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.

Mr. Emory’s entire life’s work is avail­able on a 32GB flash dri­ve, avail­able for a con­tri­bu­tion of $65.00 or more (to KFJC). Click Here to obtain Dav­e’s 40+ years’ work, com­plete through Fall of 2020 (through FTR #1156).

Please con­sid­er sup­port­ing THE WORK DAVE EMORY DOES.

FTR #1163 This pro­gram was record­ed in one, 60-minute seg­ment.

Intro­duc­tion: The pro­gram kicks off with a look at a full-page adver­tise­ment from The New York Times pledg­ing resis­tance to Trump admin­is­tra­tion attempts at elec­toral nul­li­fi­ca­tion. The orga­ni­za­tion behind the ad is RefuseFascism.org. We note the first two sig­na­to­ries:

1. Cor­nel West–a mem­ber of the [Bernie] Sanders Institute–advised after the 2016 Demo­c­ra­t­ic Nation­al Con­ven­tion that the Sanders vot­ers had no choice but to cast their bal­lot for Jill Stein, the Green Par­ty can­di­date.
2. Noam Chomsky–whose work on gen­er­a­tive lin­guis­tics (which estab­lished him as an aca­d­e­mi­cian) was financed large­ly by Navy and Air Force Intelligence–helped to neu­tral­ize recog­ni­tion of the deci­sive role in the Viet­nam War of JFK’s assas­si­na­tion. JFK was in the process of pulling the U.S. out of Viet­nam. That was among the rea­sons he was killed. With his behav­ior fol­low­ing the Oliv­er Stone opus “JFK,” Noam Chom­sky did much to per­pet­u­ate the insti­tu­tion­al­ized fas­cism that has pos­sessed the U.S. since before the end of World War II. Gen­er­a­tive lin­guis­tics proved most use­ful in teach­ing per­son­nel at the Mon­terey Defense Lan­guage Insti­tute, one of whose grad­u­ates was Lee Har­vey Oswald.

On the back of the front sec­tion of that same edi­tion of The New York Times is an obit­u­ary of Sey­mour Top­ping. A lumi­nary of the “Gray Lady” for decades, he was South­east Asian Bureau chief from 1963 until 1966, dur­ing the time that JFK was mur­dered and the Viet­nam War, as a result, gained full momen­tum.

Much of the pro­gram sets forth mate­r­i­al from a con­sum­mate­ly impor­tant recent book: Chaos: Charles Man­son, the CIA, and the Secret His­to­ry of the Six­ties by Tom O’Neill.

O’Neill devel­ops a strong, albeit cir­cum­stan­tial, case that the crim­i­nal activ­i­ties of the Man­son Fam­i­ly were the core of a domes­tic intel­li­gence oper­a­tion. Specif­i­cal­ly, it appears that the Man­son “op” was a key ele­ment of a domes­tic Phoenix program–an assas­si­na­tion and ter­ror cam­paign in the South dur­ing the Viet­nam War.

(We note that Man­son and his fol­low­ers have become some­thing of an ide­o­log­i­cal and oper­a­tional touch­stone for con­tem­po­rary Nazi and fas­cist ele­ments.)

Designed to “win hearts and minds,” the Phoenix Pro­gram was real­ized by the CIA, and employed “false flag” ter­ror­ist inci­dents and the delib­er­ate mur­ders of non-com­bat­ants that were blamed on the Viet­cong and North Viet­namese.

(Some broad­casts delin­eat­ing aspects of this mate­r­i­al include: AFA #‘s 23, 32.)

” . . . . A Spe­cial Forces sol­dier, Antho­ny Her­bert, the sin­gle most dec­o­rat­ed com­bat vet­er­an of Viet­nam, pub­lished a best­selling book, Sol­dier, that detailed typ­i­cal orders from his Phoenix supe­ri­ors: “They want­ed me to take charge of exe­cu­tion teams that wiped out entire fam­i­lies and tried to make it appear as though the Viet Cong had done it them­selves. The ratio­nale was that the Viet Cong would see that oth­er Viet Cong had killed their own and . . . make alle­giance with us. The good guys. “. . . .” Chaos: Charles Man­son, the CIA, and the Secret His­to­ry of the Six­ties by Tom O’Neill; p. 228.

Exem­pli­fy­ing the fusion of CIA, Oper­a­tion Phoenix and the Los Ange­les law enforce­ment estab­lish­ment, Lieu­tenant Edward Her­rmann helped cre­ate a coun­terin­sur­gency pro­gram in L.A. and Cal­i­for­nia as a whole, inte­grat­ed and coor­di­nat­ed with fed­er­al intel­li­gence and law enforce­ment agen­cies.

Edward Her­rman:

1. Had a doc­tor­ate in psy­chol­o­gy.
2. Spe­cial­ized in quelling insur­gen­cies.
3. Devel­oped one of the first com­put­er sys­tems to track crim­i­nals and pre­dict vio­lent out­breaks in cities.
4. Worked for many U.S. intel­li­gence and mil­i­tary agen­cies, includ­ing: the Air Force, the Secret Ser­vice, the Trea­sury Depart­ment, the Pres­i­den­t’s Office of Sci­ence and Tech­nol­o­gy, the Insti­tute for Defense Analy­sis, the Defense Indus­tri­al Secu­ri­ty Clear­ance Office, the Defense Depart­men­t’s Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). 
5. Appears to have worked for the Phoenix Pro­gram in Viet­nam, using USAID for a cov­er.
6. Worked for numer­ous defense con­trac­tors includ­ing: Elec­tro-Dash Opti­cal Sys­tems, Sys­tem Devel­op­ment Cor­po­ra­tion and Con­trol Data Cor­po­ra­tion.

The con­clud­ing por­tion of the pro­gram con­sists of read­ing and analy­sis of O’Neil­l’s pre­sen­ta­tion of the career of one of the CIA’s most impor­tant MK-Ultra mind con­trol oper­a­tives.

The U.S. intel­li­gence agen­cies’ mind con­trol pro­grams are cov­ered in, among oth­er broad­casts, AFA #‘s 5–7 and FTR #‘s 974, 975, 976, 977. “Jol­ly” West is also dis­cussed in AFA #28.

Louis Joly­on West (“Jol­ly”) was Jack Ruby’s psy­chi­a­trist, and pre­sent­ed the unten­able hypoth­e­sis that Ruby killed Oswald because he had a brief psy­chomo­tor epilep­tic event in the base­ment of the Dal­las jail. In fact, the evi­dence sug­gests strong­ly that West had helped to erase Ruby’s mem­o­ry of hav­ing killed Oswald.

After detail­ing West­’s involve­ment with Sid­ney Got­tlieb of the CIA and one of the cen­tral fig­ures of its mind con­trol pro­grams, the broad­cast sets forth the mur­der of Chere Jo Hor­ton, a three-year-old girl whose muti­la­tion, rape and mur­der were pinned on 29-year-old Jim­mie Shaver.

An obvi­ous vic­tim of mind con­trol, appar­ent­ly imple­ment­ed in con­sid­er­able mea­sure by Louis Joly­on West, Shaver was pro­grammed to take respon­si­bil­i­ty for the killing, despite enor­mous con­tra­dic­tions in the evi­dence.

Key Points of Dis­cus­sion and analy­sis include:

1. Shaver’s unusu­al behav­ior and demeanor at the ini­tial scene of the crime: ” . . . . He was shirt­less, cov­ered in blood and scratch­es. Mak­ing no attempt to escape, he let the search par­ty walk him to the edge of the high­way. Bystanders described him as ‘dazed’ and ‘trance-like’ . . . .”
2. Shaver’s appar­ent lack of aware­ness of the imme­di­ate cir­cum­stances of the crime: ” ‘What’s going on here?’ he asked. He did­n’t seem drunk, but he could­n’t say where he was, how he’d got­ten there, or whose blood was all over him. Mean­while, the search par­ty found Hor­ton’s body in the grav­el pit. Her neck was bro­ken, her legs had been torn open, and she’d been raped. . . .”
3. ” . . . . Around four that morn­ing, an Air Force mar­shal ques­tioned Shaver and two doc­tors exam­ined him, agree­ing he was­n’t drunk. One lat­er tes­ti­fied that he ‘was not nor­mal . . . . he was very com­posed out­side, which I did not expect him to be under these cir­cum­stances.’ . . .”
4. Shaver did­n’t rec­og­nize his own wife when she came to vis­it him. ” . . . . When his wife came to vis­it, he did­n’t rec­og­nize her. . . .”
5. Ini­tial­ly, he believed some­one else com­mit­ted the crime. ” . . . . He gave his first state­ment at 10:30 a.m., adamant that anoth­er man was respon­si­ble: he could sum­mon an image of a stranger with blond hair and tat­toos. . . .”
6. Even­tu­al­ly, he signed a state­ment tak­ing respon­si­bil­i­ty: ” . . . . After the Air Force mar­shal returned to the jail­house, how­ev­er, Shaver signed a sec­ond state­ment tak­ing full respon­si­bil­i­ty. Though he still did­n’t remem­ber any­thing, he rea­soned that he must have done it. . . .”
7. Enter Jol­ly West: ” . . . . Two months lat­er, in Sep­tem­ber, Shaver’s mem­o­ries still had­n’t returned. The base hos­pi­tal com­man­der told Jol­ly West to per­form an eval­u­a­tion: was he legal­ly sane at the time of the mur­der? Shaver spent the next two weeks under West­’s super­vi­sion . . . While Shaver was under–with West inject­ing more truth serum to ‘deep­en the trance’–Shaver recalled the events of that night. He con­fessed to killing Hor­ton. . . .”
8. West was a defense wit­ness who, instead, appears to have aid­ed the pros­e­cu­tion: ” . . . . At the tri­al, West argued that Shaver’s truth-serum con­fes­sion was more valid than any oth­er. And West was tes­ti­fy­ing for the defense . . . .”
9. Shaver’s behav­ior at the tri­al is fur­ther sug­ges­tive of mind con­trol: ” . . . . One news­pa­per account said he ‘sat through the stren­u­ous ses­sions like a man in a trance,’ say­ing noth­ing, nev­er ris­ing to stretch or smoke, though he was a known chain-smok­er. ‘Some believe it’s an act,’ the paper said, ‘oth­ers believe his demeanor is real. . . .”
10. Shaver’s med­ical records at Lack­land Air Force base had van­ished. ” . . . . But, curi­ous­ly, all the records for patients in 1954 had been main­tained, with one excep­tion: the file for last names begin­ning with ‘Sa’ through ‘St’ had van­ished. . . .”
11. West posed lead­ing ques­tions to Shaver, who denied hav­ing ever tak­en the vic­tim’s clothes off. ” . . . . West had used lead­ing ques­tions to walk the entranced Shaver through the crime. ‘Tell me about when you took your clothes off, Jim­my,’ he said. And try­ing to prove that Shaver had repressed mem­o­ries: ‘Jim­my, do you remem­ber when some­thing like this hap­pened before?’ Or: ‘After you took her clothes off, what did you do?’ ‘I nev­er did take her clothes off,’ Shaver said. . . .”
12. The inter­view was divid­ed into thirds, the mid­dle third of which was not record­ed! ” . . . . The inter­view [with Shaver] was divid­ed into thirds. The mid­dle third, for some rea­son, was­n’t record­ed. When the record picked up, the man­u­script said, ‘Shaver is cry­ing. He has been con­front­ed with all the facts repeat­ed­ly.’ . . .”

1. The pro­gram kicks off with a look at a full-page adver­tise­ment from The New York Times pledg­ing resis­tance to Trump admin­is­tra­tion attempts at elec­toral nul­li­fi­ca­tion. The orga­ni­za­tion behind the ad is RefuseFascism.org. We note the first two sig­na­to­ries:

1. Cor­nel West–a mem­ber of the [Bernie] Sanders Institute–advised after the 2016 Demo­c­ra­t­ic Nation­al Con­ven­tion that the Sanders vot­ers had no choice but to cast their bal­lot for Jill Stein, the Green Par­ty can­di­date.
2. Noam Chomsky–whose work on gen­er­a­tive lin­guis­tics (which estab­lished him as an aca­d­e­mi­cian) was financed large­ly by Navy and Air Force Intelligence–helped to neu­tral­ize recog­ni­tion of the deci­sive role in the Viet­nam War of JFK’s assas­si­na­tion. JFK was in the process of pulling the U.S. out of Viet­nam. That was among the rea­sons he was killed. With his behav­ior fol­low­ing the Oliv­er Stone opus “JFK,” Noam Chom­sky did much to per­pet­u­ate the insti­tu­tion­al­ized fas­cism that has pos­sessed the U.S. since before the end of World War II. Gen­er­a­tive lin­guis­tics proved most use­ful in teach­ing per­son­nel at the Mon­terey Defense Lan­guage Insti­tute, one of whose grad­u­ates was Lee Har­vey Oswald.

Full Page Ad by RefuseFascism.org; New York Times; 11/9/2020; p. A11.

Sign­ers include Noam Chom­sky and Cor­nel West.

2. On the back of the front sec­tion of that same edi­tion of The New York Times is an obit­u­ary of Sey­mour Top­ping. A lumi­nary of the “Gray Lady” for decades, he was South­east Asian Bureau chief from 1963 until 1966, dur­ing the time that JFK was mur­dered and the Viet­nam War, as a result, gained full momen­tum.

“Sey­mour Top­ping, 98, For­mer Times Jour­nal­ist and Wit­ness to His­to­ry, Dies” by Robert B. McFad­den; The New York Times; 11/9/2020.

. . . . As South­east Asia bureau chief from 1963 to 1966, he cov­ered the ear­ly Amer­i­can involve­ment in Viet­nam and wars in Laos and Cam­bo­dia. . . . 

3. Much of the pro­gram sets forth mate­r­i­al from a con­sum­mate­ly impor­tant recent book: Chaos: Charles Man­son, the CIA, and the Secret His­to­ry of the Six­ties by Tom O’Neill.

O’Neill devel­ops a strong, albeit cir­cum­stan­tial, case that the crim­i­nal activ­i­ties of the Man­son Fam­i­ly were the core of a domes­tic intel­li­gence oper­a­tion. Specif­i­cal­ly, it appears that the Man­son “op” was a key ele­ment of a domes­tic Phoenix program–an assas­si­na­tion and ter­ror cam­paign in the South dur­ing the Viet­nam War.

Designed to “win hearts and minds,” the Phoenix Pro­gram was real­ized by the CIA, and employed “false flag” ter­ror­ist inci­dents and the delib­er­ate mur­ders of non-com­bat­ants that were blamed on the Viet­cong and North Viet­namese.

” . . . . A Spe­cial Forces sol­dier, Antho­ny Her­bert, the sin­gle most dec­o­rat­ed com­bat vet­er­an of Viet­nam, pub­lished a best­selling book, Sol­dier, that detailed typ­i­cal orders from his Phoenix supe­ri­ors: “They want­ed me to take charge of exe­cu­tion teams that wiped out entire fam­i­lies and tried to make it appear as though the Viet Cong had done it them­selves. The ratio­nale was that the Viet Cong would see that oth­er Viet Cong had killed their own and . . . make alle­giance with us. The good guys. “. . . .” Chaos: Charles Man­son, the CIA, and the Secret His­to­ry of the Six­ties by Tom O’Neill; p. 228.

Exem­pli­fy­ing the fusion of CIA, Oper­a­tion Phoenix and the Los Ange­les law enforce­ment estab­lish­ment, Lieu­tenant Edward Her­rmann helped cre­ate a coun­terin­sur­gency pro­gram in L.A. and Cal­i­for­nia as a whole, inte­grat­ed and coor­di­nat­ed with fed­er­al intel­li­gence and law enforce­ment agen­cies.

Edward Her­rman:

1. Had a doc­tor­ate in psy­chol­o­gy.
2. Spe­cial­ized in quelling insur­gen­cies.
3. Devel­oped one of the first com­put­er sys­tems to track crim­i­nals and pre­dict vio­lent out­breaks in cities.
4. Worked for many U.S. intel­li­gence and mil­i­tary agen­cies, includ­ing: the Air Force, the Secret Ser­vice, the Trea­sury Depart­ment, the Pres­i­den­t’s Office of Sci­ence and Tech­nol­o­gy, the Insti­tute for Defense Analy­sis, the Defense Indus­tri­al Secu­ri­ty Clear­ance Office, the Defense Depart­men­t’s Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).
5. Appears to have worked for the Phoenix Pro­gram in Viet­nam, using USAID for a cov­er.
6. Worked for numer­ous defense con­trac­tors includ­ing: Elec­tro-Dash Opti­cal Sys­tems, Sys­tem Devel­op­ment Cor­po­ra­tion and Con­trol Data Cor­po­ra­tion.

Chaos: Charles Man­son, the CIA, and the Secret His­to­ry of the Six­ties by Tom O’Neill; Lit­tle, Brown and Com­pa­ny [HC]; Copy­right 2019 by Tom O’Neill; 978–0‑316–47755‑0; pp.226–232; pp.370–374.

4. The con­clud­ing por­tion of the pro­gram con­sists of read­ing and analy­sis of O’Neil­l’s pre­sen­ta­tion of the career of one of the CIA’s most impor­tant MK-Ultra mind con­trol oper­a­tives.

Louis Joly­on West was Jack Ruby’s psy­chi­a­trist, and pre­sent­ed the unten­able hypoth­e­sis that Ruby killed Oswald because he had a brief psy­chomo­tor epilep­tic event in the base­ment of the Dal­las jail. In fact, the evi­dence sug­gests strong­ly that West had helped to erase Ruby’s mem­o­ry of hav­ing killed Oswald.

After detail­ing West­’s involve­ment with Sid­ney Got­tlieb of the CIA and one of the cen­tral fig­ures of its mind con­trol pro­grams, the broad­cast sets forth the mur­der of Chere Jo Hor­ton, a three-year-old girl whose muti­la­tion, rape and mur­der were pinned on 29-year-old Jim­mie Shaver.

An obvi­ous vic­tim of mind con­trol, appar­ent­ly imple­ment­ed in con­sid­er­able mea­sure by Louis Joly­on West, Shaver was pro­grammed to take respon­si­bil­i­ty for the killing, despite enor­mous con­tra­dic­tions in the evi­dence.

Key Points of Dis­cus­sion and analy­sis include:

1. Shaver’s unusu­al behav­ior and demeanor at the ini­tial scene of the crime: ” . . . . He was shirt­less, cov­ered in blood and scratch­es. Mak­ing no attempt to escape, he let the search par­ty walk him to the edge of the high­way. Bystanders described him as ‘dazed’ and ‘trance-like’ . . . .”
2. Shaver’s appar­ent lack of aware­ness of the imme­di­ate cir­cum­stances of the crime: ” ‘What’s going on here?’ he asked. He did­n’t seem drunk, but he could­n’t say where he was, how he’d got­ten there, or whose blood was all over him. Mean­while, the search par­ty found Hor­ton’s body in the grav­el pit. Her neck was bro­ken, her legs had been torn open, and she’s been raped. . . .”
3. ” . . . . Around four that morn­ing, an Air Force mar­shal ques­tioned Shaver and two doc­tors exam­ined him, agree­ing he was­n’t drunk. One lat­er tes­ti­fied that he ‘was not nor­mal . . . . he was very com­posed out­side, which I did not expect him to be under these cir­cum­stances.’ . . .”
4. Shaver did­n’t rec­og­nize his own wife when she came to vis­it him. ” . . . . When his wife came to vis­it, he did­n’t rec­og­nize her. . . .”
5. Ini­tial­ly, he believed some­one else com­mit­ted the crime. ” . . . . He gave his first state­ment at 10:30 a.m., adamant that anoth­er man was respon­si­ble: he could sum­mon an image of a stranger with blond hair and tat­toos. . . .”
6. Even­tu­al­ly, he signed a state­ment tak­ing respon­si­bil­i­ty: ” . . . . After the Air Force mar­shal returned to the jail­house, how­ev­er, Shaver signed a sec­ond state­ment tak­ing full respon­si­bil­i­ty. Though he still did­n’t remem­ber any­thing, he rea­soned that he must have done it. . . .”
7. Enter Jol­ly West: ” . . . . Two months lat­er, in Sep­tem­ber, Shaver’s mem­o­ries still had­n’t returned. The base hos­pi­tal com­man­der told Jol­ly West to per­form an eval­u­a­tion: was he legal­ly sane at the time of the mur­der? Shaver spent the next two weeks under West­’s super­vi­sion . . . While Shaver was under–with West inject­ing more truth serum to ‘deep­en the trance’–Shaver recalled the events of that night. He con­fessed to killing Hor­ton. . . .”
8. West was a defense wit­ness who, instead, appears to have aid­ed the pros­e­cu­tion: ” . . . . At the tri­al, West argued that Shaver’s truth-serum con­fes­sion was more valid than any oth­er. And West was tes­ti­fy­ing for the defense . . . .”
9. Shaver’s behav­ior at the tri­al is fur­ther sug­ges­tive of mind con­trol: ” . . . . One news­pa­per account said he ‘sat through the stren­u­ous ses­sions like a man in a trance,’ say­ing noth­ing, nev­er ris­ing to stretch or smoke, though he was a known chain-smok­er. ‘Some believe it’s an act,’ the paper said, ‘oth­ers believe his demeanor is real. . . .”
10. Shaver’s med­ical records at Lack­land Air Force base had van­ished. ” . . . . But, curi­ous­ly, all the records for patients in 1954 had been main­tained, with one excep­tion: the file for last names begin­ning with ‘Sa’ through ‘St’ had van­ished. . . .”
11. West posed lead­ing ques­tions to Shaver, who denied hav­ing ever tak­en the vic­tim’s clothes off. ” . . . . West had used lead­ing ques­tions to walk the entranced Shaver through the crime. ‘Tell me about when you took your clothes off, Jim­my,’ he said. And try­ing to prove that Shaver had repressed mem­o­ries: ‘Jim­my, do you remem­ber when some­thing like this hap­pened before?’ Or: ‘After you took her clothes off, what did you do?’ ‘I nev­er did take her clothes off,’ Shaver said. . . .”
12. The inter­view was divid­ed into thirds, the mid­dle third of which was not record­ed! ” . . . . The inter­view [with Shaver] was divid­ed into thirds. The mid­dle third, for some rea­son, was­n’t record­ed. When the record picked up, the man­u­script said, ‘Shaver is cry­ing. He has been con­front­ed with all the facts repeat­ed­ly.’ . . .”