Dave Emory’s entire life­time of work is avail­able on a flash dri­ve that can be obtained HERE. The new dri­ve is a 32-giga­byte dri­ve that is cur­rent as of the pro­grams and arti­cles post­ed by the fall of 2017. The new dri­ve (avail­able for a tax-deductible con­tri­bu­tion of $65.00 or more.)

WFMU-FM is pod­cast­ing For The Record–You can sub­scribe to the pod­cast HERE.

You can sub­scribe to e‑mail alerts from Spitfirelist.com HERE.

You can sub­scribe to RSS feed from Spitfirelist.com HERE.

You can sub­scribe to the com­ments made on pro­grams and posts–an excel­lent source of infor­ma­tion in, and of, itself HERE.

This broad­cast was record­ed in one, 60-minute seg­ment.

Intro­duc­tion: This broad­cast con­cludes our exam­i­na­tion of weaponized fem­i­nism.

In the con­text of the Four B’s of Amer­i­can politics–Bullets, Bribes, Beds and Black­mail, the Cony­ers and Franken “blood­less” polit­i­cal assas­si­na­tions bear more scruti­ny than they have received.

From the stand­point of counter-intel­li­gence analy­sis, the #MeToo phe­nom­e­non sig­nals a superb tac­tic for polit­i­cal destruc­tion: a) infil­trate a woman into the entourage or pro­fes­sion­al envi­ron­ment of a male politi­cian, media or busi­ness fig­ure tar­get­ed for destruc­tion; b) have her gain the trust of her polit­i­cal tar­get and his asso­ciates (the car­di­nal rule for a good dou­ble agent is “make your­self indis­pens­able to the effort”); c) after suf­fi­cient pas­sage of time, sur­face the alle­ga­tions of sex­u­al harass­ment; d) IF the oppor­tu­ni­ty for actu­al sex play and/or flir­ta­tion presents itself, take advan­tage of it for lat­er use as political/rhetorical ammu­ni­tion; e) with accusers hav­ing the tac­ti­cal lux­u­ry of remain­ing anony­mous, the oper­a­tional tem­plate for a form of sex­u­al McCarthy­ism and the prece­dent-set­ting con­tem­po­rary man­i­fes­ta­tion of a sex­u­al Star Cham­ber is very real–the oper­a­tional sim­i­lar­i­ties between much of the #metoo move­ment and the Salem Witch Tri­als should not be lost on the per­se­ver­ing observ­er; f) prop­er vet­ting of the accu­sa­tions is absent in such a process; g) for a pub­lic fig­ure in the U.S., prov­ing delib­er­ate defama­tion (libel/slander) is extreme­ly dif­fi­cult and lit­i­ga­tion is very expensive–the mere sur­fac­ing of charges is enough to taint some­one for life and the exor­bi­tant expense of lit­i­ga­tion is pro­hib­i­tive for all but the wealth­i­est among us.

Recent dis­clo­sures con­cern­ing Trump’s data ally Cam­bridge Ana­lyt­i­ca include the fir­m’s appar­ent prac­tice of entrap­ping polit­i­cal oppo­nents with “Ukrain­ian sex work­ers” in order to engi­neer their destruc­tion.

This should be eval­u­at­ed against the sce­nario Mr. Emory has detailed above.

 In FTR #998, we high­light­ed the removal of John Cony­ers, Con­gres­sion­al crit­ic of the Nazi Azov Bat­tal­ion, one of the founders of the Con­gres­sion­al Black Cau­cus, and senior mem­ber of the House Judi­cia­ry Com­mit­tee (which helps vet Pres­i­den­tial judi­cial appoint­ments.)

Cony­ers’ removal was sig­naled and abet­ted by Alt-Right blog­ger Mike Cer­novich, a doc­u­ment­ed misog­y­nist who famous­ly observed that: “Misog­y­ny gets you laid.”

One of Cony­ers’ long-time female staffers–his admin­is­tra­tive assis­tant for more than two decades–did not accuse him of sex­u­al harass­ment. That staffer was Rosa Parks, whose refusal to go to “the back of the bus” sig­naled the mod­ern civ­il rights move­ment.

Cony­ers’ employ­ment of Rosa Parks by itself would have been enough to get him tar­get­ed by the far right.

We note that, before her emer­gence as one of the prime movers of the con­tem­po­rary civ­il rights move­ment, Rosa Parks was a cut­ting-edge fem­i­nist activist (before being fem­i­nist was “cool.”)

” . . . . She joined the Nation­al Asso­ci­a­tion for the Advance­ment of Col­ored Peo­ple (NAACP) in 1943, 12 years before that fate­ful com­mute. In her first years in the orga­ni­za­tion, she worked specif­i­cal­ly on crim­i­nal jus­tice and its appli­ca­tion in Alaba­ma com­mu­ni­ties.

One part of this was pro­tect­ing black men from false accu­sa­tions and lynch­ings; the oth­er was ensur­ing that black peo­ple who had been sex­u­al­ly assault­ed by white peo­ple could get their day in court. . . .”

This, also, might well have been moti­va­tion enough for the far right to have effect­ed a polit­i­cal lynch­ing of Cony­ers, adding the irony that his alleged harass­ment of a female staffer was the rea­son for his removal. He denied the alle­ga­tion and said that he set­tled in court to avoid the great time and expense such lit­i­ga­tion would have required.

In con­clu­sion, we dip back a lit­tle over 20 years–to August of 1996, to hear a lengthy excerpt of FTR #7, an inter­view with the late Frank Spier­ing, the author of Who Killed Pol­ly?

In some­thing of a tran­si­tion­al ele­ment to our next show, deal­ing with school shoot­ings, their polit­i­cal and soci­o­log­i­cal ram­i­fi­ca­tions and the omi­nous con­nec­tions of fas­cist groups to many of those events, we note how the dis­ap­pear­ance of Pol­ly Klaas, a twelve-year old alleged­ly raped and mur­dered by Richard Allen Davis, gal­va­nized and ter­ror­ized much of Amer­i­ca. Like the school shoot­ings, young­sters cow­ered in fear because of the event.

Even­tu­al­ly, the case led to the pas­sage of Cal­i­for­ni­a’s “three strikes” law.

Although Davis cer­tain­ly kid­napped Pol­ly, the evi­dence sug­gests that he nei­ther killed her, nor raped her, but that he spir­it­ed the young, unfor­tu­nate Ms. Klaas away at the behest of a pow­er­ful polit­i­cal ele­ment.

With the appar­ent col­lu­sion of ele­ments of law enforce­ment (includ­ing ele­ments of FBI), the actu­al exec­u­tive authors of the event may have spir­it­ed Pol­ly away to slave pros­ti­tu­tion in a Sau­di broth­el, or for some oth­er, mon­strous man­i­fes­ta­tion of child pornog­ra­phy or white slav­ery.

If Mr. Spier­ing’s spec­u­la­tion that she may have end­ed up in a spe­cial Sau­di broth­el spe­cial­iz­ing in under-age Amer­i­can and West­ern women, the cor­rup­tion of ele­ments of law enforce­ment by the tremen­dous petro­le­um wealth and deriv­a­tive polit­i­cal pow­er of that nation should not be sur­pris­ing.

“Fill ‘er up!”

After the pro­gram was record­ed, Frank Spier­ing passed away. The pub­lish­er went out of busi­ness.

1. In the con­text of the Four B’s of Amer­i­can politics–Bullets, Bribes, Beds and Black­mail, the Cony­ers and Franken “blood­less polit­i­cal assas­si­na­tions bear more scruti­ny than they have received.

From the stand­point of counter-intel­li­gence analy­sis, the #MeToo phe­nom­e­non sig­nals a superb tac­tic for polit­i­cal destruc­tion: a) infil­trate a woman into the entourage or pro­fes­sion­al envi­ron­ment of a male politi­cian, media or busi­ness fig­ure tar­get­ed for destruc­tion; b) have her gain the trust of her polit­i­cal tar­get and his asso­ciates (the car­di­nal rule for a good dou­ble agent is “make your­self indis­pens­able to the effort”); c) after suf­fi­cient pas­sage of time, sur­face the alle­ga­tions of sex­u­al harass­ment; d) IF the oppor­tu­ni­ty for actu­al sex play and/or flir­ta­tion presents itself, take advan­tage of it for lat­er use as political/rhetorical ammu­ni­tion; e) with accusers hav­ing the tac­ti­cal lux­u­ry of remain­ing anony­mous, the oper­a­tional tem­plate for a form of sex­u­al McCarthy­ism and the prece­dent-set­ting con­tem­po­rary man­i­fes­ta­tion of a sex­u­al Star Cham­ber is very real–the oper­a­tional sim­i­lar­i­ties between much of the #metoo move­ment and the Salem Witch Tri­als should not be lost on the per­se­ver­ing observ­er; f) prop­er vet­ting of the accu­sa­tions is absent in such a process; g) for a pub­lic fig­ure in the U.S., prov­ing delib­er­ate defama­tion (libel/slander) is extreme­ly dif­fi­cult and lit­i­ga­tion is very expensive–the mere sur­fac­ing of charges is enough to taint some­one for life and the exor­bi­tant expense of lit­i­ga­tion is pro­hib­i­tive for all but the wealth­i­est among us.

Recent dis­clo­sures con­cern­ing Trump’s data ally Cam­bridge Ana­lyt­i­ca include the fir­m’s appar­ent prac­tice of entrap­ping polit­i­cal oppo­nents with “Ukrain­ian sex work­ers” in order to engi­neer their destruc­tion.

This should be eval­u­at­ed against the sce­nario Mr. Emory has detailed above.

“Revealed: Trunp’s Elec­tion Con­sul­tants Filmed Say­ing They Use Bribes and Sex Work­ers to Entrap Politi­cians;” Chan­nel 4 News; 3/19/2018.

Senior exec­u­tives at Cam­bridge Ana­lyt­i­ca – the data com­pa­ny that cred­its itself with Don­ald Trump’s pres­i­den­tial vic­to­ry – have been secret­ly filmed say­ing they could entrap politi­cians in com­pro­mis­ing sit­u­a­tions with bribes and Ukrain­ian sex work­ers.

In an under­cov­er inves­ti­ga­tion by Chan­nel 4 News, the company’s chief exec­u­tive Alexan­der Nix said the British firm secret­ly cam­paigns in elec­tions across the world. This includes oper­at­ing through a web of shad­owy front com­pa­nies, or by using sub-con­trac­tors.

In one exchange, when asked about dig­ging up mate­r­i­al on polit­i­cal oppo­nents, Mr Nix said they could “send some girls around to the candidate’s house”, adding that Ukrain­ian girls “are very beau­ti­ful, I find that works very well”. . . .

2. In FTR #998, we high­light­ed the removal of John Cony­ers, Con­gres­sion­al crit­ic of the Nazi Azov Bat­tal­ion, one of the founders of the Con­gres­sion­al Black Cau­cus, and senior mem­ber of the House Judi­cia­ry Com­mit­tee (which helps vet Pres­i­den­tial judi­cial appoint­ments.)

Cony­ers’ removal was sig­naled and abet­ted by Alt-Right blog­ger Mike Cer­novich, a doc­u­ment­ed misog­y­nist who famous­ly observed that: “Misog­y­ny gets you laid.”

One of Cony­ers’ long-time female staffers–his admin­is­tra­tive assis­tant for more than two decades–did not accuse him of sex­u­al harass­ment. That staffer was Rosa Parks, whose refusal to go to “the back of the bus” sig­naled the mod­ern civ­il rights move­ment.

Cony­ers’ employ­ment of Rosa Parks by itself would have been enough to get him tar­get­ed by the far right.

We note that, before her emer­gence as one of the prime movers of the con­tem­po­rary civ­il rights move­ment, Rosa Parks was a cut­ting-edge fem­i­nist activist (before being fem­i­nist was “cool.”)

” . . . . She joined the Nation­al Asso­ci­a­tion for the Advance­ment of Col­ored Peo­ple (NAACP) in 1943, 12 years before that fate­ful com­mute. In her first years in the orga­ni­za­tion, she worked specif­i­cal­ly on crim­i­nal jus­tice and its appli­ca­tion in Alaba­ma com­mu­ni­ties.

One part of this was pro­tect­ing black men from false accu­sa­tions and lynch­ings; the oth­er was ensur­ing that black peo­ple who had been sex­u­al­ly assault­ed by white peo­ple could get their day in court. . . .”

This, alone, might well have been moti­va­tion enough for the far right to have effect­ed a polit­i­cal lynch­ing of Cony­ers, adding the irony that his alleged harass­ment of a female staffer was the rea­son for his removal. He denied the alle­ga­tion and said that he set­tled in court to avoid the great time and expense such lit­i­ga­tion would have required.

“Before the Bus, Rosa Parks Was a Sex­u­al Assault Inves­ti­ga­tor” by Ryan Mat­ti­more; History.com; 12/8/2017.

2017 may well become known as the year of #MeToo. But the women stand­ing up today are in fact part of a long his­to­ry of activists fight­ing sex­u­al harass­ment. And one of the activists more com­mon­ly asso­ci­at­ed with anoth­er move­ment was a key fig­ure in ear­ly attempts to rec­ti­fy sex­u­al injus­tice: Rosa Parks.

Revered as a civ­il rights icon, Rosa Parks is best known for spark­ing the 1955 Mont­gomery Bus Boy­cott, but her activism in the black com­mu­ni­ty pre­dates that day. She joined the Nation­al Asso­ci­a­tion for the Advance­ment of Col­ored Peo­ple (NAACP) in 1943, 12 years before that fate­ful com­mute. In her first years in the orga­ni­za­tion, she worked specif­i­cal­ly on crim­i­nal jus­tice and its appli­ca­tion in Alaba­ma com­mu­ni­ties.

One part of this was pro­tect­ing black men from false accu­sa­tions and lynch­ings; the oth­er was ensur­ing that black peo­ple who had been sex­u­al­ly assault­ed by white peo­ple could get their day in court. . . .

3. Mis­cel­la­neous Archive Show M4: Glo­ria in Excel­sis: The CIA, the Wom­en’s Move­ment and the News Media high­lights the CIA gen­e­sis and prob­a­ble con­tin­ued Agency asso­ci­a­tion in the pro­fes­sion­al ascent of Amer­i­ca’s sem­i­nal, icon­ic fem­i­nist.

In FTR #‘s 998, 999, 1000, we ana­lyzed aspects of what we termed “weaponized fem­i­nism.” (Note that we use the term “weaponized” to dis­tin­guish our focal point from the gen­er­al social and polit­i­cal phi­los­o­phy of fem­i­nism.)

An inter­est­ing con­sid­er­a­tion in that con­text con­cerns the extent to which the doyenne of Amer­i­can feminism–Gloria Steinem–has man­i­fest­ed weaponized fem­i­nism as an asso­ciate of the CIA. Although Steinem has admit­ted work­ing for the CIA years ago, she claims she sev­ered her con­tacts with the agency decades ago.

There is a con­sid­er­able body of his­tor­i­cal evi­dence that sug­gests that this is not the case. Fur­ther­more, that evi­dence rais­es the impor­tant ques­tion of the extent to which Steinem her­self, is a man­i­fes­ta­tion of “weaponized fem­i­nism.”

When Mis­cel­la­neous Archive Show M4: Glo­ria in Excel­sis: The CIA, the Wom­en’s Move­ment and the News Media was record­ed, the “air-check” cas­sette deck­’s “record lev­el” was too high, result­ing in dis­tort­ed sound qual­i­ty. Although it is more than thir­ty years old, it does con­tain a con­sid­er­able amount of mate­r­i­al rel­e­vant to Amer­i­ca’s pre­em­i­nent fem­i­nist Glo­ria Steinem. For those who find the audio dis­tor­tion too extreme for con­sump­tion of the infor­ma­tion, we offer this tran­script of the pro­gram.

Exe­cut­ed by the now defunct “Con­spir­a­cy Nation” web­site, it does con­tain some spelling mis­takes, due to pho­net­ic tran­scrip­tion errors. We have cor­rect­ed most of them, but some prob­a­bly remain.

Major points of dis­cus­sion in the program/transcript include:

1. Steinem’s deep asso­ci­a­tion with CIA’s Inde­pen­dent Research Ser­vice.
2. A series of col­lab­o­ra­tive efforts on the part of Steinem, her attor­neys and pow­er­ful cor­po­rate and polit­i­cal asso­ciates to sup­press the Steinem/CIA/Independent Research Ser­vice infor­ma­tion.
3. Steinem’s pro­found con­nec­tions to the Gra­ham pub­lish­ing empire, itself inex­tri­ca­bly linked to CIA.
4. Steinem’s 9‑year rela­tion­ship with J. Stan­ley Pot­tinger, appar­ent­ly linked to the Octo­ber Sur­prise, and Jus­tice Depart­ment obfus­ca­tion of the killings of Mar­tin Luther King and Orlan­do Lete­lier. Pot­tinger is friends with George H.W. Bush.
5. Her links to Eliz­a­beth Forsling Har­ris, who was instru­men­tal in arrang­ing the details for JFK’s motor­cade route in Dal­las.

4. Next we dip back a lit­tle over 20 years–to August of 1996, to hear a lengthy excerpt of FTR #7, an inter­view with the late Frank Spier­ing, the author of Who Killed Pol­ly?

In some­thing of a tran­si­tion­al ele­ment to our next show, deal­ing with school shoot­ings, their polit­i­cal and soci­o­log­i­cal ram­i­fi­ca­tions and the omi­nous con­nec­tions of fas­cist groups to many of those events, we note how the dis­ap­pear­ance of Pol­ly Klaas, a twelve-year old alleged­ly raped and mur­dered by Richard Allen Davis, gal­va­nized and ter­ror­ized much of Amer­i­ca. Like the school shoot­ings, young­sters cow­ered in fear because of the event.

Even­tu­al­ly, the case led to the pas­sage of Cal­i­for­ni­a’s “three strikes” law.

Although Davis cer­tain­ly kid­napped Pol­ly, the evi­dence sug­gests that he nei­ther killed her, nor raped her, but that he spir­it­ed the young, unfor­tu­nate Ms. Klaas away at the behest of a pow­er­ful polit­i­cal ele­ment.

With the appar­ent col­lu­sion of ele­ments of law enforce­ment (includ­ing ele­ments of FBI), the actu­al exec­u­tive authors of the event may have spir­it­ed Pol­ly away to slave pros­ti­tu­tion in a Sau­di broth­el, or for some oth­er, mon­strous man­i­fes­ta­tion of child pornog­ra­phy or white slav­ery.

If Mr. Spier­ing’s spec­u­la­tion that she may have end­ed up in a spe­cial Sau­di broth­el spe­cial­iz­ing in under-age Amer­i­can and West­ern women, the cor­rup­tion of ele­ments of law enforce­ment by the tremen­dous petro­le­um wealth and deriv­a­tive polit­i­cal pow­er of that nation should not be sur­pris­ing.

“Fill ‘er up!”

5. The fol­low­ing sur­faced in the after­math of the kid­nap­ping and mur­der of Pol­ly Klass (whose slay­ing led to the pas­sage of California’s “Three Strikes” law.) One can only imag­ine the extent to which con­nec­tions like this bear on the Sau­di spon­sor­ship of ter­ror­ism and the Unit­ed States’ reluc­tance (or inabil­i­ty) to do any­thing about it. What might sur­face if the U.S. were to tru­ly crack down on the Saud­is?

Who Killed Pol­ly?; by Frank Spier­ing; Copy­right 1995 [SC]; Mon­terey Bay Press; ISBN 0–964761‑2–0‑3; p9. 215, 216.

…To reit­er­ate Ernie Allen’s state­ment, three hun­dred girls, Polly’s and Katie’s age, are dis­ap­pear­ing year­ly through­out the Unit­ed States. It is a grow­ing epi­dem­ic, a con­spir­a­cy that threat­ens every fam­i­ly in Amer­i­ca. No lit­tle girl is safe. The worst part was told to the author by a wit­ness named Jill Mur­ray, who had vis­it­ed Sau­di Ara­bia. Jill’s father, since deceased, was there on a covert mil­i­tary oper­a­tion. She said she could not men­tion the actu­al towns as she still has friends liv­ing there and ‘they would be killed.’ I asked her, who would kill them? She answered ‘The Saud­is.’ . . .

. . . . Jill saw broth­els where chil­dren were kept. The broth­els were plain look­ing build­ings in the cen­ter of the town, with yel­low doors. Men con­stant­ly came in and out, most­ly Arabs from the oil fields, but men from oth­er busi­ness­es as well. Jill peeked past the yel­low door into one of the broth­els and saw a room filled young girls, white-skinned, about twelve-years old. She learned lat­er that many of them were Amer­i­can, abduct­ed and shipped from the Unit­ed States. The lit­tle girls were wear­ing small, skimpy, see-through skirts. A cus­tomer would pick one of them, and take whomev­er he want­ed upstairs.

Lat­er, Jill saw some of the lit­tle girls get­ting air in the back of the broth­el, She could tell they were drugged by the way they walked. Although she nev­er learned who ran the broth­els, she found out that in two or three years the lit­tle girls were turned into the streets where they were left to die. I asked Jill if she ever report­ed what she saw, lit­tle girls who were drugged and forced into sex­u­al slav­ery. She admit­ted that she had – to some­one in the diplo­mat­ic corps. He said he would see what could be done about the abduct­ed Amer­i­can girls – but to her knowl­edge, noth­ing was ever done.

Why weren’t the ques­tions sur­round­ing Polly’s kid­nap­ping answered? One has the feel­ing there is a dev­as­tat­ing secret behind all of the them. . . .