Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.

For The Record  

FTR #348 Machiavelli 101

MP3 Side 1 | Side 2

Con­tin­u­ing dis­cus­sion of the 9/11/2001 attacks, this pro­gram con­tin­ues dis­cus­sion of events in, and around, the event. This broad­cast high­lights maneu­ver­ing of a cyn­i­cal, Machi­avel­lian nature by the Under­ground Reich.

1. This pro­gram begins with dis­cus­sion of Amer­i­can pol­i­cy toward “Islam­o­fas­cism” as being “Inco­her­ent” and, at times, Machi­avel­lian. “Although a major shake­up ensued with­in the U.S. secret ser­vice [intel­li­gence agen­cies], that did not change a thing in terms of the inter­na­tion­al tribu­la­tions of the world’s pri­ma­ry pow­er, which con­tin­u­ous­ly oscil­lates between impro­vi­sa­tion with no thought for tomor­row, and a care­ful­ly-con­struct­ed Machi­avel­lism.” (Dol­lars for Ter­ror: The Unit­ed States and Islam; by Richard Labeviere; Copy­right 2000 [SC]; Algo­ra Pub­lish­ing; ISBN 1–892941-06–6; p. 161.)

2. Exem­pli­fy­ing the exploita­tion of Al Qae­da, the Sep­tem­ber 11 attacks and the Afghan war for eco­nom­ic gain, the broad­cast high­lights the pro­ject­ed pipeline car­ry­ing oil from the Caspi­an Sea, real­ized as a result of the Afghan con­flict. (“A New Oil Game With New Win­ners” by Richard But­ler; New York Times; 1/18/2002; p. A25.) (For more about this project, and the elder George Bush’s invest­ment in Uno­cal, one of the back­ers of the project, see FTRs 328, 334.)

3. A major focal point of Islam­ic fun­da­men­tal­ist activ­i­ty has been the Chi­nese province of Xin­jiang. (Dol­lars for Ter­ror: The Unit­ed States and Islam; by Richard Labeviere; pp. 10–11.) Vital­ly impor­tant because of its eco­nom­ic resources and mil­i­tary strate­gic sig­nif­i­cance, Xin­jiang has expe­ri­enced a wave of Wah­habi ter­ror. (Idem.)

4. The Chi­nese gov­ern­ment alleges that Bin Laden and Al Qae­da have been deeply involved with pro­mot­ing ter­ror­ism among the Uighur pop­u­la­tion of Xin­jiang. (“Bei­jing Says Chi­nese Mus­lims Were Trained as Ter­ror­ists With Mon­ey From bin Laden” by Elis­a­beth Rosen­thal; New York Times; 1/22/2002; p. A11.) It is spec­u­lat­ed that ele­ments of U.S. intel­li­gence asso­ci­at­ed with major cor­po­rate inter­ests may have been involved with exploit­ing Al Qae­da in order to either pro­mote sep­a­ratism of Xin­jiang and sub­se­quent eco­nom­ic exploita­tion, or to oblige the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment to accede to U.S. cor­po­rate pol­i­cy in the region. As dis­cussed, the manip­u­la­tion of Islam­ic fun­da­men­tal­ism has been used to effect a sim­i­lar state of affairs in the for­mer Sovi­et Union. It is believ­able that the Under­ground Reich has uti­lized this “glob­al cor­po­ratism” to “dou­ble” on U.S. intel­li­gence and the Unit­ed States.

5. The recent rev­e­la­tion that Uighur com­bat­ants were involved in a fire­fight with U.S. forces lends cre­dence to the Chi­nese state­ments. (“U.S. Forces Clash With al Qae­da Gun­men” by Ellen Knick­mey­er [AP]; San Fran­cis­co Chron­i­cle; 1/28/2002; p. A9.)

6. Next, the pro­gram high­lights the Islam­ic extrem­ist attack on the Indi­an par­lia­ment and the pos­si­bil­i­ty that the flare-up of Indian/Pakistani ten­sions may, in effect, open up a “South­ern Front” allow­ing the exo­dus of Al Qae­da fight­ers. (“Kash­mir Could Trig­ger al-Qae­da Escape” by Farhan Bokhari; Finan­cial Times; 12/21/2001; p. 2.) The pos­si­bil­i­ty that the Under­ground Reich and the Islam­o­fas­cists is not one to be read­i­ly dis­missed.

7. Inter­est­ing­ly (and per­haps sig­nif­i­cant­ly), the Aus­tri­an bor­der with Slo­va­kia has become a focal point of recon­sol­i­da­tion by Al Qae­da. (“Aus­tri­an Bor­der Offers al Qae­da a New Gate­way to Europe” by Eric Geiger; San Fran­cis­co Chron­i­cle; 1/22/2002; p. A11.)

8. The broad­cast high­lights the role of Iraqi weapons deal­er Abdul Jebara as a con­duit between Euro­pean fas­cists and Sad­dam Hus­sein. (“Con­vict­ed Arms Deal­er Fun­nels Aid from Europe’s Far Right to Iraq” by Eric Geiger; San Fran­cis­co Chron­i­cle; 5/3/2001; pp. B1-B4.) Jebara’s oper­a­tions are cen­tered in the Aus­tri­an province of Carinthia, the domain of Aus­tri­an fas­cist Joerg Haider. (Ibid.; p. B1.) There are strong and long-stand­ing Nazi and fas­cist con­nec­tions to nation­al­ist ele­ments in the Arab and Mus­lim worlds.

9. As the U.S. has tar­get­ed Sad­dam Hus­sein (diplo­mat­i­cal­ly), Haider has vis­it­ed and lent sup­port to the Iraqi dic­ta­tor. (“Amer­i­ca Turns on Haider for ‘Encour­ag­ing Sad­dam’ ” by Rupert Corn­well; Lon­don Inde­pen­dent; 2/14/2002.)

10. The Iraqi press has trum­pet­ed Haider’s vis­it as indi­cat­ing Euro­pean sol­i­dar­i­ty against the “U.S. and Zion­ist con­spir­a­cy.” (“Haider Stays in the Head­lines with ‘Pri­vate’ Vis­it to Sad­dam” by Del­la Meth-Cohn in Vien­na and William Hall in Zurich; Finan­cial Times; 2/14/2002; p. 2.)

11. Inter­est­ing­ly (and per­haps sig­nif­i­cant­ly) Haider is sup­port­ing Iraq against the U.S. while, at the same time, manip­u­lat­ing anti-immi­grant (and anti-Arab) sen­ti­ment in Aus­tria for his own polit­i­cal ben­e­fit. (“Aus­tri­an Right­ist Is Work­ing on His Come­back” by Steven Erlanger; New York Times; 2/7/2002; p. A3.)

12. Anti-immi­grant, anti-Arab and anti-Mus­lim sen­ti­ment is pro­pelling Euro­pean pol­i­tics to the right. (“A Jumpy, Anti-Immi­grant Europe Is Creep­ing Right­ward” by Steven Erlanger; New York Times; 1/30/2002; p. A3.)

13. The tac­ti­cal alliance with, and ideological/racist oppo­si­tion to, Mus­lims and Arabs has his­tor­i­cal antecedents. This same dual­i­ty is reflect­ed in the pol­i­cy and state­ments of Amer­i­can fas­cist groups in the wake of the Sep­tem­ber 11 attacks. (“After the Attacks: Amer­i­can White Nation­al­ism since 11 Sep­tem­ber 2001” by Devin Burghart; Search­light; Jan­u­ary, 2002 [#319]; p. 34.) It is worth not­ing that the Nation­al Alliance (pub­lish­er of the Turn­er Diaries) Ser­pen­t’s Walk is among those groups. and

14. Next, the pro­gram high­lights a very dis­turb­ing death. (“Crash Adds Mys­tery to an Inquiry” [AP]; New York Times; 1/30/2002; 2/14/2002; p. A17.) The fiery death of Kather­ine Smith may obscure con­nec­tions between Sep­tem­ber 11 and an attempt to obtain false iden­ti­fi­ca­tion by Mid­dle East­ern asso­ciates of Ms. Smith.

15. One of the things to pon­der in con­nec­tion with Bush’s pre­pos­ter­ous “Axis of Evil” speech is the pos­si­bil­i­ty that it could lead to the diplo­mat­ic, polit­i­cal and (per­haps) eco­nom­ic iso­la­tion of the Unit­ed States. Iran has respond­ed to Bush’s address by return­ing Al Qae­da and Tal­iban oper­a­tives who have fled Afghanistan to Sau­di Ara­bia, among oth­er places. (“Iran Poised to Send Home Ter­ror­ism Sus­pects” by Guy Din­more; Finan­cial Times; 2/13/2002; p. 6.) The Saud­is have been less than vig­or­ous in pur­su­ing Bin Laden’s oper­a­tives.

16. The Bush speech has led to increased resent­ment against the Unit­ed States in Iran, increased sol­i­dar­i­ty between the Ira­ni­ans and the Iraqis (mor­tal ene­mies in the past) and the pos­si­bil­i­ty that Iraq will attack Israel with mis­siles in the event of a U.S. attack on Sad­dam. (“Who Hijacked Our War” by Chris Matthews; San Fran­cis­co Chron­i­cle; 2/17/2002; p. D6.) In that con­text, one should not dis­miss prog­nos­ti­ca­tion made in AFA 37 to the effect the Under­ground Reich and Ger­many may pre­cip­i­tate a Mid­dle East­ern war with weapons of mass destruc­tion that would anni­hi­late Israel, kill most of the Arabs, neu­tral­ize the util­i­ty of the Mid­dle East­ern oil fields, and make Rus­sia the most impor­tant oil pro­duc­er in the world. In addi­tion, it may result in ter­ror­ist anni­hi­la­tion against the Unit­ed States.

17. Con­sid­er­ing the “Axis of Evil,” it is worth not­ing that the elder George Bush was the prin­ci­pal play­er in arm­ing both Iran and Iraq in the 1980’s. This was accom­plished through Bush’s own pri­vate spy agency, set up as a device to “fight ter­ror­ism.” (The Secret War Against the Jews: How West­ern Espi­onage Betrayed the Jew­ish Peo­ple; John Lof­tus and Mark Aarons; Copy­right 1994 [HC]; St. Mar­t­in’s Press; ISBN 0–312-11057‑X; pp. 407–409.)

18. In addi­tion to arm­ing Iran (one ele­ment of Bush the Younger’s “Axis of Evil”), the elder Bush armed Sad­dam Hus­sein. (Ibid.; p.429.)


9 comments for “FTR #348 Machiavelli 101”

  1. Very inter­est­ing stuff. Of course, we can’t for­get the fact that Bei­jing are the bad guys as well as the M.B.
    If any­thing, there is like­ly a pow­er strug­gle going on; IMO, they are two sides of the same Reichs­mark and that the poor man-on-the-street Uighurs are the real vic­tims as far as Xin­jiang is con­cerned.

    Posted by Steven L. | February 11, 2012, 2:36 pm
  2. Steven–

    You’ve repeat­ed­ly opined about the Chi­nese being “bad guys” and hint­ed broad­ly that I don’t seem to be aware of that.

    Per­haps this sim­ply reflects a dif­fer­ence in age (I’m in my ’60’s), but I do not believe in “good guys” and “bad guys” in the way that you appear to do.

    I have NO illu­sions about China–it is no acci­dent that it is the “sweat­shop-de-jour” for the transna­tion­al cor­po­ra­tions.

    How­ev­er Chi­na is a major pow­er, and screw­ing with the Chi­nese won’t help us at all.

    By the same token, inter­fer­ing in the inter­nal affairs of Rus­sia will not ben­e­fit us.

    I have no illu­sions about Putin either.

    We are not in a posi­tion to attempt desta­bi­liza­tion of either coun­try and should refrain from doing so.

    Imag­ine Rus­sia or Chi­na sup­port­ing the Lako­ta claim to inde­pen­dence.

    Do you think the U.S. would tol­er­ate that for a minute? And this is not to say that the Lako­ta do not have real, seri­ous griev­ances.

    For the U.S. to align itself with the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood in cham­pi­oning either the Uighurs or Mus­lim inde­pen­dence in the North Cau­ca­sus is mad­ness.

    We don’t com­plain about Sau­di Ara­bi­a’s abuse of human rights. Why do you think that is the case, Stephen?

    Dave Emory

    Posted by Dave Emory | February 12, 2012, 2:16 am
  3. Dave, any thoughts about the new book “Against Them” by a Tegan Math­is about a cod­ed nov­el from many years ago by Lynne Cheney which sup­pos­ed­ly was about the JFK Assas­si­na­tion and the Under­ground Reich.

    Posted by LarryFW | February 12, 2012, 3:32 am
  4. @Dave: Hel­lo Dave, glad to hear from you again.
    And yes, you did have a very good point about the Lako­ta. The U.S. gov­ern­ment would be up in arms in no time. Frankly, I think the U.S. gov­ern­ment needs to get the hell out of Xin­jiang before some­thing tru­ly awful hap­pens, and that I can total­ly agree that our col­lab­o­ra­tion with the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood has been noth­ing but dis­as­trous.

    And, of course, we have Sau­di Ara­bia, who pro­vides the major­i­ty of our oil. That seems one of the pri­ma­ry rea­sons that the human rights abus­es are usu­al­ly ignored over there.

    If you want to hear my opin­ion, I think the best thing that could hap­pen to Chi­na, would be change that comes from with­in and from the peo­ple and for the peo­ple. I, too, don’t see how med­dling in Xin­jiang has helped us one bit.

    (And I do apol­o­gize if it seemed like I was attack­ing you as that was def­i­nite­ly not the inten­tion I had in mind.)

    Posted by Steven L. | February 12, 2012, 9:31 am
  5. If Wash­ing­ton can’t stop throw­ing our mil­i­tary at every sin­gle con­flict it finds with­out thinking(or car­ing!) about the con­se­quences, and just because it has oil or what­ev­er, then some­thing WILL even­tu­al­ly go ter­ri­bly wrong. I’m not say­ing it’ll be WW3 or any­thing, but you don’t need that to throw Amer­i­ca for a nasty loop.
    Just one well-placed nuke in a major city like Chica­go or Den­ver, Col­orado Springs, or San Diego and much of this coun­try might just be in a state of semi-anar­chy before you could say ‘Armaged­don’.

    Again, we both real­ize that there is some­thing ter­ri­bly wrong in both Rus­sia and Chi­na, and that you are absolute­ly cor­rect in that med­dling in the inter­nal affairs of both nations has accom­plished noth­ing pos­i­tive.

    And, frankly, I feel the same way about Iran as well. Their gov­ern­ment may be hor­ri­bly oppres­sive, but do those pol­i­cy­mak­ers in D.C. hon­est­ly believe for one sec­ond that the Iran­ian peo­ple might not be scared of con­flict enough to hide behind these very same tor­men­tors?

    It’d be like a demo­c­ra­t­ic Con­go invad­ing dic­ta­to­r­i­al Zam­bia. Grant­ed, in this hypo­thet­i­cal sit­u­a­tion, many of the Zam­bians despise their leader and want him out of office. But what if the Con­golese air force decid­ed to bomb every vil­lage that may have host­ed the ene­my at one point? What if some of these bombs killed many inno­cent civil­ians, includ­ing per­haps some who may have wel­comed the Con­golese? What if Con­golese sol­diers con­tin­ued to receive faulty orders and end­ed up killing peo­ple who they thought were ene­my mil­i­tants but were real­ly inno­cent? Isn’t it pos­si­ble some of the Zam­bians might stand behind their leader, even a few of those who might have despised him, just because they want the mass fatal­i­ties to cease?

    We want change, don’t we? I would say to Con­gress and the Pres­i­dent: “Let the peo­ple wake up on their own, as they have start­ed to in Iran a cou­ple of years ago! Unpro­voked wars and sub­terfuge haven’t done any­thing! They have only turned peo­ple against us! Let the peo­ple see for them­selves, how cor­rupt their gov­ern­ments are!”, or some­thing to that effect. Last thing we need is for anoth­er botched con­flict to fur­ther harm Amer­i­ca’s rep­u­ta­tion in the world, espe­cial­ly when our cur­rent Pres­i­dent is doing his best to begin fix­ing it. Unfor­tu­nate­ly, only time will tell, real­ly.

    Keep up the good work, Dave, and I do hope you’ll be back on the air.....someday. =)

    Posted by Steven L. | February 12, 2012, 9:50 am
  6. Nev­er heard of it. It’d be dif­fi­cult to imag­ine a mem­ber of the Cheney fam­i­ly writ­ing such a book, unless it was cel­e­brat­ing JFK’s killing and extolling the Under­ground Reich.

    Posted by Dave Emory | February 12, 2012, 11:14 am
  7. @Dave: I apol­o­gize for not under­stand­ing, Dave, but nev­er heard of what?

    Posted by Steven L. | February 12, 2012, 1:46 pm
  8. @Larry FW and Steven–

    Nev­er heard of the book “Against Them.”

    Posted by Dave Emory | February 12, 2012, 4:10 pm
  9. This debate is stim­u­lat­ing. Allow me to jump in.

    @Steven L.: I must agree with Dave on what you say about Chi­na. You insist a lot on say­ing that they are bad guys but every­body are “bad” in terms of busi­ness inter­ests, for­eign pol­i­cy, geo-pol­i­tics, etc. The Chi­nese are cer­tain­ly not any worse than any oth­er peo­ple. By the way, this cul­ture is infil­trat­ed by an ancient crim­i­nal orga­ni­za­tion, called the Tri­ad. I assume that the peo­ple run­ning the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment are good and decent peo­ple like any oth­er, but they have to deal with the Tri­ad, the same way Rus­sia has to deal with its crim­i­nal gangs. Dave is right when he says that it is not in our inter­ests to min­gle into Rus­si­a’s or Chi­na’s busi­ness. They are very old peo­ples and they have the right to have their own soci­eties and civ­i­liza­tions.

    Glob­al­iza­tion has trans­formed Chi­na into a giant sweat­shop to allow the transna­tion­al cor­po­ra­tions to dump their cheap prod­ucts into our region­al economies, destroy­ing the small and mid­dle-size busi­ness­es, destroy­ing the mid­dle class, in a nut­shell, break­ing our econ­o­my for their prof­it. Look how we have become poor­er since the Free-Trade agree­ments have been signed. Weren’t they sup­posed to bring us pros­per­i­ty?

    Again, I agree with Dave. It is incred­i­ble how lit­tle crit­i­cism is heard on Sau­di Ara­bia but a lot on Iran, how lit­tle on Tibet but a lot on Chi­na, how lit­tle on the Pales­tini­ans but a lot on Israel, etc, etc. U.S. inter­ests would­n’t have any­thing to do about it, would it?

    @LarryFW: I don’t know the book but judg­ing by the trend, I would say Dave is prob­a­bly right. Mimi Alford just pub­lished Once upon a secret, a book in which she basi­cal­ly says that Kennedy was a sex­u­al deviant, that he treat­ed women like whores and lot of oth­er stuff that can be invent­ed by any­one. After trash­ing Roo­sevelt for the New Deal and for stood­ing against the fas­cists, now the Reich seems to be in a mood for tar­get­ting Kennedy. And why, accord­ing to you? Because Russ Bak­er has done such a good job at study­ing the Bush familiy and the mur­der of JFK, than now, their only option remains to try to smear, slan­der Kennedy and destroy his rep­u­ta­tion, because they can’t respond on the lev­el of ideas and doc­u­ments. Stan­dard Repub­li­can pro­ce­dure.

    Posted by Claude | February 12, 2012, 5:03 pm

Post a comment