel­op a vac­cine for the new coro­n­avirus is Mod­er­na Inc., which will devel­op a vac­cine for the nov­el coro­n­avirus of con­cern in col­lab­o­ra­tion with the U.S. NIH and which will be fund­ed entire­ly by CEPI. The vac­cine in ques­tion, as opposed to Inovio’s DNA vac­cine, will be a mes­sen­ger RNA (mRNA) vac­cine. Though dif­fer­ent than a DNA vac­cine, mRNA vac­cines still use genet­ic mate­r­i­al ‘to direct the body’s cells to pro­duce intra­cel­lu­lar, mem­brane or secret­ed pro­teins.’ Moderna’s mRNA treat­ments, includ­ing its mRNA vac­cines, were large­ly devel­oped using a $25 mil­lion grant from DARPA and it often touts is strate­gic alliance with DARPA in press releas­es. . . .”

2.–The tech­nol­o­gy has alarm­ing pos­si­ble neg­a­tive side-effects. “. . . . Both DNA and mRNA vac­cines involve the intro­duc­tion of for­eign and engi­neered genet­ic mate­r­i­al into a person’s cells and past stud­ies have found that such vac­cines ‘pos­sess sig­nif­i­cant unpre­dictabil­i­ty and a num­ber of inher­ent harm­ful poten­tial haz­ards’ and that ‘there is inad­e­quate knowl­edge to define either the prob­a­bil­i­ty of unin­tend­ed events or the con­se­quences of genet­ic mod­i­fi­ca­tions.’ Nonethe­less, the cli­mate of fear sur­round­ing the coro­n­avirus out­break could be enough for the pub­lic and pri­vate sec­tor to devel­op and dis­trib­ute such con­tro­ver­sial treat­ments due to fear about the epi­dem­ic poten­tial of the cur­rent out­break. . . .”

3.–Looming large in the back­ground of the Mod­er­na vac­cine tech­nol­o­gy is DARPA fund­ing of “gene dri­ve” tech­nol­o­gy. “. . . . Con­cerns about Pen­ta­gon exper­i­ments with bio­log­i­cal weapons have gar­nered renewed media atten­tion, par­tic­u­lar­ly after it was revealed in 2017 that DARPA was the top fun­der of the con­tro­ver­sial ‘gene dri­ve’ tech­nol­o­gy, which has the pow­er to per­ma­nent­ly alter the genet­ics of entire pop­u­la­tions while tar­get­ing oth­ers for extinc­tion. At least two of DARPA’s stud­ies using this con­tro­ver­sial tech­nol­o­gy were clas­si­fied and ‘focused on the poten­tial mil­i­tary appli­ca­tion of gene dri­ve tech­nol­o­gy and use of gene dri­ves in agri­cul­ture,’ accord­ing to media reports. . . . Co-direc­tor of the ETC Group Jim Thomas said that this tech­nol­o­gy may be used as a bio­log­i­cal weapon: ‘Gene dri­ves are a pow­er­ful and dan­ger­ous new tech­nol­o­gy and poten­tial bio­log­i­cal weapons could have dis­as­trous impacts on peace, food secu­ri­ty and the envi­ron­ment, espe­cial­ly if mis­used, The fact that gene dri­ve devel­op­ment is now being pri­mar­i­ly fund­ed and struc­tured by the US mil­i­tary rais­es alarm­ing ques­tions about this entire field.’ . . . . How­ev­er, the ther­a­pies being devel­oped by Inovio, Mod­er­na and the Uni­ver­si­ty of Queens­land are in align­ment with DARPA’s objec­tives regard­ing gene edit­ing and vac­cine tech­nol­o­gy. For instance, in 2015, DARPA geneti­cist Col. Daniel Wat­ten­dorf described how the agency was inves­ti­gat­ing a ‘new method of vac­cine pro­duc­tion [that] would involve giv­ing the body instruc­tions for mak­ing cer­tain anti­bod­ies. Because the body would be its own biore­ac­tor, the vac­cine could be pro­duced much faster than tra­di­tion­al meth­ods and the result would be a high­er lev­el of pro­tec­tion.’ . . . .”

As dis­cussed in FTR #1124–among oth­er programs–it is now pos­si­ble to cre­ate ANY virus from scratch, using “mail-order” or “design­er” genes. In FTR #282–recorded in May of 2001–we not­ed the ter­ri­ble sig­nif­i­cance of the devel­op­ment of such “Design­er Gene” tech­nol­o­gy.

A BBC sto­ry from 1999 high­lights the fears of experts that the advent of such tech­nol­o­gy could enable the devel­op­ment of eth­no-spe­cif­ic bio­log­i­cal weapons: ” . . . . Advances in genet­ic knowl­edge could be mis­used to devel­op pow­er­ful bio­log­i­cal weapons that could be tai­lored to strike at spe­cif­ic eth­nic groups, the British Med­ical Asso­ci­a­tion has warned. A BMA report Biotech­nol­o­gy, Weapons and Human­i­ty says that con­cert­ed inter­na­tion­al action is nec­es­sary to block the devel­op­ment of new, bio­log­i­cal weapons.  . . . The BMA report warns that legit­i­mate research into micro­bi­o­log­i­cal agents and genet­i­cal­ly tar­get­ed ther­a­peu­tic agents could be dif­fi­cult to dis­tin­guish from research geared towards devel­op­ing more effec­tive weapons. . . . Dr Vivi­enne Nathanson, BMA Head of Health Pol­i­cy Research said:  ‘The his­to­ry of human­i­ty is a his­to­ry of war. Sci­en­tif­ic advances quick­ly lead to devel­op­ments in weapons tech­nol­o­gy. . . .‘Biotech­nol­o­gy and genet­ic knowl­edge are equal­ly open to this type of malign use. . . .”

We high­light infor­ma­tion pre­sent­ed in FTR #1129, for pur­pos­es of empha­siz­ing the flim­sy nature of the argu­ment pre­sent­ed in a paper from Nature Med­i­cine.

Many sci­en­tif­ic and med­ical peo­ple dis­miss­ing the argu­ment that the Covid-19 coro­n­avirus may have been cre­at­ed in a lab­o­ra­to­ry may be act­ing out of the sin­cere desire to pre­clude a full-dress Cold War between the U.S. and Chi­na. The Trump admin­is­tra­tion has tire­less­ly flogged the “Chi­na did it and it came from a lab­o­ra­to­ry” meme. Many lib­er­als who dis­missed the obvi­ous fact that Pres­i­dent Kennedy was mur­dered by a cabal of pow­er­ful U.S. nation­al secu­ri­ty inter­ests did so because of what Peter Dale Scott calls a “lev­el one cover-up”–alleged Sovi­et and/or Cas­tro Cuban manip­u­la­tion of Lee Har­vey Oswald, fab­ri­cat­ed by the exe­cu­tion­ers them­selves.

Two telling, thought­ful, sub­stan­tive cri­tiques of the Nature Med­i­cine arti­cle shed light on the flim­sy nature of its argu­ments.

It would not be unfair to char­ac­ter­ize the arti­cle as “The War­ren Report” of the Covid-19 pan­dem­ic.

Genet­ic Engi­neer­ing

Like the Bible, it is open to seri­ous sci­en­tif­ic refu­ta­tion: ” . . . . To put it sim­ply, the authors are say­ing that SARS-CoV­‑2 was not delib­er­ate­ly engi­neered because if it were, it would have been designed dif­fer­ent­ly. How­ev­er, the Lon­don-based mol­e­c­u­lar geneti­cist Dr Michael Anto­niou com­ment­ed that this line of rea­son­ing fails to take into account that there are a num­ber of lab­o­ra­to­ry-based sys­tems that can select for high affin­i­ty RBD vari­ants that are able to take into account the com­plex envi­ron­ment of a liv­ing organ­ism. This com­plex envi­ron­ment may impact the effi­cien­cy with which the SARS-CoV spike pro­tein can find the ACE2 recep­tor and bind to it. An RBD select­ed via these more real­is­tic real-world exper­i­men­tal sys­tems would be just as ‘ide­al’, or even more so, for human ACE2 bind­ing than any RBD that a com­put­er mod­el could pre­dict. And cru­cial­ly, it would like­ly be dif­fer­ent in amino acid sequence. So the fact that SARS-CoV­‑2 doesn’t have the same RBD amino acid sequence as the one that the com­put­er pro­gram pre­dict­ed in no way rules out the pos­si­bil­i­ty that it was genet­i­cal­ly engi­neered. . . .”

Dr. Michael Anto­niou notes that dif­fer­ent genet­ic engi­neer­ing process­es than the one high­light­ed in the Nature Med­i­cine paper can be used: ”  . . . . There is anoth­er method by which an enhanced-infec­tiv­i­ty virus can be engi­neered in the lab. A well-known alter­na­tive process that could have been used has the cum­ber­some name of “direct­ed iter­a­tive evo­lu­tion­ary selec­tion process”. In this case, it would involve using genet­ic engi­neer­ing to gen­er­ate a large num­ber of ran­dom­ly mutat­ed ver­sions of the SARS-CoV spike pro­tein recep­tor bind­ing domain (RBD), which would then be select­ed for strong bind­ing to the ACE2 recep­tor and con­se­quent­ly high infec­tiv­i­ty of human cells. . . .”

The notion that the “Nature Med­i­cine” authors had not heard of the above process is not cred­i­ble: ” . . . . Such a direct­ed iter­a­tive evo­lu­tion­ary selec­tion process is a fre­quent­ly used method in lab­o­ra­to­ry research. So there is lit­tle or no pos­si­bil­i­ty that the Nature Med­i­cine arti­cle authors haven’t heard of it – not least, as it is con­sid­ered so sci­en­tif­i­cal­ly impor­tant that its inven­tors were award­ed the Nobel Prize in Chem­istry in 2018. . . .”

Of more than pass­ing sig­nif­i­cance is anoth­er arti­cle that finds seri­ous fault with the “Nature Med­i­cine” paper. ” . . . . Pro­fes­sor Stu­art New­man, pro­fes­sor of cell biol­o­gy and anato­my at New York Med­ical Col­lege, says that a key argu­ment used to deny that it could be a genet­i­cal­ly engi­neered strain that escaped from a lab­o­ra­to­ry actu­al­ly points to the exact oppo­site. In oth­er words, it indi­cates that SARS-CoV­‑2 could well be genet­i­cal­ly engi­neered and that it could have escaped from a lab. . . . As Adam Lau­r­ing, an asso­ciate pro­fes­sor of micro­bi­ol­o­gy, immunol­o­gy and infec­tious dis­eases at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Michi­gan Med­ical School, has not­ed, Andersen’s paper argues that, ‘the SARS-CoV­‑2 virus has some key dif­fer­ences in spe­cif­ic genes rel­a­tive to pre­vi­ous­ly iden­ti­fied coro­n­avirus­es – the ones a lab­o­ra­to­ry would be work­ing with. This con­stel­la­tion of changes makes it unlike­ly that it is the result of a lab­o­ra­to­ry ‘escape’.‘But Pro­fes­sor New­man says that this is total­ly uncon­vinc­ing because ‘The ‘key dif­fer­ences’ were in regions of the coro­n­avirus spike pro­tein that were the sub­ject of genet­ic engi­neer­ing exper­i­ments in labs around the world (main­ly in the US and Chi­na) for two decades.’ . . .”

Pro­fes­sor New­man goes on to high­light oth­er, seri­ous flaws in the argu­ment: ” . . . In an email inter­view with GMWatch, New­man, who is edi­tor-in-chief of the jour­nal Bio­log­i­cal The­o­ry and co-author (with Tina Stevens) of the book Biotech Jug­ger­naut, ampli­fied this spec­u­la­tion by not­ing, ‘The Nature Med­i­cine paper points to vari­a­tions in two sites of the spike pro­tein of the new coro­n­avirus that the authors claim must have arisen by nat­ur­al selec­tion in the wild. How­ev­er, genet­ic engi­neer­ing of one of these sites, the ACE2 recep­tor bind­ing domain, has been pro­posed since 2005 in order to help gen­er­ate vac­cines against these virus­es (see this paper). It is puz­zling that the authors of the Nature Med­i­cine com­men­tary did not cite this paper, which appeared in the promi­nent jour­nal Sci­ence.’ More­over, New­man added, “The sec­ond site that Ander­sen et al. assert arose by nat­ur­al means, a tar­get of enzyme cleav­age not usu­al­ly found in this class of virus­es, was in fact intro­duced by genet­ic engi­neer­ing in a sim­i­lar coro­n­avirus in a paper they do cite. This was done to explore mech­a­nisms of path­o­genic­i­ty. . . . .”

Worth not­ing, again, is the British Med­ical Asso­ci­a­tion’s warn­ing dis­cussed in FTR #1129, as well as above: ” . . . .The BMA report warns that legit­i­mate research into micro­bi­o­log­i­cal agents and genet­i­cal­ly tar­get­ed ther­a­peu­tic agents could be dif­fi­cult to dis­tin­guish from research geared towards devel­op­ing more effec­tive weapons. . . .”

As the GMWatch authors con­clude: ” . . . . Such ‘enhanced infec­tiv­i­ty’ research is car­ried out on virus­es all over the world (and not just in Chi­na) to inves­ti­gate their behav­iour and to devel­op vac­cines and oth­er ther­a­pies, as well as for ‘biode­fence’ pur­pos­es. . . .”

Reports are now emerg­ing of pos­si­ble Covid-19 infec­tion among ath­letes who par­tic­i­pat­ed at the Mil­i­tary World Games in Wuhan in Octo­ber 19. 

We have spec­u­lat­ed at some length about the pos­si­bil­i­ty that infect­ing those very healthy, superbly-con­di­tioned indi­vid­u­als might have been an excel­lent vehi­cle for spread­ing the virus around the world. 

Fur­ther dis­cus­sion of this can be found in FTR #‘s 1118 and 1122. We note that Chi­na has spec­u­lat­ed about the Wuhan Mil­i­tary World Games being a vehi­cle for the U.S. to spread the infec­tion.

We have not­ed that lan­guage is, past a point, inad­e­quate to ana­lyze and dis­cuss some of the major con­sid­er­a­tions in the Covid-19 “op.” A bio-weapons would require a very small num­ber of agents in order to be effec­tive­ly dis­sem­i­nat­ed. In addi­tion, we note that–in the age of mind control–an oper­a­tive can be dis­pensed to per­form a func­tion with­out their knowl­edge.

In addi­tion to French ath­letes, con­tin­gents from Swe­den, Spain and Italy appear to have become infect­ed. The appar­ent infec­tion of the French ath­letes pre-dates the first con­firmed case in Chi­na by 20 days.

A fish mer­chant who worked near Charles De Gaulle Air­port test­ed pos­i­tive for the virus on Decem­ber 27.

The appar­ent­ly infect­ed ath­letes par­tic­i­pat­ing in the Mil­i­tary World Games fur­ther com­pli­cates the puz­zling epi­demi­ol­o­gy of the virus.

Doc­tors quot­ed in a New York Times piece under­score the anom­alous epi­demi­ol­o­gy of the virus: ” . . . . In San Jose, tis­sue sam­pling from a woman who died on Feb. 6 revealed that she was prob­a­bly the first known per­son in the U.S. whose death was linked to the coro­n­avirus — a strong sign that the virus may have been cir­cu­lat­ing in that part of North­ern Cal­i­for­nia in Jan­u­ary. But was it part of a large, pre­vi­ous­ly unrec­og­nized out­break? . . .

“. . . . Dr. George Ruther­ford, a pro­fes­sor of epi­demi­ol­o­gy and bio­sta­tis­tics at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Cal­i­for­nia, San Fran­cis­co, the­o­rized that per­haps the woman, who worked for a com­pa­ny that had an office in Wuhan, was one of only a small num­ber of peo­ple who con­tract­ed the virus at that time and that trans­mis­sions prob­a­bly petered out for some rea­son. Oth­er­wise, he said, the region would have seen a much big­ger out­break. . . .

“. . . . Dr. [Trevor] Bed­ford said he also believed this was the more like­ly sce­nario, not­ing that up to half of peo­ple with coro­n­avirus infec­tions have no symp­toms. . . .

“. . . . There could have been a tiny num­ber of iso­lat­ed coro­n­avirus cas­es among trav­el­ers to the Unit­ed States in Decem­ber, Dr. Bed­ford said. But it is pret­ty clear that none of them spread.

“In part, sci­en­tists can tell that by look­ing at the genom­ic fin­ger­prints of each case. But anoth­er clue is the rapid rate at which the virus spreads, Dr. Ruther­ford said. . . . Researchers are not see­ing any chains that appear to go that far back. . . .”

Lead­ing the Trump admin­is­tra­tion’s rhetor­i­cal and polit­i­cal charge against Chi­na is Mike Pom­peo. Charg­ing that the virus “escaped” from a lab in Wuhan and equiv­o­cat­ing about whether that release was inten­tion­al, Koch broth­ers-pro­tege Pom­peo cit­ed alleged duplic­i­ty on behalf of Chi­na’s com­mu­nist par­ty in con­nec­tion with the virus. ” . . . . ‘I can tell you that there is a sig­nif­i­cant amount of evi­dence that this came from that lab­o­ra­to­ry in Wuhan,’ Pom­peo said on ABC’s ‘This Week’ Sun­day. ‘Do you think they inten­tion­al­ly released that virus, or it was an acci­dent in the lab?’ Co-Anchor Martha Rad­datz pressed. ‘I can’t answer your ques­tion about that,’ he said, ‘because the Chi­nese Com­mu­nist Par­ty has refused to coop­er­ate with world health experts.’ . . .”

The Chi­nese med­ical and sci­en­tif­ic estab­lish­ment has worked close­ly with coun­ter­parts glob­al­ly in an attempt to ana­lyze and treat the virus.

The high­ly anom­alous epi­demi­ol­o­gy, the lack of symp­toms in half of infect­ed patients, the wide vari­ety of symp­toms the virus caus­es and, last­ly, the fact that this was a nov­el virus and result­ing infec­tion are all fac­tors to be con­sid­ered in eval­u­at­ing the time­li­ness of the Chi­nese response.

Pom­peo also asserts that the virus was not made in a lab­o­ra­to­ry.

Next, we high­light a mis­lead­ing sto­ry in Rupert Mur­doch’s “The Dai­ly Tele­graph” out of Syd­ney, Aus­tralia. The sto­ry alleges that the Five Eyes elec­tron­ic intel­li­gence net­work has cor­rob­o­rat­ed the “it came from a Chi­nese lab” meme.

Of more than pass­ing inter­est is the dis­clo­sure that the project on bat-borne coro­n­avirus­es con­duct­ed in the Wuhan lab­o­ra­to­ry was a joint U.S./Chinese project, and that Ralph Bar­ic was a key Amer­i­can part­ner in the project.

This is the under­tak­ing about which we have report­ed and dis­cussed exten­sive­ly in the past! ” . . . . One of Dr Shi’s co-authors on that paper, Pro­fes­sor Ralph Bar­ic from North Car­oli­na Uni­ver­si­ty, said in an inter­view with ‘Sci­ence Dai­ly’ at the time: ‘This virus is high­ly path­o­gen­ic and treat­ments devel­oped against the orig­i­nal SARS virus in 2002 and the ZMapp drugs used to fight ebo­la fail to neu­tralise and con­trol this par­tic­u­lar virus.’ . . . .”

Bar­ic was the selectee to recon­struct the SARS Cov2 virus from scratch. Note that the arti­cle below dis­cuss­es the U.S. sus­pen­sion of the “gain of func­tion” exper­i­ments and 2017 resump­tion of same, some­how spin­ning this into the “Chi­na did it” dis­in­for­ma­tion.

The mil­i­tary has links to the Wuhan lab in ques­tion: ” . . . . Fur­ther­more, DARPA and the Pentagon’s past his­to­ry with bioweapons and their more recent exper­i­ments on genet­ic alter­ation and extinc­tion tech­nolo­gies as well as bats and coro­n­avirus­es in prox­im­i­ty to Chi­na have been large­ly left out of the nar­ra­tive, despite the infor­ma­tion being pub­licly avail­able. Also left out of the media nar­ra­tive have been the direct ties of both the USAMRIID and DARPA-part­nered Duke Uni­ver­si­ty to the city of Wuhan, includ­ing its Insti­tute of Med­ical Virol­o­gy. . . .”

A “Guardian” arti­cle sources UK intel­li­gence assets claim­ing that the 15-page dossier didn’t come from a Five Eyes intel­li­gence assess­ment. They assert that it was based on open-source mate­ri­als and put for­ward by the US as “a tool for build­ing a counter-nar­ra­tive and apply­ing pres­sure to Chi­na.”

We con­clude with analy­sis of Trump’s deputy nation­al secu­ri­ty advis­er.

Against the back­ground of the Trump admin­is­tra­tion’s anti-Chi­na cam­paign rhetoric and attempts to pin the blame for Covid-19 on a “lab­o­ra­to­ry” leak and/or delib­er­ate release, we note that the offen­sive is being pushed by The Don­ald’s deputy nation­al secu­ri­ty advis­er Matthew Pot­tinger.

“. . . . Matthew Pot­tinger, the deputy nation­al secu­ri­ty advis­er who report­ed on SARS out­breaks as a jour­nal­ist in Chi­na, pressed intel­li­gence agen­cies in Jan­u­ary to gath­er infor­ma­tion that might sup­port any ori­gin the­o­ry linked to a lab. . . .”

Pot­tinger is the son of for­mer Assis­tant Attor­ney Gen­er­al J. Stan­ley Pot­tinger.

Pot­tinger, Senior was: Assis­tant Attor­ney Gen­er­al for Civ­il Rights under Nixon and Ford; report­ed by Don­ald Freed and Fred Lan­dis (in “Death in Wash­ing­ton”) to have foiled inves­ti­ga­tions into the assas­si­na­tions of Mar­tin Luther King and Orlan­do Lete­lier; the attor­ney for the Hashe­mi broth­ers in the Octo­ber Sur­prise inves­ti­ga­tion; a close per­son­al friend of George H.W. Bush (for whom CIA head­quar­ters was named) and, last but cer­tain­ly not least, Glo­ria Steinem’s lover for nine years.

Despite the fact that Steinem tout­ed her CIA back­ground as good jour­nal­is­tic cre­den­tials in both “The New York Times” and “The Wash­ing­ton Post” (both with long-stand­ing CIA links them­selves), Pot­tinger has defend­ed her against charges that she worked for the CIA!!

Worth not­ing, as well, is the fact that the Lete­lier assas­si­na­tion was one of the mur­ders con­duct­ed under Oper­a­tion Con­dor, assist­ed by the CIA. Lete­lier was killed by a car bomb in Wash­ing­ton D.C., while J.Stanley Pot­tinger’s good friend George H.W. Bush was in charge of the CIA when Lete­lier was hit.

(We have cov­ered Oper­a­tion Con­dor in numer­ous pro­grams, includ­ing AFA #19. One of the oper­a­tional cen­ters of Con­dor was the Chilean Nazi enclave Colo­nia Dig­nidad. In FTR #839, we set forth author Peter Lev­en­da’s brave, fright­en­ing vis­it to “The Colony.” This should be digest­ed by any­one inter­est­ed in the his­to­ry of which Pot­tinger, Sr., is a part.)

One won­ders if Matthew may have fol­lowed J. Stan­ley into the CIA, if in fact Dad­dio is Agency, as Mr. Emory sus­pects.

In FTR #s 998, 999, 1000, we set forth what Mr. Emory calls “weaponized fem­i­nism.” Refash­ion­ing the doc­trine of advanc­ing the cause of women into a legal and polit­i­cal weapon for destroy­ing tar­get­ed men, dom­i­nant man­i­fes­ta­tions of the #MeToo move­ment have served the cause of the far right.

Resembling–in its essence–the “libid­i­nal McCarthy­ism” of Arthur Miller’s play “The Cru­cible,”  many high-pro­file man­i­fes­ta­tions of #MeToo have been pro­pelled by evi­den­tiary mate­r­i­al that ranges from dubi­ous to ludi­crous to non-exis­tent.

We find it more than coin­ci­den­tal that Bernie Sanders sup­port­er Tara Read­e’s shape-shift­ing accu­sa­tions against Joe Biden have sur­faced decades after the alleged incident–coinciding with Biden’s chal­leng­ing of Trump and with Pot­tinger, Jr. help­ing to direct the admin­is­tra­tion’s traf­fic.

Pottinger Agonistes: Covid-19 Disinformation Meets Weaponized Feminism

“A lib­er­al’s idea of courage is eat­ing at a restau­rant that has­n’t been reviewed yet.”–Mort Sahl. In FTR #‘s 998, 999 and 1000, we set forth what Mr. Emory calls “weaponized fem­i­nism.” Refash­ion­ing the doc­trine of advanc­ing the cause of women into a legal and polit­i­cal weapon for destroy­ing tar­get­ed men, dom­i­nant man­i­fes­ta­tions of the #MeToo move­ment have served the cause of the far right. In Mis­cel­la­neous Archive Show M4, we set forth Glo­ria Steinem’s work for the CIA and her nine years’ rela­tion­ship with J. Stan­ley Pot­tinger. In addi­tion to Steinem’s lover, Pot­tinger was: Assis­tant Attor­ney Gen­er­al for Civ­il Rights under Nixon and Ford; report­ed by Don­ald Freed and Fred Lan­dis (in “Death in Wash­ing­ton”) to have foiled inves­ti­ga­tions into the assas­si­na­tions of Mar­tin Luther King and Orlan­do Lete­lier; the attor­ney for the Hashe­mi broth­ers in the Octo­ber Sur­prise inves­ti­ga­tion and a close per­son­al friend of George H.W. Bush (for whom CIA head­quar­ters was named). Despite the fact that Steinem tout­ed her CIA back­ground as good jour­nal­is­tic cre­den­tials in both “The New York Times” and “The Wash­ing­ton Post” (both with long-stand­ing CIA links them­selves), Pot­tinger has defend­ed her against charges that she worked for the CIA!! J. Stan­ley Pot­tinger’s son Matthew is Trump’s Deputy Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Advi­sor and a point-man for the “Chi­na-did-it” Covid-19 meme. One won­ders if Matthew may have fol­lowed J. Stan­ley into the CIA, if in fact Dad­dio is Agency, as Mr. Emory sus­pects. We find it more than coin­ci­den­tal that Tara Read­e’s shape-shift­ing accu­sa­tions against Joe Biden have sur­faced decades after the alleged incident–coinciding with Biden’s chal­leng­ing of Trump and with Pot­tinger, Jr. help­ing to direct the admin­is­tra­tion’s traf­fic. Bernie Sanders sup­port­er Tara Read­e’s charge brings to mind George H.W. Bush cam­paign man­ag­er Lee Atwa­ter’s gam­bit of using Don­na Rice to destroy the Pres­i­den­tial can­di­da­cy of for­mer Sen­a­tor Gary Hart.

FTR #846 Interview (#9) with Peter Levenda about “The Hitler Legacy”

This ninth inter­view fills in the details con­cern­ing a mys­te­ri­ous cast of char­ac­ters in Indone­sia who were inves­ti­gat­ing the late pres­i­dent Sukarno’s Rev­o­lu­tion­ary Fund. That fund appears to have derived from large amounts of World War II wealth stolen by Japan and Ger­many. Dr. Sos­ro Huso­do alleged in a book that a mys­te­ri­ous Nazi named Dr. Anton Poch was actu­al­ly Hitler. That alle­ga­tion has nev­er been proved, how­ev­er the sto­ries of Poch, Huso­do, Dr. Edi­son Damanik and an Indone­sian arms deal­er named Soeryo Goer­it­no are indica­tive of a mas­sive, ongo­ing cov­er-up of the polit­i­cal and eco­nom­ic dynam­ics under­ly­ing their sit­u­a­tions. Expand­ing the scope of the inquiry to the cap­i­tal flows ass­so­ci­at­ed with the Third Reich, its post­war under­ground phase and insti­tu­tions asso­ci­at­ed with and/or evolv­ing from Nazism, the pro­grams sets forth a num­ber of con­sid­er­a­tions: the financ­ing of the post­war Ger­man eco­nom­ic mir­a­cle by Ger­man cor­po­ra­tions; the frus­tra­tion of the de-Naz­i­fi­ca­tion of cor­po­rate Ger­many by the Third Reich’s promi­nent Amer­i­can eco­nom­ic back­ers; the enor­mous scale of the Nazi eco­nom­ic dias­po­ra; the role of Klaus Bar­bie and his “Fiancees of Death” in ODESSA-relat­ed oper­a­tions; Colo­nia Dig­nidad and its role in laun­der­ing ODESSA mon­ey.

FTR #843 Interview (#6) with Peter Levenda about “The Hitler Legacy”

This sixth in a pro­ject­ed series of nine inter­views with Peter Lev­en­da, con­tin­ues analy­sis of what Mr. Emory views as one of the most impor­tant books ever writ­ten. Resum­ing a point of dis­cus­sion from FTR #842, we fur­ther devel­op the nature of Tibetan Bud­dhism, cer­tain sim­i­lar­i­ties with Nazi phi­los­o­phy and occult beliefs, and how this played into the devel­op­ment of the Dalai Lama’s oper­a­tional links to some tru­ly “inter­est­ing” ele­ments. Advanc­ing analy­sis of the “weaponiza­tion of reli­gion” and ele­ments of Bud­dhism, in par­tic­u­lar, Peter high­lights the lit­tle-known but pro­found fas­cist influ­ence on, and sup­port from, the Zen Bud­dhist com­mu­ni­ty. Pur­suant to the dis­cus­sion of “weaponized reli­gion,” Peter sets forth his the­sis that Nazism was a form of cult or spir­i­tu­al belief. As we have seen, Nazi phi­los­o­phy res­onat­ed effec­tive­ly with some aspects of “glob­al jihadism,” Tibetan Bud­dhism and wartime prac­ti­cioners of Zen Bud­dhism. Lis­ten­ers should remem­ber that ele­ments of U.S. intel­li­gence co-opt­ed “weaponized reli­gion” dur­ing the Cold war, includ­ing glob­al jihadism and Tibetan Bud­dhism. Pro­gram high­lights include: the “jihadist” nature of Tibetan Bud­dhism; the role of Zen lumi­nar­ies D.T. Suzu­ki and Karl­fried Graf Dur­ck­heim in devel­op­ing the Zen-Bushi­do link; the roles of both men in pop­u­lar­iz­ing Zen Bud­dhism in the post-World War II peri­od.

The Assassination of Olof Palme

In our ongo­ing series of inter­views with Peter Lev­en­da, the author of “The Hitler Lega­cy,” we have high­light­ed points of dis­cus­sion relat­ing to WACL, Oper­a­tion Con­dor, the Iran/Contra scan­dal and oth­er ele­ments that might not be famil­iar to recent/younger read­ers and lis­ten­ers. Peter detailed his hair-rais­ing vis­it to Colo­nia Dig­nidad in FTR #839. While going through some box­es in stor­age, we came across an old essay by the bril­liant Dan­ish jour­nal­ist Hen­rik Kruger, author of “The Great Hero­in Coup,” ana­lyz­ing the unsolved 1986 assas­si­na­tion of Swedish prime min­is­ter Olof Palme. We present that arti­cle here, in order to famil­iar­ize younger read­ers and lis­ten­ers with indi­vid­u­als and insti­tu­tions we haven’t cov­ered in decades. 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 #841 Interview (#4) with Peter Levenda about “The Hitler Legacy”

Resum­ing our analy­sis of “The Hitler Lega­cy,” our next inter­view with Peter Lev­en­da con­tin­ues dis­cus­sion of the reha­bil­i­ta­tion of “jihadis as proxy war­riors” by Ger­many in the run-up to, and dur­ing, the Sec­ond World War. Hav­ing assumed the posi­tion of Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Hus­sei­ni took advan­tage of resent­ment on the Arab street and mobi­lized it against the British and Jews. Begin­ning with pogroms dur­ing the 1920’s and 1930’s, Hus­seini’s activism blos­somed into full-fledged par­tic­i­pa­tion in Nazi mil­i­tary com­paigns, includ­ing recruit­ing Waf­fen SS units in Mus­lim ter­ri­to­ries. After dis­cussing some sim­i­lar­i­ties between Nazism and glob­al jihadist ide­ol­o­gy, Peter high­lights the Grand Mufti’s post war work with the PLO and oth­er Mus­lim polit­i­cal and mil­i­tary orga­ni­za­tions. Join­ing the Grand Mufti were numeer­ous SS men and Nazi tech­ni­cal experts, there to con­tin­ue their war against the Jews and to fight against Com­mu­nism on behalf of West­ern intel­li­gence agen­cies. In the Mid­dle East, as in oth­er coun­tries where they were recruit­ed as anti-Com­mu­nist cadre, the Third Reich alum­ni pur­sued a Nazi agen­da, spawn­ing new Nazi polit­i­cal and mil­i­tary for­ma­tions. Peter notes that they are not “neo”-Nazis, at all. West­ern intel­li­gence helped fos­ter post­war SS-assis­tance orga­ni­za­tions such as Die Spinne and ODESSA, shep­herd­ed to a con­sid­er­able extent by SS Colonel Otto Sko­rzeny.

FTR #839 Interview (#2) with Peter Levenda about “The Hitler Legacy”

Resum­ing with, and fur­ther devel­op­ing a key ele­ment of dis­cus­sion high­light­ed in our pre­vi­ous inter­view, Peter sets forth “the ori­gins of glob­al jihad.” In the Mid­dle East, the con­cept of glob­al jihad was devel­oped by Ger­man archael­o­gist Max von Oppen­heim dur­ing the First World War. Envi­sion­ing the world’s Mus­lims as proxy war­riors against the Entente Pow­ers of Britain, France and Rus­sia, von Oppen­heim cre­at­ed the tem­plate for con­tem­po­rary Islam­ic fas­cism and jihadism. Fol­low­ing the divi­sion of the for­mer Ottoman Empire by Britain and France after World War I, the “Arab Street” began man­i­fest­ing belief in an inter­na­tion­al glob­al con­spir­a­cy involv­ing Jews and the Euro­pean colo­nial pow­ers that res­onat­ed with the ide­o­log­i­cal anx­i­eties of Euro­pean and Amer­i­can pow­er elites, Ger­man, in par­tic­u­lar. Von Oppen­heim’s strat­e­gy also employed the con­cept of “total war,” incor­po­rat­ing vio­lence against civil­ians as part of the tem­plate that became a key fea­ture of Islamist ter­ror­ism. The pro­gram also notes that, when the Nazi par­ty came to pow­er in Ger­many, NSDAP ide­o­logues were placed in posi­tions of influ­ence around the world, where they inter­act­ed with like mind­ed indi­vid­u­als and insti­tu­tions. In the U.S., Ger­man spies worked close­ly with inter­ests asso­ci­at­ed with Hen­ry Ford, includ­ing and espe­cial­ly Ukrain­ian fas­cists who worked with the Third Reich. The pro­gram con­cludes with an account of Peter’s har­row­ing vis­it to the Chilean Nazi out­post Colo­nia Dig­nidad, a tor­ture cen­ter for the Pinochet dic­ta­tor­ship, an epi­cen­ter of Oper­a­tion Con­dor, a recip­i­ent of glob­al Nazi mon­ey and the devel­op­ment site for weapons of mass destruc­tion.

FTR #819 Proxy War and the Earth Island Boogie (What the Hell Does Dave Emory Mean by “Underground Reich?,” Part 3)

Author Peter Lev­en­da has post­ed an arti­cle (excerpt­ed from his recent book) that encap­su­lates sig­nif­i­cant ele­ments of dis­cus­sion pre­sent­ed by Mr. Emory and fea­tured on this web­site. Not­ing Impe­r­i­al Ger­many’s use of Islam­ic proxy war­riors dur­ing the First World War and Nazi Ger­many’s incor­po­ra­tion of the same strat­a­gem, Lev­en­da notes that Nazi ele­ments have con­tin­ued to use Mus­lim proxy war­fare to advance the goals of what Mr. Emory calls the Under­ground Reich. Hav­ing incor­po­rat­ed many impor­tant ele­ments of Nazi Ger­many’s nation­al secu­ri­ty estab­lish­ment into its own after World War II, the Unit­ed States has co-opt­ed the tac­tic of proxy war. To its detri­ment, the U.S. has failed to grasp that the Under­ground Reich and its Islamist prox­ies have their own agen­das. Those agen­das fea­ture the defeat of the Unit­ed States as a cen­ter­piece of long-term strat­e­gy. Con­clud­ing with an exam­i­na­tion of recent Amer­i­can mil­i­tary involve­ment, the pro­gram notes that much of what we are doing actu­al­ly ben­fits Ger­many and occurs in areas for­mer­ly belong­ing to the Ottoman Empire.