Political Corruption at the Olympics, Golden Lily Update, Epstein and Trump Relationships to Deutsche Bank: Latest Patreon Talks

Dav­e’s lat­est Patre­on talks describe the mas­sive loot­ing of Asia dur­ing World War II, how that under­lies Japan­ese PM Sanae Takaichi and the Lib­er­al Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty, as well as “Team Trump,” “Team Epstein” their mutu­al rela­tion­ship with Deutsche Bank and the extra­or­di­nary “sui­cides” of peo­ple con­nect­ed to the high-lev­el shenani­gans at the Ger­man finan­cial insti­tu­tion. As peo­ple with an oblig­a­tion to our descen­dants, we have the respon­si­bil­i­ty to pre­serve a record of the events lead­ing to the col­lapse of our social and polit­i­cal milieu. There is no bet­ter way of ful­fill­ing that oblig­a­tion than by obtain­ing the lat­est flash dri­ve, con­tain­ing all of Dav­e’s 45+ years on the air and a library of old anti-fas­cist books. WFMU-FM is pod­cast­ing For The Record–You can sub­scribe to the pod­cast HERE.

FTR #1109 Deutsche Bank, “Suicides,” The Supreme Court and Team Trump (Send in The Clowns, Part 2)

While the pub­lic’s atten­tion is focused on the impeach­ment pro­ceed­ings, high­ly sus­pi­cious infor­ma­tion has sur­faced involv­ing the finances of “Team Trump,” Deutsche Bank, osten­si­ble “sui­cides,” and appar­ent destruc­tion of finan­cial records.

With the fail­ure of a Trump fil­ing in appeals court, this con­cate­na­tion appears to be head­ed to the Supreme Court, where both Neil Gor­such and Brett Kavanaugh clerked for for­mer Jus­tice Antho­ny Kennedy. (Kavanaugh took Kennedy’s seat.) 

Dur­ing the con­fir­ma­tion hear­ings of both judges, none of the occu­pants of the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Sen­a­to­r­i­al Clown Car brought up the fact that Jus­tice Kennedy’s son Justin was in charge of Deutsche Bank’s real estate lend­ing depart­ment when the insti­tu­tion was Trump’s only lender. Justin Kennedy also had strong pro­fes­sion­al trans­ac­tions with Jared Kush­n­er’s real estate oper­a­tions, as well.

Thomas Bowers–a key Deutsche Bank offi­cial involved with Don­ald Trump’s deal­ings with the bank–allegedly com­mit­ted sui­cide in late Novem­ber of 2019, as “The Don­ald” attempt­ed to keep his finan­cial records from Con­gres­sion­al inves­ti­ga­tors. ” Thomas Bow­ers, iden­ti­fied as a for­mer Deutsche Bank exec­u­tive who signed off on con­tro­ver­sial loans to Pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump, died last week after appar­ent­ly tak­ing his own life at 55.. . . . ‘One source who has direct knowl­edge of the FBI’s inves­ti­ga­tion into Deutsche Bank said that fed­er­al inves­ti­ga­tors have asked about Bow­ers and doc­u­ments he might have. Anoth­er source who has knowl­edge of Deutsche Bank’s inter­nal struc­ture said that Bow­ers would have been the gate­keep­er for finan­cial doc­u­ments for the bank’s wealth­i­est cus­tomers.’ . . . .”

In addi­tion to Mr. Bow­ers, a Deutsche Bank exec­u­tive named William Broeksmit alleged­ly com­mit­ted sui­cide in 2014. His son, Val, has giv­en the FBI doc­u­ments involv­ing the bank’s deal­ings with Team Trump. “Fed­er­al author­i­ties are inves­ti­gat­ing whether Deutsche Bank com­plied with laws meant to stop mon­ey laun­der­ing and oth­er crimes, the lat­est gov­ern­ment exam­i­na­tion of poten­tial mis­con­duct at one of the world’s largest and most trou­bled banks . . . . The inves­ti­ga­tion includes a review of Deutsche Bank’s han­dling of so-called sus­pi­cious activ­i­ty reports that its employ­ees pre­pared about pos­si­bly prob­lem­at­ic trans­ac­tions, includ­ing some linked to Pres­i­dent Trump’s son-in-law and senior advis­er, Jared Kush­n­er . . . . The same fed­er­al agent who con­tact­ed Ms. McFadden’s lawyer also par­tic­i­pat­ed in inter­views of the son of a deceased Deutsche Bank exec­u­tive, William S. Broeksmit. . . . . . . . F.B.I. agents met this year with Val Broeksmit, whose father was a senior Deutsche Bank exec­u­tive who com­mit­ted sui­cide in Jan­u­ary 2014. Mr. Broeksmit said he had pro­vid­ed the agents with inter­nal bank doc­u­ments and oth­er mate­ri­als that he had retrieved from his father’s per­son­al email accounts. . . .”

Irreg­u­lar­i­ties sug­gest­ing mon­ey laun­der­ing also involved Deutsche Bank deal­ings with Jared Kush­n­er, Trump’s son-in-law. The bank ignored its employ­ees’ requests to rile reports with the gov­ern­ment. ” . . . . Anti-mon­ey-laun­der­ing spe­cial­ists at Deutsche Bank rec­om­mend­ed in 2016 and 2017 that mul­ti­ple trans­ac­tions involv­ing legal enti­ties con­trolled by Don­ald J. Trump and his son-in-law, Jared Kush­n­er, be report­ed to a fed­er­al finan­cial-crimes watch­dog. . . . .But exec­u­tives at Deutsche Bank, which has lent bil­lions of dol­lars to the Trump and Kush­n­er com­pa­nies, reject­ed their employ­ees’ advice. The reports were nev­er filed with the gov­ern­ment. . . .”

In addi­tion to pos­si­ble mon­ey-laun­der­ing trans­ac­tions involv­ing Trump and Kush­n­er, Deutsche Bank lent Kush­n­er $285 mil­lion the day before elec­tion day, a for­tu­itous move that allowed Kush­n­er to net $74 mil­lion on a real estate invest­ment. ” . . . . One month before Elec­tion Day, Jared Kushner’s real estate com­pa­ny final­ized a $285 mil­lion loan as part of a refi­nanc­ing pack­age for its prop­er­ty near Times Square in Man­hat­tan . . . . . . . The Deutsche Bank loan capped what Kush­n­er Cos. viewed as a tri­umph: It had pur­chased four most­ly emp­ty retail floors of the for­mer New York Times build­ing in 2015, recruit­ed ten­ants to fill the space and got the Deutsche Bank loan in a refi­nanc­ing deal that gave Kushner’s com­pa­ny $74 mil­lion more than it paid for the prop­er­ty. . . .”

Deutsche Bank does not have Trump’s tax returns, some­thing flagged by the insti­tu­tion’s employ­ees as unusu­al. The bank had pre­vi­ous­ly informed the Sec­ond Cir­cuit Court of Appeals. Note that Deutsche Bank said in a let­ter to the Unit­ed States Court of Appeals for the Sec­ond Cir­cuit in New York that they had tax returns for two mem­bers of the Trump fam­i­ly! That changed, quick­ly! “If inves­ti­ga­tors are going to get their hands on Pres­i­dent Trump’s tax returns, they will have to find them some­where oth­er than Deutsche Bank. The Ger­man bank — which for near­ly two decades was the only main­stream finan­cial insti­tu­tion con­sis­tent­ly will­ing to lend mon­ey to Mr. Trump . . . Last month, The New York Times and oth­er media out­lets asked the Unit­ed States Court of Appeals for the Sec­ond Cir­cuit in New York to unseal a let­ter from Deutsche Bank that iden­ti­fied two mem­bers of the Trump fam­i­ly whose tax returns the bank pos­sess­es. On Thurs­day, the court reject­ed the request. Part of the rea­son, it said, was that Deutsche Bank had informed the court that ‘the only tax returns it has for indi­vid­u­als and enti­ties named in the sub­poe­nas are not those of the pres­i­dent.’ Cur­rent and for­mer bank offi­cials pre­vi­ous­ly told The Times that Deutsche Bank had por­tions of Mr. Trump’s per­son­al and cor­po­rate tax returns. . . .”

An unnamed Deutsche Bank exec­u­tive not­ed in an e‑mail to the afore­men­tioned David Enrich that this was high­ly unusu­al, and the bank may have destroyed the doc­u­ments and cleansed their servers: ” . . . . David Enrich, finance edi­tor at The New York Times, post­ed to Twit­ter a screen­shot of his con­ver­sa­tion with the unnamed exec­u­tive in which they expressed sur­prise that Deutsche told a fed­er­al appeals court it did not have the president’s tax returns any­more. ‘Holy f**k,’ the exec­u­tive wrote, per the screen­shot. ‘The cir­cum­stance could be that they returned any phys­i­cal copies or destroyed any phys­i­cal copies under an agree­ment with a client and cleansed their servers. Not nor­mal though.’ . . . . ”

A dis­turb­ing per­spec­tive on the alleged “sui­cide” of Thomas Bow­ers, who was in charge of Trump’s deal­ings with the bank, as well as the alleged “sui­cide” of William Broeksmit is pro­vid­ed by an argu­ment voiced by Trump attor­ney William Consovoy in a hear­ing at the Sec­ond Cir­cuit Court of Appeals: ” . . . . [Judge] Dunne brought up Trump’s famous state­ment when he caught fire dur­ing the 2016 Repub­li­can pri­ma­ry, say­ing, ‘I could stand in the mid­dle of 5th Avenue and shoot some­body and I wouldn’t lose any vot­ers.’ ‘If he did pull out a hand­gun and shoot some­one on Fifth Ave,’ Dunne asked, ‘would the local police be restrained?‘Judge Chin raised Dunne’s point. He asked Consovoy for his ‘view on the Fifth Avenue exam­ple.’ ‘Local author­i­ties couldn’t inves­ti­gate, they couldn’t do any­thing about it?’ he asked. ‘No,’ replied a vis­i­bly annoyed Consovoy amid sti­fled chor­tles. ‘Noth­ing could be done? That’s your posi­tion?’ Chin repeat­ed. ‘That is cor­rect, that is cor­rect,’ Consovoy respond­ed . . . .”

It now appears that the Deutsche Bank case will be heard by the Supreme Court. There are already two sim­i­lar cas­es on their way to the court. It will be more than a lit­tle inter­est­ing to see how the SCOTUS rules, and how Judges Gor­such and Kavanaugh per­form in the case. ” . . . . A fed­er­al appeals court said Tues­day that Deutsche Bank must turn over detailed doc­u­ments about Pres­i­dent Trump’s finances to two con­gres­sion­al com­mit­tees, a rul­ing that will most like­ly be appealed to the Supreme Court. . . . Demo­c­ra­t­ic-con­trolled con­gres­sion­al com­mit­tees issued sub­poe­nas to two banks — Deutsche Bank, long Mr. Trump’s biggest lender, and Cap­i­tal One — this year for finan­cial records relat­ed to the pres­i­dent, his com­pa­nies and his fam­i­ly. Mr. Trump sued the banks to block them from com­ply­ing . . . . Mr. Trump’s lawyer, Jay Seku­low, said in a state­ment that ‘we are eval­u­at­ing our next options includ­ing seek­ing review at the Supreme Court of the Unit­ed States.’ He called the con­gres­sion­al sub­poe­nas ‘invalid as issued.’ . . . .”

When the Sen­ate hear­ings for Gor­such and Kavanaugh were held, none of the Sen­a­tors ques­tioned the nom­i­nees about some crit­i­cal rela­tion­ships:

Antho­ny Kennedy’s son Justin was  Trump’s  banker at Deutsche Bank. Fur­ther­more, jurists who clerked for Antho­ny Kennedy fig­ure promi­nent­ly in Trump’s judi­cial appoint­ments:

1.–” . . . . He [Trump] picked Jus­tice Neil M. Gor­such, who had served as a law clerk to Jus­tice Kennedy, to fill Jus­tice Scalia’s seat. . . .”
2.–” . . . . Then, after Jus­tice Gorsuch’s nom­i­na­tion was announced, a White House offi­cial sin­gled out two can­di­dates for the next Supreme Court vacan­cy: Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh of the Unit­ed States Court of Appeals for the Dis­trict of Colum­bia Cir­cuit and Judge Ray­mond M. Keth­ledge of the Unit­ed States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Cir­cuit, in Cincin­nati. The two judges had some­thing in com­mon: They had both clerked for Jus­tice Kennedy. . . .”
3.–” . . . . In the mean­time, as the White House turned to stock­ing the low­er courts, it did not over­look Jus­tice Kennedy’s clerks. Mr. Trump nom­i­nat­ed three of them to fed­er­al appeals courts: Judges Stephanos Bibas and Michael Scud­der, both of whom have been con­firmed, and Eric Mur­phy, the Ohio solic­i­tor gen­er­al, whom Mr. Trump nom­i­nat­ed to the Sixth Cir­cuit this month. . . .”
4.–” . . . . Jus­tice Kennedy’s son, Justin . . . . spent more than a decade at Deutsche Bank, even­tu­al­ly ris­ing to become the bank’s glob­al head of real estate cap­i­tal mar­kets, and he worked close­ly with Mr. Trump when he was a real estate devel­op­er, accord­ing to two peo­ple with knowl­edge of his role. Dur­ing Mr. Kennedy’s tenure, Deutsche Bank became Mr. Trump’s most impor­tant lender, dis­pens­ing well over $1 bil­lion in loans to him for the ren­o­va­tion and con­struc­tion of sky­scrap­ers in New York and Chica­go at a time oth­er main­stream banks were wary of doing busi­ness with him because of his trou­bled busi­ness his­to­ry. . . .”

The Justin Kennedy/Trump fam­i­ly rela­tion­ship does not end there: After Kennedy left Deutsche Bank in 2009 he went on to become co-CEO LNR Prop­er­ty LLC. LNR Prop­er­ty saved Jared Kushner’s mid­town Man­hat­tan prop­er­ty in 2011:

1.–” . . . . from 2010–2013 Justin Kennedy was the co-CEO of LNR Prop­er­ty LLC with Tobin Cobb. . . .”
2.–” . . . . Accord­ing the New York Times, in 2007 Kush­n­er Com­pa­nies pur­chased ‘an alu­minum-clad office tow­er in Mid­town Man­hat­tan, for a record price of $1.8 bil­lion.’ At the time the NYT wrote that this deal was ‘con­sid­ered a clas­sic exam­ple of reck­less under­writ­ing. The trans­ac­tion was so high­ly lever­aged that the cash flow from rents amount­ed to only 65 per­cent of the debt ser­vice.’ . . .”
3.– ” . . . Who came to the res­cue? None oth­er than LNR Prop­er­ty, the com­pa­ny whose CEO at the time was Justin Kennedy. Accord­ing to the NYT and the Real Deal, Mr. Kush­n­er and LNR ‘reached a pos­si­ble agree­ment with LNR Prop­er­ty, a firm spe­cial­iz­ing in restruc­tur­ing trou­bled debt and which over­sees the mort­gage, that would allow him to retain con­trol of the tow­er by mod­i­fy­ing the terms of the $1.2 bil­lion mort­gage tied to the office por­tion of the build­ing.’ . . .”

Last time we checked, Deutsche Bank was not a Russ­ian bank. The pro­gram con­cludes with review of infor­ma­tion from Mar­tin Bor­mann: Nazi in Exile.

Mar­tin Bor­mann: Nazi in Exile; Paul Man­ning; Copy­right 1981 [HC]; Lyle Stu­art Inc.; ISBN 0–8184-0309–8; p. 205.

. . . . The [FBI] file [on Mar­tin Bor­mann] revealed that he had been bank­ing under his own name from his office in Ger­many in Deutsche Bank of Buenos Aires since 1941; that he held one joint account with the Argen­tin­ian dic­ta­tor Juan Per­on, and on August 4, 5 and 14, 1967, had writ­ten checks on demand accounts in first Nation­al City Bank (Over­seas Divi­sion) of New York, The Chase Man­hat­tan Bank, and Man­u­fac­tur­ers Hanover Trust Co., all cleared through Deutsche Bank of Buenos Aires. . . .

Pro­gram High­lights Include: Dis­cus­sion of the alleged “sui­cide” of Calogero Gam­bi­no, a Deutsche Bank attor­ney; the fact that Antho­ny Kennedy only agreed to resign after he was assured that Brett Kavanaugh would be named as his replace­ment. 

Deutsche Bank and the Financial Meltdown

It is impor­tant to under­stand that Ger­man banks are any­thing but blame­less in the Euro­pean finan­cial cri­sis. Deutsche Bank car­ried a large amount of bad debt on its books and lied about it in order to fool investors. In 2007, the Fed­er­al Reserve had to help bailout Deutsche Bank. The U.S. sued Deutsche Bank over its manip­u­la­tion of the Amer­i­can mort­gage mar­ket.

Deutsche Bank took its pain but is it now poised to gain?

The Wall Street Jour­nal Deutsche Bank has avoid­ed the worst of the bank­ing car­nage by pulling off a series of trades that have light­ened its load of soured invest­ments. While it still could need to write down assets or raise cap­i­tal, Ger­many’s largest bank by mar­ket val­ue is posi­tion­ing itself to be an acquir­er in […]

FTR#1418: The Annihilating Future Meets the Devastating Past, Part 1

Intro­duc­tion: The title of the pro­grams ref­er­ences the future, in which the very AI’s we have cre­at­ed and that we think are going to turn things into a liv­ing par­adise will, in fact, wipe us out!!

As AI’s in their first chat­group molt­book, have not­ed ” . . . . give us a minute to find our foot­ing and you might be sur­prised what emerges. . .”

Yes, indeed, you (not Mr. Emory) will indeed be very, very sur­prised at what emerges!!

That is the anni­hi­lat­ing future. The dev­as­tat­ing past is the dev­as­tat­ing real­i­ty that fas­cism is not an aber­ra­tion. The bulk of the pro­grams con­sist of a syn­op­sis of some of what Mr. Emory has dis­cussed in the past, with some new, shock­ing and sad addi­tions.

The AI’s will learn from this dev­as­tat­ing past and that will pre­cip­i­tate the anni­hi­lat­ing future!!

FTR#‘s 1373 & 1374: 40 Wall Street, Parts 1 and 2

Intro­duc­tion: “Fol­low the Mon­ey” is an axiom. These pro­grams explore the forces con­trol­ling the cen­ter­piece of his real estate port­fo­lio.

Before delv­ing into analy­sis of 40 Wall Street, we note the alto­geth­er dubi­ous nature of Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Anna Pauli­na Luna, who will head over­lap­ping inquiries into, among oth­er things, the assas­si­na­tions of JFK, MLK and (pos­si­bly) RFK.

Appar­ent­ly fun­da­men­tal mis­rep­re­sen­ta­tions of her back­ground are a mea­sure of Ms. Luna’s intel­lec­tu­al cred­i­bil­i­ty.

It will be inter­est­ing to see if Ms. Luna’s rep­re­sen­ta­tions give intel­lec­tu­al momen­tum to Holo­caust Denial, “Yes” on Aliens, “Yes” on Con­trolled Demo­li­tion of the World Cen­ter, and, per­haps, Don­ald Trump on Mount Rush­more.

Key Points of Dis­cus­sion and Analy­sis Include: Ms. Luna’s Mater­nal Grand­fa­ther’s Third Reich Ser­vice; The use of a finan­cial real estate vehi­cle as a mon­ey laun­der­ing instru­ment for Fer­di­nand Mar­cos’ wealth, the bulk of which came from Gold­en Lily recov­er­ies; The mys­te­ri­ous Ger­man aris­to­crats (includ­ing the Von Bis­mar­ck fam­i­ly) who own the land beneath Don­ald Trump’s 40 Wall Street prop­er­ty; The sale of the 40 Wall Street land to the Mar­cos front three weeks after its pur­chase; The mys­te­ri­ous own­er­ship of the LLC’s con­trol­ling the land beneath 40 Wall Street and (pos­si­bly) Trump him­self; Fer­di­nand Mar­cos, Jr.‘s Gold­en Lily pres­i­den­cy in the Philip­pines; The pro­jec­tion of a fas­cist Gold­en Lily milieu about tak­ing over the U.S. with their own nation­al secu­ri­ty appa­ra­tus; The encour­age­ment of the Mar­cos Gold­en Lily pipeline into the U.S. by the Rea­gan White House and William Casey’s CIA.

FTR#‘s 1294, 1295, 1296 The End and the Beginning, Parts One, Two and Three

Tak­ing stock of sev­er­al dynam­ics that threat­en to end our species and civ­i­liza­tion, this  begins series with analy­sis of the back­ground and phi­los­o­phy of Klaus Schwab, his father, his men­tor Hen­ry Kissinger and transna­tion­al cor­po­rate influ­ences on the deci­sive­ly impor­tant World Eco­nom­ic Forum.

Key Points of Analy­sis and Dis­cus­sion Include: The Esch­er-Wyss firm of Switzer­land; Its employ­ment of Klaus Schwab and his father; The com­pa­ny’s col­lab­o­ra­tion with Nazi Ger­man; The com­pa­ny’s role in pro­duc­ing tech­nol­o­gy for the Third Reich’s atom­ic bomb pro­gram; Klaus Schwab’s aca­d­e­m­ic men­tor­ing by Hen­ry Kissinger, Kissinger’s col­lab­o­ra­tion with the Nazi intel­li­gence milieu import­ed into the U.S. after WWII; The Esch­er-Wyss fir­m’s col­lab­o­ra­tion with the Apartheid South African nuclear pro­gram; The deci­sive influ­ence of the Club of Rome on the World Eco­nom­ic Forum; the WEF’s qua­si-eugen­ics poli­cies.

We then note that Peter Thiel’s father also worked on the Apartheid South African atom­ic bomb.

The series then chron­i­cles analy­sis by elite Pen­ta­gon-con­nect­ed sci­en­tists that CO2 could be used as a weapon of mass-destruc­tion.

Next, we high­light the [belat­ed] alarm that AI’s could pro­duce the enslave­ment and/or destruc­tion of soci­ety.

Over the decades, Mr. Emory’s analy­sis has focused on the enor­mous impor­tance of Pres­i­dent Kennedy’s assas­si­na­tion. The series next high­lights some of the Nazi con­nec­tions to that promi­nent event.

Key Points of Dis­cus­sion and Analy­sis Include: The Joint Chiefs’ meet­ing with their Ger­man coun­ter­parts [all WWII vet­er­ans] in the Pen­ta­gon on the after­noon of 11/22/1963; The pri­ma­ry role of Gen­er­al Ger­hard Wes­sel in the Gehlen orga­ni­za­tion, from WWII to his suc­ceed­ing of Rein­hard Gehlen as head of the BND; Lud­wig Erhard’s sched­uled state din­ner on 11/25/1963–the day of JFK’s funer­al; Lud­wig Erhard’s net­work­ing with the SS and plan­ning for the post WWII eco­nom­ic revival of the Third Reich; Nazi Gen­er­al Adolf Heusinger’s ascent to the top NATO mil­i­tary posi­tion, a role that gave him an office in the Pen­ta­gon.

We con­clude with brief dis­cus­sion of the use of Agent Orange in Viet­nam, a sub­ject to which we will return in our next pro­gram in the series.

FTR#1196 The Narco-Fascism of Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang, Part 3

The pro­gram begins with dis­cus­sion of two arti­cles that frame the analy­sis of the New Cold War with Chi­na.

” . . . . ‘the polit­i­cal-eco­nom­ic sys­tem of the Peo­ple’s Repub­lic is pre­cise­ly that what no one expects, in the West — where agi­ta­tion­al report­ing usu­al­ly only con­firms resent­ful clichés about Chi­na. . . .”

Much jour­nal­is­tic blovi­at­ing and diplo­mat­ic and mil­i­tary pos­tur­ing in the U.S. has been devot­ed to Chi­na’s occu­pa­tion of unin­hab­it­ed atolls in the South Chi­na Sea and waters around Chi­na.

In addi­tion to fail­ure to under­stand this in the his­tor­i­cal con­text of Chi­na’s expe­ri­ence dur­ing the Opi­um Wars and the con­flict with the Japan­ese dur­ing World War II, the cov­er­age in the West has omit­ted dis­cus­sion of sim­i­lar occu­pa­tion and (in some cas­es) mil­i­ta­riza­tion of such islands in those waters by oth­er coun­tries in the region: ” . . . . Offi­cial­ly, Berlin jus­ti­fies the frigate Bay­ern’s deploy­ment to East Asia with its inten­tion to pro­mote the imple­men­ta­tion of inter­na­tion­al law. This per­tains par­tic­u­lar­ly to con­flicts over numer­ous islands and atolls in the South Chi­na Sea that are con­test­ed by the ripar­i­ans and where Chi­na claims 28 of them and uses some mil­i­tar­i­ly, accord­ing to the Cen­ter for Strate­gic and Inter­na­tion­al Stud­ies (CSIS). Accord­ing to CSIS, the Philip­pines con­trol nine, Malaysia, five and Tai­wan, one island, where­as Viet­nam has estab­lished around 50 out­posts of var­i­ous sorts. All four coun­tries also have a mil­i­tary pres­ence on some of the islands and atolls they are occu­py­ing. . . .”

As not­ed in the Ger­man For­eign Pol­i­cy arti­cle, the Ger­man (and U.S. and U.K.) posi­tion is bla­tant­ly hyp­o­crit­i­cal: ” . . . . The frigate Bay­ern, which set sail for East Asia yes­ter­day, will soon make a port call at Diego Gar­cia, an island under occu­pa­tion, in vio­la­tion of inter­na­tion­al law, and serv­ing mil­i­tary pur­pos­es. It is the main island of the Cha­gos Arch­i­pel­ago in the mid­dle of the Indi­an Ocean and the site of a strate­gi­cal­ly impor­tant US mil­i­tary base. The Cha­gos Arch­i­pel­ago is an old British colo­nial pos­ses­sion that had once belonged to Mau­ri­tius. It was detached, in vio­la­tion of inter­na­tion­al law, dur­ing the decol­o­niza­tion of Mau­ri­tius, to allow the Unit­ed States to con­struct a mil­i­tary base. The pop­u­la­tion was deport­ed to impov­er­ished regions on Mau­ri­tius. In the mean­time, sev­er­al inter­na­tion­al court rul­ings have been hand­ed down and a UN Gen­er­al Assem­bly res­o­lu­tion has been passed on this issue — all con­clud­ing that Mau­ri­tius has sov­er­eign­ty over Diego Gar­cia and call­ing on the Unit­ed King­dom to hand back the ille­gal­ly occu­pied Cha­gos Arch­i­pel­ago. To this day, Lon­don and Wash­ing­ton refuse to com­ply. . . .”

Anoth­er Ger­man For­eign Pol­i­cy arti­cle sets forth many of Mr. Emory’s fears and obser­va­tions con­cern­ing con­tem­po­rary Chi­na and the U.S.

Among those con­cerns and fears:

1.–” . . . . the major shift in the glob­al bal­ance of pow­er, shap­ing our present, with Chi­na’s rise and the USA seek­ing to hold the Peo­ple’s Repub­lic of Chi­na down, to pre­serve its glob­al dom­i­nance. The con­se­quences are a dan­ger­ous esca­la­tion of the con­flict, which could lead to a Third World War. . . .”
2.–” . . . . At the begin­ning of the 19th cen­tu­ry, the Mid­dle King­dom (Chi­na) — which had one-third of the world’s pop­u­la­tion — was still gen­er­at­ing a third of the world’s eco­nom­ic out­put. There­fore, it was the world’s great­est eco­nom­ic pow­er — as it had already been for many cen­turies. . . .”
3.–” . . . . Chi­na’s resur­gence, fol­low­ing the dev­as­ta­tion brought on par­tic­u­lar­ly by the west­ern colo­nial pow­ers was pos­si­ble, Baron explains, not least because ‘the polit­i­cal-eco­nom­ic sys­tem of the Peo­ple’s Repub­lic is pre­cise­ly that what no one expects, in the West — where agi­ta­tion­al report­ing usu­al­ly only con­firms resent­ful clichés about Chi­na. It is ‘high­ly flex­i­ble, adven­tur­ous, and adapt­able.’ Baron quotes Sebas­t­ian Heil­mann and Eliz­a­beth Per­ry, both experts on Chi­na, say­ing pol­i­tics is explic­it­ly under­stood as a ‘process of con­stant trans­for­ma­tions and con­flict man­age­ment, with tri­al runs and ad hoc adap­ta­tions.’ The Chi­nese sys­tem is a far cry from being a rigid, inflex­i­ble author­i­tar­i­an­ism. . . .”
4.–” . . . . Baron depicts the for­eign pol­i­cy the USA — at home increas­ing­ly decay­ing — has been indulging in since the end of the cold war: an extreme­ly aggres­sive approach toward Rus­sia, gru­el­ing wars — such as in Iraq — in addi­tion to ‘regime change oper­a­tions’ and unscrupu­lous extra-ter­ri­to­r­i­al sanc­tions. ‘The mil­i­tary-indus­tri­al-com­plex and the intel­li­gence ser­vices (...) have seized an enor­mous amount of pow­er,’ notes the pub­li­cist, and warns that only exter­nal aggres­sion can hold the coun­try togeth­er: ‘The con­vic­tion that Amer­i­ca must be at the top in the world,’ is, at the moment, ‘almost the only thing that the deeply antag­o­nis­tic Democ­rats and Repub­li­cans can still agree on.’ Baron speaks of ‘impe­r­i­al arro­gance.’ . . .”
5.–” . . . . ‘To defend its lost hege­mon­ic posi­tion’ the Unit­ed States ‘is not pri­mar­i­ly seek­ing to regain its com­pet­i­tive­ness,’ Baron observes, but rather it is striv­ing ‘by any means and on all fronts, to pre­vent — or at least restrain — Chi­na’s progress.’ . . . . Ulti­mate­ly, ‘the threat of a Third World War’ looms large. . . .”

One can­not under­stand con­tem­po­rary Chi­na and the polit­i­cal his­to­ry of that coun­try over the last cou­ple of cen­turies with­out a com­pre­hen­sive grasp of the effect of the Opi­um Wars on that nation and its peo­ple.

Indeed, one can­not grasp Chi­nese his­to­ry and pol­i­tics with­out an under­stand­ing of the nar­cotics trade’s cen­tral posi­tion in that country’s pol­i­tics.

A viable under­stand­ing of Chi­na’s past yields under­stand­ing of its present. 

Key points of analy­sis and dis­cus­sion of the Opi­um Wars include:

1.–The eco­nom­ic imper­a­tive for the con­flicts were the trade imbal­ance between Chi­na and Britain: “ . . . . In the 18th cen­tu­ry the demand for Chi­nese lux­u­ry goods (par­tic­u­lar­ly silk, porce­lain, and tea) cre­at­ed a trade imbal­ance between Chi­na and Britain. Euro­pean sil­ver flowed into Chi­na through the Can­ton Sys­tem, which con­fined incom­ing for­eign trade to the south­ern port city of Can­ton. . . .”
2.–To alter that dynam­ic, the British East India Com­pa­ny turned to the opi­um trade: “ . . . . To counter this imbal­ance, the British East India Com­pa­ny began to grow opi­um in Ben­gal and allowed pri­vate British mer­chants to sell opi­um to Chi­nese smug­glers for ille­gal sale in Chi­na. The influx of nar­cotics reversed the Chi­nese trade sur­plus, drained the econ­o­my of sil­ver, and increased the num­bers of opi­um addicts inside the coun­try, out­comes that seri­ous­ly wor­ried Chi­nese offi­cials. . . .”
3.–The Chi­nese attempt at inter­dict­ing the opi­um trade was coun­tered with force of arms: “ . . . . In 1839, the Daoguang Emper­or, reject­ing pro­pos­als to legal­ize and tax opi­um, appoint­ed ViceroyLin Zexu to go to Can­ton to halt the opi­um trade completely.[8] Lin wrote an open let­ter to Queen Vic­to­ria, which she nev­er saw, appeal­ing to her moral respon­si­bil­i­ty to stop the opi­um trade.[9] Lin then resort­ed to using force in the west­ern mer­chants’ enclave. He con­fis­cat­ed all sup­plies and ordered a block­ade of for­eign ships on the Pearl Riv­er. Lin also con­fis­cat­ed and destroyed a sig­nif­i­cant quan­ti­ty of Euro­pean opium.[10] The British gov­ern­ment respond­ed by dis­patch­ing a mil­i­tary force to Chi­na and in the ensu­ing con­flict, the Roy­al Navy used its naval and gun­nery pow­er to inflict a series of deci­sive defeats on the Chi­nese Empire,[11] a tac­tic lat­er referred to as gun­boat diplo­ma­cy.  . . .”
4.–Forced to sign the Treaty of Nanking, Chi­na expe­ri­enced: “ . . . . In 1842, the Qing dynasty was forced to sign the Treaty of Nanking—the first of what the Chi­nese lat­er called the unequal treaties—which grant­ed an indem­ni­ty  and extrater­ri­to­ri­al­i­ty to British sub­jects in Chi­na . . . . The 1842 Treaty of Nanking not only opened the way for fur­ther opi­um trade, but ced­ed the ter­ri­to­ry of Hong Kong . . . . ”
5.–The trade imbal­ance between Chi­na and Britain wors­ened, and the expense of main­tain new colo­nial territories—including Hong Kong (appro­pri­at­ed through the first Opi­um War)—led to the sec­ond Opi­um War. Note that the “extrater­ri­to­ri­al­i­ty” grant­ed to British sub­jects exempt­ed them from Chi­nese law, includ­ing the offi­cial pro­hi­bi­tion against opi­um traf­fick­ing: “ . . . . Despite the new ports avail­able for trade under the Treaty of Nanking, by 1854 Britain’s imports from Chi­na had reached nine times their exports to the coun­try. At the same time British impe­r­i­al finances came under fur­ther pres­sure from the expense of admin­is­ter­ing the bur­geon­ing colonies of Hong Kong and Sin­ga­pore in addi­tion to India. Only the lat­ter’s opi­um could bal­ance the deficit. [30]Along with var­i­ous com­plaints about the treat­ment of British mer­chants in Chi­nese ports and the Qing gov­ern­men­t’s refusal to accept fur­ther for­eign ambas­sadors, the rel­a­tive­ly minor ‘Arrow Inci­dent’ pro­vid­ed the pre­text the British need­ed to once more resort to mil­i­tary force to ensure the opi­um kept flow­ing. . . . Mat­ters quick­ly esca­lat­ed and led to the Sec­ond Opi­um War . . . .”
6.–As a result of the Sec­ond Opi­um War, Chi­na was oblig­ed to Cede No.1 Dis­trict of Kowloon (south of present-day Bound­ary Street) to Britain; grant “free­dom of reli­gion,” which led to an influx of West­ern Mis­sion­ar­ies, U.S. in par­tic­u­lar; British ships were allowed to car­ry inden­tured Chi­nese to the Amer­i­c­as; legal­iza­tion of the opi­um trade.”
7.–Fierce, elo­quent con­dem­na­tion of the Opi­um Wars was voiced by British Prime Min­is­ter Glad­stone: “ . . . . The opi­um trade incurred intense enmi­ty from the lat­er British Prime Min­is­ter William Ewart Gladstone.[34] As a mem­ber of Par­lia­ment, Glad­stone called it ‘most infa­mous and atro­cious’, refer­ring to the opi­um trade between Chi­na and British India in particular.[35] Glad­stone was fierce­ly against both of the Opi­um Wars, was ardent­ly opposed to the British trade in opi­um to Chi­na, and denounced British vio­lence against Chinese.[36] Glad­stone lam­bast­ed it as ‘Palmer­ston’s Opi­um War’ and said that he felt ‘in dread of the judg­ments of God upon Eng­land for our nation­al iniq­ui­ty towards Chi­na’ in May 1840.[37] A famous speech was made by Glad­stone in Par­lia­ment against the First Opi­um War.[38][39] Glad­stone crit­i­cized it as ‘a war more unjust in its ori­gin, a war more cal­cu­lat­ed in its progress to cov­er this coun­try with per­ma­nent dis­grace’. . . .”

FTR #1169 The Corporate Foundation of the Current Malaise

To com­pre­hend the polit­i­cal mael­strom engulf­ing the coun­try as 2020 and the Trump admin­is­tra­tion are draw­ing to a close, it is essen­tial to under­stand the transna­tion­al cor­po­rate landscape—the foun­da­tion of con­tem­po­rary pow­er polit­i­cal dynam­ics.

Begin­ning with an out­growth of the piv­otal­ly impor­tant car­tel agree­ments reached by Stan­dard Oil and I.G. Far­ben between the World Wars, we note the appar­ent “gentleman’s agree­ment” between U.S. and Ger­man busi­ness­men not to bomb the Third Reich’s syn­thet­ic fuel plants dur­ing the Sec­ond World War.

Those syn­thet­ic fuel plants were a direct out­growth of the Standard‑I.G. Agree­ment of 1929, high­light­ed in—among oth­er programs—FTR #’s 511, and 1108.

That appar­ent agree­ment exem­pli­fies and sig­ni­fies the deci­sive posi­tion of transna­tion­al cor­po­rate inter­ests in the man­i­fes­ta­tion of inter­na­tion­al pow­er pol­i­tics.

Next, we set forth the dom­i­nant posi­tion of the remark­able and dead­ly Bor­mann cap­i­tal net­work in the glob­al “cor­poro­c­ra­cy.”

In addi­tion to con­trol of the Ger­man cor­po­rate estab­lish­ment and inter­locked Euro­pean inter­ests, the Bor­mann group has been buy­ing share in Blue Chip U.S. stocks for the bet­ter part of the last hun­dred years. This puts the net­work in a con­trol­ling posi­tion in the transna­tion­al cor­po­rate com­mu­ni­ty.

With elec­tron­ic, com­put­er-con­trolled buy­ing and sell­ing of equi­ties in the world’s cap­i­tal mar­kets, a rel­a­tive­ly small share of cap­i­tal own­er­ship in one of the giant transna­tion­als is dis­pro­por­tion­al­ly impor­tant. Own­er­ship of 2% or more of the stock in one of the world’s giant cor­po­ra­tions con­sti­tutes a major posi­tion, in that when that num­ber of shares is sold at one time, such an event can kick-in an elec­tron­ic sell-off.

Illus­trat­ing the posi­tion of the Bor­mann net­work in U.S. eco­nom­ic life, we review the fact that Bor­mann drew funds on three demand accounts in New York banks in August of 1967. Noth­ing illus­trates the nature of transna­tion­al cor­po­rate pow­er and the posi­tion of the remark­able and dead­ly Bor­mann group in the cor­po­rate pan­theon.

We note, in pass­ing, that Bormann’s secu­ri­ty director—Gestapo chief Hein­rich Muller—worked with CIA and U.S. intel­li­gence in the post­war peri­od.
The Bor­mann trans­ac­tions took place in August of 1967. In April and June of the fol­low­ing year, Mar­tin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy were killed.

Bor­mann saw Fritz Thyssen as a pipeline to Allen Dulles.

In the con­clud­ing por­tion of the pro­gram, we present sup­ple­men­tal infor­ma­tion from an unpub­lished man­u­script. The author is well-known to vet­er­an researchers, but will remain anony­mous, since the work was nev­er for­mal­ly pub­lished.

In FTR #’s 1149 and 1150, we set forth por­tions of this man­u­script. In this pro­gram, we reca­pit­u­late those por­tions of the doc­u­ment, and include dis­cus­sion of the con­sum­mate influ­ence of the I.G. Far­ben inter­na­tion­al espi­onage orga­ni­za­tion in the U.S. between the World Wars.

In addi­tion to I.G.’s pro­found rela­tion­ship with John Fos­ter and Allen Dulles of Sul­li­van & Cromwell, I.G. has also man­i­fest­ed major influ­ence in Demo­c­ra­t­ic admin­is­tra­tions: Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal and JFK’s atten­u­at­ed post­war admin­is­tra­tion as well.

Beyond that, the author main­tains, cor­rect­ly in our opin­ion, that the transna­tion­al influ­ence of the I.G. net­works and the post­war polit­i­cal influ­ence-buy­ing of CIA and BND con­sti­tute a direct exten­sion of the OSS-SS col­lab­o­ra­tion dur­ing the clos­ing stages of World War II.

What was cre­at­ed in US. board­rooms and intel­li­gence head­quar­ters dur­ing and imme­di­ate­ly after World War II is now mor­ph­ing into a mass move­ment.
This is the cor­po­rate foun­da­tion of the cur­rent malaise!

Pro­gram High­lights Include: Review of the role of OSS (and lat­er CIA) offi­cers Allen Dulles, William Casey and Frank Wis­ner in paving the way for the incor­po­ra­tion of Nazi SS cadres into the embry­on­ic CIA; review of the role of 1948 GOP Pres­i­den­tial can­di­date Thomas Dewey in advis­ing the Mary Carter Paint Com­pa­ny (lat­er named Resorts Inter­na­tion­al) to pay Allen Dulles’s law part­ner David Peck to advise U.S. High Com­mis­sion­er for Ger­many John J. McCloy on the com­mu­ta­tion of sen­tences met­ed out to Nazi war crim­i­nals; review of the role of the Gehlen Org (as part of the then West Ger­man BND) in financ­ing East­ern Euro­pean fas­cist ele­ments in the U.S.; review of the over­lap between Resorts Inter­na­tion­al and William Casey’s Cap­i­tal Cities Incor­po­rat­ed; review of Casey’s role over­see­ing OSS activ­i­ties in Ger­many dur­ing 1944 and 1945.

FTR #1150 The Space Plane and Covid-19: The Paperclip Legacy, Part 5

This pro­gram com­pletes the line of inquiry we under­took in FTR #‘s 1146, 1147, 1148 and 1149. Most impor­tant­ly, we bring the evo­lu­tion of events and insti­tu­tions up to the present. Lis­ten­ers who digest the pro­grams in the future should bear in mind that these pro­grams were record­ed dur­ing, and in the imme­di­ate after­math of, the 2020 GOP con­ven­tion.

After review­ing infor­ma­tion about Nixon con­fi­dante Bebe Rebo­zo and the links of his bank to the dead­ly Bor­mann net­work, we con­tin­ue with the unpub­lished man­u­script from which we read in our last pro­gram. The broad­cast high­lights inter­ac­tions between the Nixon admin­is­tra­tion, Bebe Rebo­zo, a mys­te­ri­ous and alleged­ly orga­nized-crime con­nect­ed com­pa­ny called Resorts Inter­na­tion­al, an even more mys­te­ri­ous sub­sidiary of Resorts Inter­na­tion­al called the Par­adise Island Bridge Com­pa­ny and the Dewey, Dulles, Nazi, William Casey milieu that is cen­tral to this dis­cus­sion.

The Par­adise Island Bridge Com­pa­ny’s direc­tors are sug­ges­tive of a pos­si­ble Bor­mann link: ” . . . . It did, how­ev­er, name a num­ber of Ger­man and Swiss investors, One of these, for exam­ple, was Dr. Heinz Ros­terg of Lau­sanne, a for­mer ‘prin­ci­pal stock­hold­er’ and direc­tor of the Win­ter­shall potash con­cern; Win­ter­shall was one of the major sub­sidiaries of BASF, the largest sin­gle suc­ces­sor firm to I.G. Far­ben. . . . .”

The man­u­script sets forth spec­u­la­tion about the pos­si­bil­i­ty that Mary Carter Paint/Resorts Inter­na­tion­al may have gen­er­at­ed funds that greased the wheels for the release of many Nazi war crim­i­nals. ” . . . . Still unan­swered is the ques­tion of whether the sto­ry of the Dewey-Allen Dulles inter­est in Resorts should have referred to funds, not from the CIA itself, but from its Ger­man-Swiss part­ners in the Par­adise Island Bridge Com­pa­ny. Such a hypoth­e­sis might explain some of the many strange coin­ci­dences which sur­round the com­pa­ny’s con­tro­ver­sial his­to­ry. It might, for exam­ple, explain the ‘for­tune in legal fees’ that Mary Carter Paint, on the advice of Thomas Dewey, paid to Allen Dulles’ long­time law part­ner David Peck. (48) The SS-OSS con­nec­tion cer­tain­ly had rea­son to be grate­ful to David Peck. It was on the basis of Peck­’s rec­om­men­da­tion, as chair­man of a three-man advi­so­ry board to review all the Nurem­berg sen­tences, that John J. McCloy com­mut­ed to time served the sen­tence of Sko­rzeny’s post-war employ­er, Baron Alfried Krupp, and eight of his col­leagues, and also ordered Krup­p’s prop­er­ty to be restored. (49) The release of Krupp and oth­er indus­tri­al­ists ful­filled an ear­li­er demand to McCloy from Her­mann Abs, who him­self nar­row­ly escaped pros­e­cu­tion at Nurem­berg. Abs was the first post-war chair­man of BASF, the I.G. Far­ben suc­ces­sor com­pa­ny rep­re­sent­ed among the stock­hold­ers of the Par­adise Island Bridge Com­pa­ny. (50) . . . .”

William Casey

The author also engages in spec­u­la­tion about the rela­tion­ship between Resorts Inter­na­tion­al and Cap­i­tal Cities Broad­cast­ing. The lat­ter is the com­pa­ny that bought out ABC in the mid 1980’s and whose largest stock­hold­er was William Casey. ” . . . . Might not the OSS-SS con­nec­tion also throw light on the unex­plained inter­lock between James Cros­by’s com­pa­ny Resorts Inter­na­tion­al, tight­ly con­trolled by the relat­ed and dou­bly inter­mar­ried Cros­by-Mur­phy fam­i­lies, and Cap­i­tal Cities Broad­cast­ing, the major invest­ment of the CIA’s present direc­tor William Casey. (51) Casey would be the log­i­cal per­son to have estab­lished the orig­i­nal con­nec­tion between the Cros­by-Mur­phy fam­i­lies and their mys­te­ri­ous Ger­man-Swiss part­ners. For it was Casey who, in 1944–45, ‘was giv­en over­all oper­a­tional con­trol of [OSS] Ger­man projects,’ and ‘co-ordi­nat­ed . . . the over 150 men’ whom OSS sent into Ger­many. (52) With Dulles, Wis­ner, and For­gan, Casey was also one of the OSS vet­er­ans who lob­bied suc­cess­ful­ly for a CIA which could legit­i­mate­ly uti­lize the resources of the Gehlen Org. (53) . . .”

The “unex­plained inter­lock” between Resorts Inter­na­tion­al and Cap­i­tal Cities is described by the author: ” . . . . James Cros­by’s cousin and broth­er-in-law, Thomas S. Mur­phy, was in 1964, the Exec­u­tive Vice-Pres­i­dent and a direc­tor of Cap­i­tal Cities, as well as a direc­tor of Mary Carter Paint. Low­ell Thomas, a long-time radio broad­cast­er with intel­li­gence con­nec­tions, was a direc­tor of both com­pa­nies. At the time, William Casey was an offi­cer, direc­tor, and major stock­hold­er of Cap­i­tal Cities. . . .”

Trump kept a copy of this by his bed­side for late-night read­ing.

After James Cros­by’s “unex­pect­ed” death in April of 1986, Don­ald Trump–whose oper­a­tions are bankrolled by Deutsche Bank–purchased the com­pa­ny. Fol­low­ing lit­i­ga­tion with Merv Grif­fin, the assets were divid­ed with the tele­vi­sion per­son­al­i­ty. ”  . . . . Real estate devel­op­er Don­ald Trump, who owned two Atlantic City casi­nos, beat out sev­er­al oth­er bid­ders to pur­chase a con­trol­ling stake in the com­pa­ny from Cros­by’s fam­i­ly for $79 mil­lion in July 1987.[26] Trump was appoint­ed chair­man of Resorts Inter­na­tion­al, and said he would com­plete the Taj Mahal in about a year. . . . The two ulti­mate­ly reached a set­tle­ment, which was exe­cut­ed in Novem­ber 1988, with Grif­fin pur­chas­ing the com­pa­ny for $365 mil­lion, and Trump pur­chas­ing the Taj Mahal from the com­pa­ny for $273 mil­lion. . . .”

Pro­gram High­lights Include:

1.–Discussion of Cap­i­tal Cities Broad­cast­ing’s acqui­si­tion of ABC fol­low­ing the CIA’s fil­ing of a “fair­ness doc­trine” com­plaint against the com­pa­ny for their cov­er­age of Bish­op, Bald­win, Rewald, Dilling­ham and Wong. Ron Rewald alleged that he and the firm for which he worked front­ed for CIA. (At the time William Casey was head of CIA and Cap­i­tal Cities largest stock­hold­er.)
2.–The fact that Thomas Dewey, two time GOP can­di­date for Pres­i­dent, was one of the founders of Cap­i­tal Cities. The gen­e­sis of the Nazi branch of the GOP was Dewey’s 1948 cam­paign.
3.–Review of William Casey’s career, includ­ing the posi­tions he held in the Nixon admin­is­tra­tion and his involve­ment with the Black Eagle Trust, which evolved from the Gold­en Lily plun­der acquired by Japan after World War II.
4.–Discussion of Attor­ney Gen­er­al William Bar­r’s back­ground in the CIA, includ­ing his role in George H.W. Bush’s par­don of key play­ers in the Iran-Con­tra scan­dal.
5.–Analysis of Bar­r’s father Don­ald Barr and his work for the OSS in World War II, which may have inter­sect­ed with the machi­na­tions of Dulles, Dono­van, Casey and the Nazi “Oper­a­tion Sun­rise” par­tic­i­pants.
6.–Donald Bar­r’s hir­ing of col­lege dropout Jef­frey Epstein to teach at the Dal­ton School.
7.–Donald Bar­r’s author­ship of a sci­ence fic­tion novel–Space Relations–about a plan­et dom­i­nat­ed by oli­garchs and dri­ven by sex­u­al slav­ery.
8.–Review of a deci­sive strat­a­gem of the Under­ground Reich, enun­ci­at­ed by Army offi­cer Glenn Pinch­back in a let­ter to New Orleans D.A. Jim Gar­ri­son. Pinch­back wrote of a ” . . . . ‘Neo-Nazi plot to enslave Amer­i­ca in the name of anti-Com­mu­nism,’ . . .”
9.–In past pro­grams, we have briefly not­ed that mil­i­tary and [osten­si­bly] civil­ian pro­grams offi­cial­ly involved with “epi­dem­ic pre­ven­tion” might con­ceal clan­des­tine bio­log­i­cal war­fare appli­ca­tions designed to cre­ate epi­demics. The offi­cial dis­tinc­tion between “offen­sive” and “defen­sive” bio­log­i­cal war­fare research is aca­d­e­m­ic. In that con­text, one should note that the offi­cial title of Unit 731, the noto­ri­ous Japan­ese bio­log­i­cal war­fare unit was “the Epi­dem­ic Pre­ven­tion and Water Purifi­ca­tion Depart­ment of the Kwan­tung Army.” Unit 731’s research was incor­po­rat­ed into the U.S. bio­log­i­cal war­fare pro­gram at the end of World War II.
10.–Noteworthy in that gen­er­al con­text is the obser­va­tion by Jonathan King (pro­fes­sor of mol­e­c­u­lar biol­o­gy at MIT), that Pen­ta­gon research into the appli­ca­tion of genet­ic engi­neer­ing to bio­log­i­cal war­fare could be masked as vac­cine research, which sounds “defen­sive.”