FTR #1141 Deep Politics and the Death of Park Won-Soon, Part 2.

The late Park Won-soon was a lead­ing polit­i­cal reformer and crit­ic in South Kore­an pol­i­tics, as well as being a prob­a­ble can­di­date in the 2022 pres­i­den­tial cam­paign. Of par­tic­u­lar sig­nif­i­cance in assess­ing the sus­pi­cious cir­cum­stances of his death are the over­lap­ping areas in which his crit­i­cism placed him afoul of polit­i­cal, eco­nom­ic and his­tor­i­cal dynam­ics stem­ming from the Japan­ese Gold­en Lily pro­gram and the place­ment of that con­sum­mate wealth at the foun­da­tion of the post-World War II Amer­i­can and glob­al sys­tem.

In addi­tion, the “Black Gold” accu­mu­lat­ed through the Gold­en Lily pro­gram and Nazi loot pro­vid­ed an eco­nom­ic foun­da­tion for post-World War II covert oper­a­tions. (FTR #‘s 427, 428, 446, 451, 501, 688, 689, 1106, 1107 & 1108 deal with the sub­ject of the Gold­en Lily pro­gram suc­cess­ful­ly imple­ment­ed by the Japan­ese to loot Asia.)

An advo­cate of rec­on­cil­i­a­tion between North and South Korea, Park Won-soon’s stance on the two nations placed him at odds with pre­vail­ing Amer­i­can, South Kore­an and Japan­ese nation­al secu­ri­ty pol­i­cy.

A law­suit was filed by a con­ser­v­a­tive South Kore­an lawyer against the Kim Yo-jong, the sis­ter of North Kore­an ruler Kim Jong-un. This is note­wor­thy in the con­text of the death of Park Won-soon, who was an advo­cate of rec­on­cil­i­a­tion between North and South Korea. Kore­an right-wingers have called him a “com­mie” for his advo­ca­cy of improved rela­tions between the coun­tries.

Rela­tions between the Kore­as are very much on the front burn­er.

Much of the pro­gram details the cen­turies-long Japan­ese loot­ing of Korea, cul­mi­nat­ing in Japan’s 1905 col­o­niza­tion of that coun­try. In 1910, Korea was declared to be Japan­ese nation­al ter­ri­to­ry, there­by denom­i­nat­ing all mate­r­i­al and cul­tur­al wealth of Korea as Japan­ese.

The bulk of the pro­gram con­sists of a his­to­ry of Japan’s col­o­niza­tion of Korea. That colo­nial occu­pa­tion was a major tar­get of the late Park Won-soon’s crit­i­cism.

Again, when it incor­po­rat­ed the Gold­en Lily wealth into the post­war “Black Gold” cache and John Fos­ter Dulles engi­neered the 1951 Peace Treaty, the U.S. “signed off” on Japan’s actions in Korea and else­where in Asia.

Japan’s loot­ing of Korea took place over cen­turies. In Gold War­riors, the Sea­graves present the his­to­ry of Japan’s rape of Korea, begin­ning with their account of the gris­ly mur­der of Kore­an Queen Min in 1894. ” . . . . the defense­less queen was stabbed and slashed repeat­ed­ly, and car­ried wail­ing out to the palace gar­den where she was thrown onto a pile of fire­wood, drenched with kerosene, and set aflame. An amer­i­can mil­i­tary advi­sor, Gen­er­al William Dye, was one of sev­er­al for­eign­ers who heard and saw the killers milling around in the palace com­pound with dawn swords while the queen was burned alive. . . .”

A snap­shot of the Japan­ese colo­nial occu­pa­tion of Korea, a focal point of crit­i­cism of Park Won-soon:” . . . . [Gen­er­al] Ter­auchi was extra­or­di­nar­i­ly bru­tal, set­ting a prece­dent for Japan­ese behav­ior in all the coun­tries, it would occu­py over com­ing decades. Deter­mined to crush all resis­tance, he told Kore­ans, ‘I will whip you with scor­pi­ons!’ He set up a sadis­tic police force of Kore­an yakuza, order­ing it to use tor­ture as a mat­ter of course, for ‘no Ori­en­tal can be expect­ed to tell the truth except under tor­ture’. These police were close­ly super­vised by Japan’s gestapo, the kem­peitai. . . . ‘Japan’s aim,’ said Kore­an his­to­ri­an Yi Kibeck, ‘was to erad­i­cate con­scious­ness of Kore­an nation­al iden­ti­ty, roots and all, and thus to oblit­er­ate the very exis­tence of the Kore­an peo­ple from the face of the earth.’ . . . the penin­su­la was stripped of every­thing from art­works to root veg­eta­bles. As Korea now belonged to Japan, the trans­fer of cul­tur­al property—looting—was not theft. How can you steal some­thing that already belongs to you? . . .”

Key ele­ments of analy­sis of the Japan­ese polit­i­cal, eco­nom­ic and cul­tur­al dec­i­ma­tion of Korea: The loot­ing of Korea took place over cen­turies; the Black Ocean and Black Drag­on soci­eties (fore­run­ners of the Uni­fi­ca­tion Church and, pos­si­bly, the Shin­cheon­ji cult) played a key role in insti­gat­ing the incre­men­tal Japan­ese con­quest of Korea; the eco­nom­ic and cul­tur­al loot­ing of Korea had already ren­dered that coun­try one of the weak­est in Asia by the nine­teenth cen­tu­ry; (Korea had been one of the most advanced civ­i­liza­tions on earth, pri­or to Japan­ese con­quest); for cen­turies, Chi­na had func­tioned as a mil­i­tary pro­tec­tor of Korea; as not­ed above, there was whole­sale eco­nom­ic and cul­tur­al plun­der; mil­lions of Kore­ans were enslaved to work in Japan and, dur­ing World War II, in Gold­en Lily facil­i­ties, where they were worked to death or buried alive; many more Kore­ans were con­script­ed as sol­diers into Japan’s army; tor­ture was rou­tine in Japan’s occu­pa­tion of Korea, as was sum­ma­ry exe­cu­tion and impris­on­ment on trumped-up charges; Kore­ans were for­bid­den from speak­ing their own lan­guage; even Japan­ese school teach­ers wore uni­forms and car­ried swords; as high­light­ed in the pre­vi­ous pro­gram, many Kore­an women were forced to become slave pros­ti­tutes for the Japan­ese army–“Comfort Women.”

After a pre­view of dis­cus­sion of John Fos­ter Dulles and his nego­ti­a­tion of the 1951 Peace Treaty insti­tu­tion­al­iz­ing the loot­ing and bru­tal­iza­tion of Asia by the Japanese–a treaty that received diplo­mat­ic momen­tum from the advent of the Kore­an War–we con­clude with an obit­u­ary of a South Kore­an gen­er­al whose career is an embod­i­ment of the deep pol­i­tics sur­round­ing the life and death of Park Won-soon.

Gen­er­al Paik Sun-yup was a Kore­an four-star gen­er­al, whose ser­vice in the Impe­r­i­al Japan­ese Army dur­ing World War II has been a focal point of con­tro­ver­sy in South Korea. Gen­er­al Sun-yup embod­ied the ongo­ing con­tro­ver­sy in Korea over Japan’s occu­pa­tion and the sub­se­quent unfold­ing of events lead­ing up to,  and includ­ing the Kore­an War. “. . . . In 1941, he joined the army of Manchukuo, a pup­pet state that impe­r­i­al Japan had estab­lished in Manchuria, and served in a unit known for hunt­ing down Kore­an guer­ril­las fight­ing for inde­pen­dence . . .”

FTR #1140, Deep Politics and the Death of Park Won-Soon, Part 1,

The first of three pro­grams deal­ing with the sus­pi­cious death of Seoul (South Korea) may­or and prospec­tive pres­i­den­tial can­di­date Park Won-soon, this broad­cast chron­i­cles the many pow­er­ful polit­i­cal inter­ests whose feath­ers were ruf­fled by his activ­i­ties. In addi­tion, Park Won-soon was a trail­blaz­er for sev­er­al dif­fer­ent aspects of pro­gres­sive pol­i­tics.

In the series, we present key aspects of the Japan­ese con­quest and col­o­niza­tion of Asia, includ­ing and espe­cial­ly Korea. This his­to­ry is fun­da­men­tal to a seri­ous under­stand­ing of Asian pow­er pol­i­tics. Sig­nif­i­cant­ly, with the incor­po­ra­tion of the spec­tac­u­lar wealth of the Japan­ese Gold­en Lily loot into the Amer­i­can and glob­al finan­cial sys­tems, the U.S. “signed off” on Japan­ese war crimes com­mit­ted pri­or to, and dur­ing, World War II. This his­to­ry will be pre­sent­ed in greater detail in the sec­ond and third pro­grams in the series.

(FTR #‘s 427, 428, 446, 451, 501, 688, 689, 1106, 1107 & 1108 deal with the sub­ject of the Gold­en Lily pro­gram suc­cess­ful­ly imple­ment­ed by the Japan­ese to loot Asia.)

With Park Won-soon being a pos­si­ble pres­i­den­tial can­di­date in 2022, there are a num­ber of aspects of his polit­i­cal his­to­ry and agen­da that would have made him the tar­get of the deep polit­i­cal forces stem­ming from Gold­en Lily and before:

1.–He made ene­mies from the cor­rupt cor­po­rate elite of Korea: ” . . . . The People’s Sol­i­dar­i­ty for Par­tic­i­pa­to­ry Democ­ra­cy, a civic group he helped found, has become a lead­ing watch­dog on cor­rupt ties between the gov­ern­ment and big busi­ness­es, launch­ing inves­ti­ga­tions and law­suits that have often led to con­vic­tions of busi­ness tycoons on cor­rup­tion charges. The group was involved in the law­suits that led to the 2009 con­vic­tion of Lee Kun-hee, chair­man of Sam­sung, on charges of embez­zle­ment and tax eva­sion. . . .”
2.–He was instru­men­tal in effect­ing reforms in numer­ous areas: ” . . . . In his nine years as Seoul’s may­or, Mr. Park, drove an end­less series of pol­i­cy ini­tia­tives. He low­ered col­lege tuitions, installed a free Wi-Fi con­nec­tion in pub­lic park­ing lots and munic­i­pal parks, and con­vert­ed part-time work­ers in city-financed cor­po­ra­tions to full-time employ­ees. . . .”
3.–His crit­i­cism of Japan­ese pol­i­cy vis a vis its col­o­niza­tion of Korea made him an ene­my of the deep polit­i­cal Korean/American/Japanese fas­cist milieu deriv­ing from Gold­en Lily. ” . . . . He has also been an out­spo­ken crit­ic of Japan’s colo­nial-era poli­cies toward Korea, includ­ing the mobi­liza­tion of Kore­an and oth­er women as sex slaves for Japan­ese sol­diers. . . .”
4.–His push for rec­on­cil­i­a­tion with the North would have made his pos­si­ble pres­i­den­cy anath­e­ma to South Kore­an and U.S. nation­al secu­ri­ty pol­i­cy­mak­ers: ” . . . . Pro­test­ers have often pick­et­ed City Hall, call­ing Mr. Park a ‘com­mie’ for pro­mot­ing rec­on­cil­i­a­tion with North Korea and for his past oppo­si­tion to the deploy­ment of troops from South Korea to Iraq. . . .”
5.–Note, also, that (as touched on above) Park was a major reformer on behalf of wom­en’s rights in South Korea: ” . . . . As a lawyer, he won a host of land­mark cas­es for press free­doms and women’s rights. After win­ning the country’s first sex­u­al harass­ment case, he was hon­ored with the ‘women’s rights award’ in 1998 from the nation’s top women’s groups. . . . He also pushed to make Seoul’s streets safer at night for women, by deploy­ing escorts for women walk­ing in desert­ed alleys where crimes had tak­en place. He also intro­duced a smart­phone app for women that alerts the police when they face dan­ger at night. Female ‘sher­iffs’ also check pub­lic toi­lets for women in Seoul to find and destroy hid­den sex cams. . . .”
6.–Lastly, Mr. Won-soon filed suit against the 12 heads of the Shin­cheon­ji fas­cist mind con­trol cult. The cult has oper­a­tional and doc­tri­nal over­lap with the Uni­fi­ca­tion Church. ” . . . . Kim Kun-nam, one of the two authors of Shin­tan, which can be called the first doc­trine of Shin­cheon­ji, is from the Uni­fi­ca­tion Church. Kim also served as a lec­tur­er in the Uni­fi­ca­tion Church. It is no exag­ger­a­tion to say that Shin­cheon­ji doc­trine devel­oped on the basis of what Kim made. . . .”
7.–In FTR #1118, we exam­ined the Shin­cheon­ji cult in con­nec­tion with the Covid-19 out­break. The cult was the major appar­ent vec­tor for intro­duc­ing the virus into South Korea. With a branch in Wuhan, we have spec­u­lat­ed that it may have been a vec­tor for Chi­na as well. Might that suit have been a con­tribut­ing fac­tor to Park Won-soon’s death?

Despite his life-long pro­fes­sion­al efforts on behalf of women, Park Won-soon was charged by a sec­re­tary (anony­mous to date) with hav­ing sex­u­al­ly harassed her. Imme­di­ate­ly fol­low­ing the lodg­ing of that accu­sa­tion, he alleged­ly took his life.

In the con­text of Park’s alleged sui­cide, recall a strate­gic syn­op­sis of the coun­ter­in­tel­li­gence appli­ca­tions of the #MeToo strat­a­gem, pre­sent­ed in FTR #1001:

” . . . . 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 [Park Won-soon’s accuser has had the ben­e­fit of anonymity–D.E.]; 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. . . .”

In the audio of the pro­gram, Mr. Emory dis­cuss­es var­i­ous sce­nar­ios in which a secretary/administrative assis­tant could have sub­vert­ed Mr. Won-soon’s sit­u­a­tion. Weaponized fem­i­nism employs a dynam­ic in which accused males are pre­sumed guilty until proven inno­cent. The prov­ing of inno­cence is exceed­ing­ly dif­fi­cult in alleged instances of sex­u­al harassment–there are gen­er­al­ly no wit­ness­es to, nor audio and/or video record­ings of the inci­dent in ques­tion.

In light of the pow­er­ful polit­i­cal, eco­nom­ic and his­tor­i­cal dynam­ics chal­lenged by Park Won-soon, the pos­si­bil­i­ty that he was yet anoth­er vic­tim of weaponized fem­i­nism should be tak­en into account. We bet that it won’t.

Oth­er top­ics high­light­ed in this broad­cast include:

1.–The back­ground of Har­ry B. Har­ris, Jr., the U.S. Ambas­sador to South Korea. Har­ris was for­mer “head of the Unit­ed States Pacif­ic Command”–a very impor­tant and pow­er­ful indi­vid­ual. He also had been the com­man­der of the Guan­tanamo deten­tion center–one of a num­ber of counter-ter­ror assign­ments in his mil­i­tary career. Like anti-sub­ma­rine war­fare (anoth­er ele­ment of his mil­i­tary CV), counter-ter­ror is an intel­li­gence func­tion. We won­der if Har­ris is either ONI and/or CIA, and play­ing a key role in the full-court press against Chi­na.
2.–An account of the Com­fort Women, one of the focal points of Park Won-soon’s crit­i­cism of the Japan­ese colo­nial occu­pa­tion of Korea.
3.–The begin­ning of an account of Japan’s cen­turies long plun­der of Korea–a top­ic that will be cov­ered at greater length in the fol­low­ing pro­gram. Note that this ele­ment of analy­sis involves the Black Drag­on and Black Ocean soci­eties, two of the patri­ot­ic and ultra-nation­al­ist soci­eties that appear to be the fore­run­ner of the Uni­fi­ca­tion Church.

Failure in Afghanistan

A rel­a­tive­ly rare piece of qual­i­ty, inci­sive analy­sis from the Main­stream Media, Craig Whit­lock­’s “At War With The Truth” presents an hon­est, albeit atten­u­at­ed, analy­sis of the fail­ure of the war in Afghanistan. In addi­tion, this paper presents the back­ground to, and foun­da­tion of, the lat­est iter­a­tion of the Rus­sia-gate psy-op: “Boun­ty­gate.” A thought­ful piece by Scott Rit­ter in “Con­sor­tium News” pars­es the deep pol­i­tics of “Boun­ty­gate” and the real­i­ty of Russ­ian pol­i­cy vis a vis the Tal­iban and Cen­tral Asia.

FTR #1094 The Destabilization of China, Part 5: Pan-Turkism, Islamism and The Earth Island Boogie

This pro­gram con­tin­ues with exam­i­na­tion of cen­trifu­gal polit­i­cal and geo-polit­i­cal forces at work in the appar­ent­ly ongo­ing desta­bi­liza­tion of Chi­na.

This is a com­plex top­ic, involv­ing sub­jects dealt with at great length in past pro­grams over the years. We rec­om­mend using the search func­tion on this web­site (using quo­ta­tion marks) to gain a deep­er under­stand­ing of what Mr. Emory calls “The Earth Island Boo­gie.”

By the same token, under­stand­ing that con­cept involves obtain­ing a grasp of Pan-Turk­ism and some of its man­i­fes­ta­tions in the Uighur milieu inside Chi­na.

This descrip­tion has links to key pro­grams that will flesh out the lis­ten­ers’ under­stand­ing.

We begin an analy­sis of the use of the Turko­phone, Mus­lim Uighurs as a desta­bi­liz­ing ele­ment in Chi­na’s min­er­al and petro­le­um-rich Xin­jiang semi­au­tonomous region.

Linked to Al-Qae­da, the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood and con­tribut­ing to the jihadist milieu in Syr­ia, the Uighurs also fig­ure into the Pan-Turk­ist milieu cov­ered in, among oth­er pro­grams: AFA #14, as well as FTR #‘s 720, 723, 819, 857, 862, 863, 878, 879, 884, 885, 886, 911.

Note that the geo­graph­i­cal focal point of the Uighur separatist/jihadist activ­i­ty not only encom­pass­es min­er­al and resource-rich Xin­jiang province, but lies in the area Chi­na has des­ig­nat­ed as an impor­tant area for their “Belt and Road Ini­tia­tive.” That ini­tia­tive is a pro­gram designed to build rail con­nec­tions across what is known as “The Earth Island,” a project which appears to entail deep alarm on the part of inter­ests in the West.

” . . . . The Uighur sep­a­ratist spec­trum is over­lapped by the Uighur jiha­di milieu, who link the issue of Xin­jiang’s seces­sion from Chi­na to that of form­ing a Salafist theoc­ra­cy. Uighur jihadis have long since expand­ed their radius of actions beyond Chi­na’s bor­ders. This first drew pub­lic atten­tion, when it was report­ed that, in ‘the war on ter­ror,’ which began in 2002, the Unit­ed States had been hold­ing more than 20 Uighurs in their tor­ture cham­bers at Guan­taná­mo. The last of the pris­on­ers were released only in late 2013. Uighur jihadis have long since expand­ed beyond their Afghanistan engage­ment to oth­er regions of the world. . . . Uighur jihadis’ activ­i­ties have also been reg­is­tered in oth­er South­east Asian coun­tries, such as Malaysia and Indone­sia — from where quite a few con­tin­ue on to Turkey, to sup­port the IS or al Qae­da. Last year, Chi­na had esti­mat­ed that up to 300 Uighurs are fight­ing in the ranks of IS, while Syr­i­an gov­ern­ment offi­cials set the fig­ures at up to 5,000 Uighurs who are oper­at­ing in var­i­ous jiha­di mili­tias in Syr­ia. Regard­less of the accu­ra­cy of these esti­mates, experts are cer­tain that a large con­tin­gent of Uighur mili­tias are fight­ing with­in the ranks of IS and al Qae­da. An analy­sis pub­lished by the Inter­na­tion­al Cen­ter for Counter-Ter­ror­ism in The Hague warns that the Uighur jiha­di threat is large­ly under­es­ti­mat­ed in the West.[9] . . . . For Chi­na, this ter­ror­ism is that much more seri­ous, because Xin­jiang is a strate­gi­cal­ly impor­tant region. That autonomous region com­pris­es cen­tral sec­tors of the ‘New Silk Road’ (‘Belt and Road Ini­tia­tive,’ BRI) project, cur­rent­ly Bei­jing’s most impor­tant for­eign pol­i­cy mega-project. Unrest in Xin­jiang threat­ens not only the Peo­ple’s Repub­lic of Chi­na’s domes­tic tran­quil­i­ty, but also its rise in world pol­i­cy. This unrest is being sys­tem­at­i­cal­ly fanned from abroad. Turkey, under Pres­i­dent Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has assumed a promi­nent role. While still may­or of Istan­bul and long before becom­ing Turkey’s pres­i­dent, Erdoğan had declared that ‘East Turkestan is not only the home­land of the Tur­kic peo­ples, but also the cra­dle of Tur­kic his­to­ry, civ­i­liza­tion, and cul­ture. The mar­tyrs of East Turkestan are our martyrs.’[10] Uighur jihadis have reg­u­lar­ly used Turkey as a safe haven. In his talk with german-foreign-policy.com, the Ger­man expert on intel­li­gence ser­vices, Erich Schmidt-Een­boom con­firmed that Ankara’s intel­li­gence ser­vice has repeat­ed­ly ‘sought to sup­port seces­sion­ist attempts’ in Xinjiang.[11] . . . .”

The Uighur/Al Qaeda/Muslim Brotherhood/jihadist milieu is also dis­cussed in, among oth­er pro­grams, FTR #‘s 348, 549, 550, 615.

Next, we detail the long his­to­ry of NATO and relat­ed ele­ments using the Uighurs to desta­bi­lize Chi­na, with Ger­many as an epi­cen­ter of Uighur activ­i­ty.

We review the ter­ror­ism against mem­bers of the Han Chi­nese major­i­ty in Xin­jiang by Uighurs.

” . . . . Already since the 1990s, Xin­jiang has been faced with ter­ror­ist attacks by mem­bers of the Tur­kic-speak­ing Uighur minor­i­ty, fight­ing to secede this autonomous region from Chi­na, to found “East Turkestan.” Some seek an even­tu­al fusion with the Tur­kic-speak­ing coun­tries of Cen­tral Asia. The attacks that became known in the West includ­ed a Uighur ter­ror­ist attack at a coal mine in Xin­jiang in Sep­tem­ber 2015. The assailants delib­er­ate­ly tar­get­ed non-Tur­kic-speak­ing work­ers — espe­cial­ly those of Chi­na’s major­i­ty Han pop­u­la­tion — slaugh­ter­ing them with long knives. Accord­ing to west­ern media reports, at least 50 peo­ple died in the attack.[7] March 1, 2014 eight Uighur ter­ror­ists armed also with knives attacked civil­ian trav­el­ers in a train sta­tion of Kun­ming, the cap­i­tal of Yun­nan Province, killing 31 and wound­ing around 150, some seri­ous­ly. There have also been recur­ring pogroms tar­get­ing Han Chi­nese. For exam­ple, in July 2009, sev­er­al thou­sand Uighur in Xin­jiang’s cap­i­tal, Urumqi, attacked Han Chi­nese. Accord­ing to offi­cial fig­ures, 197 peo­ple were killed; how­ev­er, observers cal­cu­late the actu­al body count to be much high­er. . . . ”

As high­light­ed in, among oth­er pro­grams, FTR #‘s 547, 548, 549, 550, the Uighurs are part of a cen­tripetal desta­bi­liza­tion effort against Chi­na, uti­liz­ing the Dalai Lama’s SS-linked milieu, ele­ments of CIA, and the Haps­burg-con­trolled UNPO to effect the par­tial dis­mem­ber­ment of that coun­try.

We con­clude with dis­cus­sion about the Hong Kong Shang­hai Bank­ing Cor­po­ra­tion. A major British bank, the growth of its largesse was inex­tri­ca­bly linked with the opi­um trade Britain forced on Chi­na through the Opi­um Wars.

The bank per­pet­u­at­ed it’s involve­ment with major nar­cotics traf­fick­ing, laun­der­ing funds for con­tem­po­rary drug car­tels.

Ulti­mate­ly, the bank became a vehi­cle for the financ­ing of ele­ments of Al-Qae­da and jihadism. We won­der if per­haps jihadist ele­ments of the Uighurs may be receiv­ing fund­ing through the insti­tu­tion?

FTR #1093 The Destabilization of China, Part 4

We begin with an excerpt of a New York Times arti­cle what epit­o­mizes the pro­pa­gan­dized and unin­ten­tion­al­ly iron­ic tone of our media with regard to Chi­na.

The arti­cle mocks the Chi­nese asser­tion that the U.S. is involved with unrest with Hong Kong, remark­ing that Chi­na ” . . . . has a long his­to­ry of blam­ing ‘for­eign forces’ for chal­lenges it has faced inter­nal­ly. . . .” This comes from the pub­li­ca­tion that has unwa­ver­ing­ly flogged the “Rus­sia-Gate” non­sense.

The arti­cle also pooh-poohs Chi­nese asser­tion that the Nation­al Endow­ment for Democ­ra­cy was work­ing with the CIA to spon­sor unrest in Hong Kong.

In FTR #s 1091 and 1092, we not­ed the involve­ment of the Nation­al Endow­ment for Democ­ra­cy with key play­ers in the Hong Kong dra­ma, as well as their net­work­ing with major U.S. politi­cians, includ­ing Mike Pence and Mike Pom­peo.

In past pro­grams, we have dis­cussed the Nation­al Endow­ment For Democ­ra­cy, a “kinder, gen­tler” U.S. intel­li­gence man­i­fes­ta­tion.

NED has sup­ple­ment­ed the decades-old tra­di­tion of CIA desta­bi­liza­tion and over­throw of gov­ern­ments that the U.S. views with a jaun­diced eye.

The Chi­nese analy­sis of the role of the NED is accu­rate. “. . . . One of the NED co-founders, Allen Wein­stein, explained its pur­pose to the Wash­ing­ton Post: ‘A lot of what we do today was done covert­ly 25 years ago by the CIA.’ . . . . ”

Next, we exam­ine an infor­ma­tive post from Ger­man For­eign Pol­i­cy, which notes that pend­ing leg­is­la­tion in the U.S. Con­gress would eco­nom­i­cal­ly dam­age U.S. and Ger­man com­mer­cial inter­ests, as well as hurt­ing Hong Kong’s econ­o­my.

We con­clude with a top­ic we have cov­ered before and will explore at greater length in our next broad­cast. We begin an analy­sis of the use of the Turko­phone, Mus­lim Uighurs as a desta­bi­liz­ing ele­ment in Chi­na’s min­er­al and petro­le­um-rich Xin­jiang semi­au­tonomous region.

Linked to Al-Qae­da, the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood and con­tribut­ing to the jihadist milieu in Syr­ia, the Uighurs also fig­ure into the Pan-Turk­ist milieu cov­ered in, among oth­er pro­grams: AFA #14, as well as FTR #‘s 720, 723, 819, 857, 862, 863, 878, 879, 884, 885, 886, 911.

The Uighur/Al Qaeda/Muslim Brotherhood/jihadist milieu is dis­cussed in, among oth­er pro­grams, FTR #‘s 348, 549, 550, 615.

FTR #1026 The So-Called “Arab Spring” Revisited, Part 2

In FTR #‘s 733 through 739, we pre­sent­ed our view that the so-called Arab Spring was a U.S. intel­li­gence oper­a­tion, aimed at plac­ing the Broth­er­hood in pow­er in Mus­lim coun­tries dom­i­nat­ed either by a sec­u­lar dic­ta­tor or absolute monar­chy.

Con­tin­u­ing analy­sis from our pre­vi­ous pro­gram, this broad­cast delves fur­ther into the net­work­ing between the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood and Al-Qae­da. Against the back­ground of the occu­pa­tion of Idlib Province in Syr­ia by Al-Qae­da, we high­light the appar­ent role of Mor­si’s gov­ern­ment and the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood in the events sur­round­ing the 2012 attack on the U.S. Embassy in Beng­hazi, Libya.

The over­throw of Khadafy in Libya was an out­growth of the so-called Arab Spring, as was the pre­cip­i­ta­tion of the civ­il war in Syr­ia. Of par­tic­u­lar sig­nif­i­cance is the fact that the GOP-led inves­ti­ga­tions of the Beng­hazi attack led direct­ly to both the inves­ti­ga­tion of Hillary Clin­ton’s e‑mails and the deci­sive­ly sig­nif­i­cant FBI tam­per­ing with the 2016 elec­tion, as well as the alleged “hack” of Hillary’s e‑mails!

An Egypt­ian news­pa­per pub­lished what were said to be inter­cept­ed record­ings of Mor­si com­mu­ni­cat­ing con­spir­a­to­ri­al­ly with Muham­mad al-Zawahiri, the the broth­er of Ayman al-Zawahiri, the head of Al-Qae­da. Much of this checks out with infor­ma­tion that is already on the pub­lic record.

Note the net­work­ing of GOP Sen­a­tors John McCain and Lind­say Gra­ham with Khairat El-Shater of the Egypt­ian Mus­lim Broth­er­hood while he was in prison, as well as the alleged links between the Egypt­ian Broth­er­hood and the cells involved in attack­ing the U.S. Embassy in Libya.

What we may well be look­ing at is a gam­bit along the lines of what has become known as the Octo­ber Surprise–collusion between the Iran­ian Islamists and George H.W. Bush/CIA/GOP to (among oth­er things) desta­bi­lize the Carter admin­is­tra­tion and 1980 re-elec­tion cam­paign.

In addi­tion, we won­der about a deal hav­ing been struck to have Al-Qae­da fight against Bashar Assad in Syr­ia, while avoid­ing attacks inside the U.S.?

Of pri­ma­ry focus in the mate­r­i­al below is Khairat El-Shater (translit­er­at­ed spellings of his name dif­fer.) El-Shater:

1.–Was the num­ber two man in the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood, though not for­mer­ly a mem­ber of Mor­si’s gov­ern­ment.
2.–Networked with U.S. Ambas­sador Anne Pat­ter­son and GOP Sen­a­tors John McCain and Lind­say Gra­ham and Khairat El-Shater (alter­na­tive­ly translit­er­at­ed with two “t’s” and/or an “al”), short­ly after Mor­si was deposed. ” . . . . It is inter­est­ing to note here that, pri­or to these rev­e­la­tions, U.S. ambas­sador Anne Pat­ter­son was seen vis­it­ing with Khairat El-Shater—even though he held no posi­tion in the Mor­si government—and after the oust­ing and impris­on­ment of Mor­si and lead­ing Broth­er­hood mem­bers, Sens. John McCain and Lind­say Gra­ham made it a point to vis­it the civil­ian Shater in his prison cell and urged the Egypt­ian gov­ern­ment to release him. . . .”
3.–Was deeply involved in mobi­liz­ing Al-Qae­da on behalf of Mor­si and the Broth­er­hood: ” . . . . Also on that same first day of the rev­o­lu­tion, Khairat al-Shater, Deputy Leader of the Broth­er­hood, had a meet­ing with a del­e­gate of jiha­di fight­ers and reit­er­at­ed Morsi’s request that all jihadis come to the aid of the pres­i­den­cy and the Broth­er­hood. . . . ”
4.–Was the appar­ent source of a $50 mil­lion con­tri­bu­tion by the Broth­er­hood to Al Qae­da: ” . . . . That the Mus­lim Brotherhood’s inter­na­tion­al wing, includ­ing through the agency of Khairat al-Shater, had pro­vid­ed $50 mil­lion to al-Qae­da in part to sup­port the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood in Egypt. . . .”
5.–Had the pass­port of the alleged leader of the Beng­hazi attack in his home when he was arrest­ed: ” . . . . Most recent­ly, on July 29, 2013, Ahmed Musa, a promi­nent Egypt­ian polit­i­cal insid­er and ana­lyst made sev­er­al asser­tions on Tahrir TV that fur­ther con­nect­ed the dots. . . . Musa insist­ed that he had absolute knowl­edge that the mur­der­er of Chris Stevens was Mohsin al-‘Azzazi, whose pass­port was found in Broth­er­hood leader Khairat El-Shater’s home, when the lat­ter was arrest­ed. . . .”
6.–Epitomized the GOP-beloved, cor­po­ratist eco­nom­ic ide­ol­o­gy and lifestyle: ” . . . . Arguably the most pow­er­ful man in the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood is Khairat El-Shater, a mul­ti­mil­lion­aire tycoon whose finan­cial inter­ests extend into elec­tron­ics, man­u­fac­tur­ing and retail. A strong advo­cate of pri­va­ti­za­tion, Al-Shater is one of a cadre of Mus­lim Broth­er­hood busi­ness­men who helped finance the Brotherhood’s Free­dom and Jus­tice Party’s impres­sive elec­toral vic­to­ry this win­ter and is now craft­ing the FJP’s eco­nom­ic agen­da. . . . . . . . the Brotherhood’s ide­ol­o­gy actu­al­ly has more in com­mon with America’s Repub­li­can Par­ty than with al-Qai­da. Few Amer­i­cans know it but the Broth­er­hood is a free-mar­ket par­ty led by wealthy busi­ness­men whose eco­nom­ic agen­da embraces pri­va­ti­za­tion and for­eign invest­ment while spurn­ing labor unions and the redis­tri­b­u­tion of wealth. Like the Repub­li­cans in the U.S., the finan­cial inter­ests of the party’s lead­er­ship of busi­ness­men and pro­fes­sion­als diverge sharply from those of its poor, social­ly con­ser­v­a­tive fol­low­ers. . . .”

This broad­cast begins with con­clu­sion of read­ing of a key arti­cle that was fea­tured in our last pro­gram.

Key points of analy­sis in dis­cus­sion of the Morsi/Zawahiri/Brotherhood con­nec­tion include:

1.–Muhamed Zawahir­i’s promise to bol­ster Mor­si’s gov­ern­ment with mil­i­tary sup­port, in exchange for Mor­si steer­ing Egypt in the direc­tion of Sharia law. ” . . . . The call end­ed in agree­ment that al-Qae­da would sup­port the Broth­er­hood, includ­ing its inter­na­tion­al branch­es, under the under­stand­ing that Mor­si would soon imple­ment full Sharia in Egypt.  After this, Muham­mad Zawahiri and Khairat al-Shater, the num­ber-two man of the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood orga­ni­za­tion, report­ed­ly met reg­u­lar­ly. . . .”
2.–Morsi’s agree­ment with Zawahir­i’s pro­pos­al. ” . . . . Zawahiri fur­ther request­ed that Mor­si allow them to devel­op train­ing camps in Sinai in order to sup­port the Broth­er­hood through trained mil­i­tants. Along with say­ing that the Broth­er­hood intend­ed to form a ‘rev­o­lu­tion­ary guard’ to pro­tect him against any coup, Mor­si added that, in return for al-Qaeda’s and its affil­i­ates’ sup­port, not only would he allow them to have such train­ing camps, but he would facil­i­tate their devel­op­ment in Sinai and give them four facil­i­ties to use along the Egypt­ian-Libyan bor­der. . . .”
3.–The net­work­ing between U.S. Ambas­sador Anne Pat­ter­son and GOP Sen­a­tors John McCain and Lind­say Gra­ham and Khairat El-Shater (alter­na­tive­ly translit­er­at­ed with two “t’s”), short­ly after Mor­si was deposed. ” . . . . It is inter­est­ing to note here that, pri­or to these rev­e­la­tions, U.S. ambas­sador Anne Pat­ter­son was seen vis­it­ing with Khairat al-Shater—even though he held no posi­tion in the Mor­si government—and after the oust­ing and impris­on­ment of Mor­si and lead­ing Broth­er­hood mem­bers, Sens. John McCain and Lind­say Gra­ham made it a point to vis­it the civil­ian Shater in his prison cell and urged the Egypt­ian gov­ern­ment to release him. . . .”
4.–Note that Mor­si sanc­tioned and Broth­er­hood-aid­ed Al-Qae­da mil­i­tants were appar­ent­ly involved in the Behg­hazi attacks that led to the Beng­hazi inves­ti­ga­tion, the Hillary e‑mails non-scan­dal and all that fol­lowed: ” . . . . Accord­ing to a Libyan Ara­bic report I trans­lat­ed back in June 2013, those who attacked the U.S. con­sulate in Beng­hazi, killing Amer­i­cans, includ­ing Ambas­sador Chris Stevens, were from jiha­di cells that had been formed in Libya through Egypt­ian Mus­lim Broth­er­hood sup­port.  Those inter­ro­gat­ed named Mor­si and oth­er top Broth­er­hood lead­er­ship as accom­plices. . . . ”
5.–Khairat El-Shater was deeply involved in mobi­liz­ing Al-Qae­da on behalf of Mor­si and the Broth­er­hood: ” . . . . Also on that same first day of the rev­o­lu­tion, Khairat al-Shater, Deputy Leader of the Broth­er­hood, had a meet­ing with a del­e­gate of jiha­di fight­ers and reit­er­at­ed Morsi’s request that all jihadis come to the aid of the pres­i­den­cy and the Broth­er­hood. . . . ”
6.–Khairat El-Shater was the appar­ent source of a $50 mil­lion con­tri­bu­tion by the Broth­er­hood to Al Qae­da: ” . . . . That the Mus­lim Brotherhood’s inter­na­tion­al wing, includ­ing through the agency of Khairat al-Shater, had pro­vid­ed $50 mil­lion to al-Qae­da in part to sup­port the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood in Egypt. . . .”
7.–Next, we high­light anoth­er impor­tant arti­cle from Ray­mond Ibrahim about the Mor­si/Al-Qae­da con­nec­tion to the Beng­hazi attack. Sup­ple­ment­ing the infor­ma­tion about net­work­ing between U.S. Ambas­sador to Egypt Anne Pat­ter­son, John McCain, Lind­say Gra­ham and Khairat al-Shater, we note that:

1.–The Beng­hazi attack­ers were appar­ent­ly linked to Mor­si and the Broth­er­hood: ” . . . . days after the Beng­hazi attack back in Sep­tem­ber 2012, Mus­lim Broth­er­hood con­nec­tions appeared.  A video made dur­ing the con­sulate attack records peo­ple approach­ing the belea­guered U.S. com­pound; one of them yells to the besiegers in an Egypt­ian dialect, ‘Don’t shoot—Dr. Mor­si sent us!’ appar­ent­ly a ref­er­ence to the for­mer Islamist pres­i­dent. . . .”
2.–The pass­port of the alleged leader of the Beng­hazi attack was found in the home of McCain/Graham con­tact Kharat al-Shater’s home when he was arrest­ed: ” . . . . Most recent­ly, on July 29, 2013, Ahmed Musa, a promi­nent Egypt­ian polit­i­cal insid­er and ana­lyst made sev­er­al asser­tions on Tahrir TV that fur­ther con­nect­ed the dots. . . . Musa insist­ed that he had absolute knowl­edge that the mur­der­er of Chris Stevens was Mohsin al-‘Azzazi, whose pass­port was found in Broth­er­hood leader Khairat El-Shater’s home, when the lat­ter was arrest­ed. . . .”
3.–The attack on the U.S. Embassy may well have been intend­ed to take Chris Stevens hostage, in order to use him as poten­tial barter for the Blind Sheikh: ” . . . . The day before the embassy attacks, based on lit­tle known but legit­i­mate Ara­bic reports, I wrote an arti­cle titled ‘Jihadis Threat­en to Burn U.S. Embassy in Cairo,’ explain­ing how Islamists—including al-Qaeda—were threat­en­ing to attack the U.S. embassy in Cairo unless the noto­ri­ous Blind Sheikh—an Islamist hero held in prison in the U.S. in con­nec­tion to the first World Trade Cen­ter bombing—was released.  The date Sep­tem­ber 11 was also delib­er­ate­ly cho­sen to attack the embassy to com­mem­o­rate the ‘hero­ic’ Sep­tem­ber 11, 2001 al-Qae­da strikes on Amer­i­ca. . . .”
4.–The Unit­ed States: ” . . . . first with Anne Pat­ter­son, and now with Sen­a­tors John McCain and Lind­say Gra­ham, keep pres­sur­ing Egypt to release Broth­er­hood lead­ers; McCain per­son­al­ly even vis­it­ed the civil­ian El-Shater, whose raid­ed home revealed the pass­port of Azzazi, whom Musa claims is the mur­der­er of Stevens. . . .”

Fol­low­ing the Beng­hazi dis­cus­sion, we recap an arti­cle about the Broth­er­hood and appar­ent Al-Qaeda/Beng­hazi col­lab­o­ra­tor Khairat El-Shater, not­ing the pow­er­ful res­o­nance between his and the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood’s val­ues and those of the GOP and the cor­po­rate com­mu­ni­ty:

1.–” . . . . the Brotherhood’s ide­ol­o­gy actu­al­ly has more in com­mon with America’s Repub­li­can Par­ty than with al-Qai­da. Few Amer­i­cans know it but the Broth­er­hood is a free-mar­ket par­ty led by wealthy busi­ness­men whose eco­nom­ic agen­da embraces pri­va­ti­za­tion and for­eign invest­ment while spurn­ing labor unions and the redis­tri­b­u­tion of wealth. Like the Repub­li­cans in the U.S., the finan­cial inter­ests of the party’s lead­er­ship of busi­ness­men and pro­fes­sion­als diverge sharply from those of its poor, social­ly con­ser­v­a­tive fol­low­ers. . . .”
2.–” . . . . Arguably the most pow­er­ful man in the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood is Khairat El-Shater, a mul­ti­mil­lion­aire tycoon whose finan­cial inter­ests extend into elec­tron­ics, man­u­fac­tur­ing and retail. A strong advo­cate of pri­va­ti­za­tion, Al-Shater is one of a cadre of Mus­lim Broth­er­hood busi­ness­men who helped finance the Brotherhood’s Free­dom and Jus­tice Party’s impres­sive elec­toral vic­to­ry this win­ter and is now craft­ing the FJP’s eco­nom­ic agen­da. . . .”

We con­clude with infor­ma­tion about the train­ing of activists in high-tech and social media in order to launch the Arab Spring.

In a remark­able and very impor­tant new book, Yasha Levine has high­light­ed the role of U.S. tech per­son­nel in train­ing and prep­ping the Arab Spring online activists.

Note while read­ing the fol­low­ing excerpts of this remark­able and impor­tant book, that:

1.–The Tor net­work was devel­oped by, and used and com­pro­mised by, ele­ments of U.S. intel­li­gence.
2.–One of the pri­ma­ry advo­cates and spon­sors of the Tor net­work is the Broad­cast­ing Board of Gov­er­nors. As we saw in FTR #‘s 891, 895, is an exten­sion of the CIA.
3.–Jacob Appel­baum has been financed by the Broad­cast­ing Board of Gov­er­nors, advo­cates use of the Tor net­work, has helped Wik­iLeaks with its exten­sive use of the Tor net­work, and is a the­o­ret­i­cal accolyte of Ayn Rand.

FTR #1025 The So-Called “Arab Spring” Revisited, Part 1

In this pro­gram, we review and present infor­ma­tion about the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood and the phe­nom­e­non that became known as “The Arab Spring.”

The Mus­lim Broth­er­hood is an Islam­ic fas­cist orga­ni­za­tion, allied with the Axis in World War II. After the war, the orga­ni­za­tion grav­i­tat­ed to ele­ments of West­ern intel­li­gence, where it proved to be a bul­wark against Com­mu­nism in the Mus­lim world.

It is our view that the Broth­er­hood was seen as use­ful because of its mil­i­tary off­shoots (Al-Qae­da in par­tic­u­lar) were use­ful proxy war­riors in places like the Cau­ca­sus and the Balka­ns and because the Broth­er­hood’s cor­po­ratist, neo-lib­er­al eco­nom­ic doc­trine was in keep­ing with the desires and goals of the trans-nation­al cor­po­rate com­mu­ni­ty.

(The Afghan Muja­hedin were a direct off­shoot of the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood and the suc­cess­ful war con­duct­ed by that group was a suc­cess­ful man­i­fes­ta­tion of “Broth­er­hood” as proxy war­riors. Of course, Al-Qae­da grew direct­ly from the Afghan jihadists.)

In FTR #‘s 733 through 739, we pre­sent­ed our view that the so-called Arab Spring was a U.S. intel­li­gence oper­a­tion, aimed at plac­ing the Broth­er­hood in pow­er in Mus­lim coun­tries dom­i­nat­ed either by a sec­u­lar dic­ta­tor or absolute monar­chy.

In FTR #787, we solid­i­fied our analy­sis with defin­i­tive con­fir­ma­tion of our work­ing hypoth­e­sis pre­sent­ed years ear­li­er.

About the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood’s eco­nom­ic doc­trine: ” . . . . . . . In Mus­lim litur­gy, the deals cut in the souk become a metaphor for the con­tract between God and the faith­ful. And the busi­ness mod­el Muham­mad pre­scribed, accord­ing to Mus­lim schol­ars and econ­o­mists, is very much in the lais­sez-faire tra­di­tion lat­er embraced by the West. Prices were to be set by God alone—anticipating by more than a mil­len­nium Adam Smith’s ref­er­ence to the ‘invis­i­ble hand’ of mar­ket-based pric­ing. . . . The Mus­lim Broth­er­hood hails 14th cen­tury philoso­pher Ibn Khal­dun as its eco­nomic guide. Antic­i­pat­ing sup­ply-side eco­nom­ics, Khal­dun argued that cut­ting tax­es rais­es pro­duc­tion and tax rev­enues, and that state con­trol should be lim­ited to pro­vid­ing water, fire and free graz­ing land, the util­i­ties of the ancient world. The World Bank has called Ibn Khal­dun the first advo­cate of pri­va­ti­za­tion. His found­ing influ­ence is a sign of mod­er­a­tion. If Islamists in pow­er ever do clash with the West, it won’t be over com­merce. . . .”

Ronald Rea­gan res­onat­ed with the Broth­er­hood’s eco­nom­ic doc­trine when pro­mot­ing his sup­ply-side eco­nom­ics: “Pres­i­dent Rea­gan, in his news con­fer­ence yes­ter­day, cit­ed a 14th cen­tu­ry Islam­ic schol­ar as an ear­ly expo­nent of the ”sup­ply-side” eco­nom­ic the­o­ry on which his Admin­is­tra­tion bases many of its poli­cies. An author­i­ty on the schol­ar lat­er said that the ref­er­ence seemed accu­rate. . . . Respond­ing to a ques­tion about the effects of tax and spend­ing cuts that began tak­ing effect yes­ter­day, Mr. Rea­gan said the sup­ply-side prin­ci­ple dat­ed at least as far back as Ibn Khal­dun, who is gen­er­al­ly regard­ed as the great­est Arab his­to­ri­an to emerge from the high­ly devel­oped Ara­bic cul­ture of the Mid­dle Ages. . . .”

The U.S. view on the Broth­er­hood and Islamism in gen­er­al was epit­o­mized by CIA offi­cer Gra­ham Fuller, who ran the Afghan Muja­hadin: ” . . . . . . . Fuller comes from that fac­tion of CIA Cold War­riors who believed (and still appar­ently believe) that fun­da­men­tal­ist Islam, even in its rad­i­cal jiha­di form, does not pose a threat to the West, for the sim­ple rea­son that fun­da­men­tal­ist Islam is con­ser­v­a­tive, against social jus­tice, against social­ism and redis­tri­b­u­tion of wealth, and in favor of hier­ar­chi­cal socio-eco­nom­ic struc­tures. Social­ism is the com­mon ene­my to both cap­i­tal­ist Amer­ica and to Wah­habi Islam, accord­ing to Fuller. . . .‘There is no main­stream Islam­ic organization...with rad­i­cal social views,’ he wrote. ‘Clas­si­cal Islam­ic the­ory envis­ages the role of the state as lim­ited to facil­i­tat­ing the well-being of mar­kets and mer­chants rather than con­trol­ling them. Islamists have always pow­er­fully object­ed to social­ism and communism....Islam has nev­er had prob­lems with the idea that wealth is uneven­ly dis­trib­uted.’ . . . .”

Next, we present the read­ing of an arti­cle by CFR mem­ber Bruce Hoff­man. Not­ing Al Qaeda’s resur­gence and Al Qaeda’s empha­sis on the Syr­i­an con­flict, Hoff­man cites the so-called “Arab Spring” as the key event in Al Qaeda’s resur­gence. ” . . . . The thou­sands of hard­ened al-Qae­da fight­ers freed from Egypt­ian pris­ons in 2012–2013 by Pres­i­dent Mohammed Mor­si gal­va­nized the move­ment at a crit­i­cal moment, when insta­bil­i­ty reigned and a hand­ful of men well-versed in ter­ror­ism and sub­ver­sion could plunge a coun­try or a region into chaos. Whether in Libya, Turkey, Syr­ia, or Yemen, their arrival was prov­i­den­tial in terms of advanc­ing al-Qaeda’s inter­ests or increas­ing its influ­ence. . . . It was Syr­ia where al-Qaeda’s inter­ven­tion proved most con­se­quen­tial. One of Zawahiri’s first offi­cial acts after suc­ceed­ing bin Laden as emir was to order a Syr­i­an vet­er­an of the Iraqi insur­gency named Abu Moham­mad al-Julani to return home and estab­lish the al-Qae­da fran­chise that would even­tu­al­ly become Jab­hat al-Nus­ra. . . .”

Hoff­man notes that Al-Qae­da and the Islam­ic State were, at one  time, part of a uni­fied orga­ni­za­tion: ” . . . . Al-Qaeda’s cho­sen instru­ment was Jab­hat al-Nus­ra, the prod­uct of a joint ini­tia­tive with al-Qaeda’s Iraqi branch, which had rebrand­ed itself as the Islam­ic State of Iraq (ISI). But as Nus­ra grew in both strength and impact, a dis­pute erupt­ed between ISI and al-Qae­da over con­trol of the group. In a bold pow­er grab, ISI’s leader, Abu Bakr al-Bagh­da­di, announced the forcible amal­ga­ma­tion of al-Nus­ra with ISI in a new orga­ni­za­tion to be called the Islam­ic State of Iraq and Syr­ia (ISIS). Julani refused to accede to the uni­lat­er­al merg­er and appealed to Zawahiri. The quar­rel inten­si­fied, and after Zawahiri’s attempts to medi­ate it col­lapsed, he expelled ISIS from the al-Qae­da net­work. . . .”

An Egypt­ian news­pa­per pub­lished what were said to be inter­cept­ed record­ings of Mor­si com­mu­ni­cat­ing con­spir­a­to­ri­al­ly with Muham­mad al-Zawahiri, the the broth­er of Ayman al-Zawahiri, the head of Al-Qae­da. Much of this checks out with infor­ma­tion that is already on the pub­lic record.

The Egypt­ian gov­ern­ment sen­tenced more than 500 mem­bers of the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood, to the resound­ing con­dem­na­tion of West­ern coun­tries, includ­ing the U.S. What we were not told was why. THIS appears to be why. Note the pro­found con­nec­tion between the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood gov­ern­ment of Mor­si and Al Qae­da, infor­ma­tion that sup­ple­ments what the Bruce Hoff­man paper dis­cuss­es: ” . . . . Mor­si informed Zawahiri that the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood sup­ports the mujahidin (jihadis) and that the mujahidin should sup­port the Broth­er­hood in order for them both, and the Islamist agen­da, to pre­vail in Egypt. This makes sense in the con­text that, soon after Mor­si came to pow­er, the gen­er­al pub­lic did become increas­ing­ly crit­i­cal of him and his poli­cies, includ­ing the fact that he was plac­ing only Broth­er­hood mem­bers in Egypt’s most impor­tant posts, try­ing quick­ly to push through a pro-Islamist con­sti­tu­tion, and, as Egyp­tians called it, try­ing in gen­er­al to ‘Broth­er­hood­ize’ Egypt. This sec­ond phone call being longer than the first, Zawahiri took it as an oppor­tu­ni­ty to con­grat­u­late Mor­si on his recent pres­i­den­tial victory—which, inci­den­tal­ly, from the start, was por­trayed by some as fraudulent—and expressed his joy that Morsi’s pres­i­den­cy could only mean that ‘all sec­u­lar infi­dels would be removed from Egypt.’ Then Zawahiri told Mor­si: ‘Rule accord­ing to the Sharia of Allah [or ‘Islam­ic law’], and we will stand next to you.  Know that, from the start, there is no so-called democ­ra­cy, so get rid of your oppo­si­tion.’ . . .”

Note the net­work­ing of GOP Sen­a­tors John McCain and Lind­say Gra­ham with Khairat El-Shater of the Egypt­ian Mus­lim Broth­er­hood while he was in prison. ” . . . . The call end­ed in agree­ment that al-Qae­da would sup­port the Broth­er­hood, includ­ing its inter­na­tion­al branch­es, under the under­stand­ing that Mor­si would soon imple­ment full Sharia in Egypt.  After this, Muham­mad Zawahiri and Khairat al-Shater, the num­ber-two man of the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood orga­ni­za­tion, report­ed­ly met reg­u­lar­ly. It is inter­est­ing to note here that, pri­or to these rev­e­la­tions, U.S. ambas­sador Anne Pat­ter­son was seen vis­it­ing with Khairat al-Shater—even though he held no posi­tion in the Mor­si government—and after the oust­ing and impris­on­ment of Mor­si and lead­ing Broth­er­hood mem­bers, Sens. John McCain and Lind­say Gra­ham made it a point to vis­it the civil­ian Shater in his prison cell and urged the Egypt­ian gov­ern­ment to release him. . . .”

Might there be some rela­tion­ship between the Gra­ham, McCain/Shater con­tacts and the evo­lu­tion of the Benghazi/Clinton emails/Trump elec­tion nexus?

Note, also, that Mor­si and Zawahir­i/Al-Qae­da jihadis were alleged­ly involved in the Behg­hazi attack that, ulti­mate­ly, led to the Beng­hazi hear­ings, the  Hillary Clin­ton e‑mail non-scan­dal and Don­ald Trump’s ascent: ” . . . . Along with say­ing that the Broth­er­hood intend­ed to form a ‘rev­o­lu­tion­ary guard’ to pro­tect him against any coup, Mor­si added that, in return for al-Qaeda’s and its affil­i­ates’ sup­port, not only would he allow them to have such train­ing camps, but he would facil­i­tate their devel­op­ment in Sinai and give them four facil­i­ties to use along the Egypt­ian-Libyan bor­der. That Libya is men­tioned is inter­est­ing.  Accord­ing to a Libyan Ara­bic report I trans­lat­ed back in June 2013, those who attacked the U.S. con­sulate in Beng­hazi, killing Amer­i­cans, includ­ing Ambas­sador Chris Stevens, were from jiha­di cells that had been formed in Libya through Egypt­ian Mus­lim Broth­er­hood sup­port.  Those inter­ro­gat­ed named Mor­si and oth­er top Broth­er­hood lead­er­ship as accom­plices. . . .”

FTR #1024 Ukrainian Fascism, Maidan Snipers and Implications for the Syrian War, Part 2

On the 17th anniver­sary of the Sep­tem­ber 11th attacks, we con­tin­ue with analy­sis of the Maid­an shootings–an appar­ent “false flag” operation–and muse about the impli­ca­tions of that for the con­flict in Syr­ia, as well as Russ­ian and Amer­i­can polit­i­cal life.

In the first part of the pro­gram, we fin­ish read­ing the poster pre­sen­ta­tion that pro­fes­sor Ivan Katchanovs­ki, PhD of the Uni­ver­si­ty of Ottawa pre­sent­ed at The 2018 Con­fer­ence of Amer­i­can Polit­i­cal Sci­ence Asso­ciates.

Katchanovs­ki has done a deep, detailed foren­sic study of the evi­dence in the Maid­an sniper attacks. He has a rig­or­ous, suc­cinct dig­i­tal mul­ti­me­dia ‘poster’ (an ‘iPoster’) for his find­ing that the Maid­an sniper attacks were a false flag oper­a­tion. That poster was pre­sent­ed dur­ing the 2018 Amer­i­can Polit­i­cal Sci­ence Asso­ci­a­tion con­fer­ence in Boston. It gives a high lev­el overview of his research and is heav­i­ly embed­ded with sub­stan­tive, doc­u­men­tary videos. Here are the con­tents of the poster. Be sure to check out the numer­ous images and videos includ­ed in the actu­al iPoster online.

He con­cludes his pre­sen­ta­tion with: “ . . . . Maid­an mas­sacre tri­al and inves­ti­ga­tion evi­dence have revealed var­i­ous evi­dence that at least the absolute major­i­ty of 49 killed and 157 wound­ed Maid­an pro­test­ers on Feb­ru­ary 20, 2014 were mas­sa­cred by snipers in Maid­an-con­trolled build­ings. Such evi­dence includes tes­ti­monies of the major­i­ty of wound­ed pro­test­ers and many wit­ness­es, foren­sic med­ical and bal­lisitic exam­i­na­tions, and inves­ti­ga­tion own find­ing that about half of Maid­an pro­test­ers were wound­ed from oth­er loca­tions than the Berkut police. Var­i­ous indi­ca­tions of stonewalling of the Maid­an mas­sacre inves­ti­ga­tions and the tri­als by the Maid­an gov­ern­ment offi­cials and by far right orga­ni­za­tions. Var­i­ous indi­ca­tions of the cov­er-up of much of the key evi­dence of the mas­sacre. Such rev­e­la­tions from the Maid­an mas­sacre tri­als and inves­ti­ga­tions cor­rob­o­rate pre­vi­ous stud­ies find­ings that this mas­sacre was a false flag mass killing with involve­ment of ele­ments of Maid­an lead­er­ship and the far right and that it includ­ed the mas­sacre of the police. The puz­zling mis­rep­re­sen­ta­tion of the Maid­an mas­sacre, its inves­ti­ga­tion, and the tri­al by West­ern media and gov­ern­ments require fur­ther research con­cern­ing rea­sons for such mis­rep­re­sen­ta­tion . . . . ”

Note: Since FTR #1023 was record­ed pro­fes­sor Katchanovs­ki has post­ed a 59-minute-long video of the Maid­an shoot­ings. The video fea­tures TV footage from that day, with many clips clear­ly show­ing snipers oper­at­ing from Maid­an-con­trolled build­ings. It also includes Eng­lish sub­ti­tles and foren­sic descrip­tions of scenes. The footage includes a num­ber of peo­ple being shot and killed–a griz­zly 59-min­utes, but absolute­ly invalu­able in terms of estab­lish­ing what actu­al­ly hap­pened.

The pre­sen­ta­tion of pro­fes­sor Katchanovski’s research in this pro­gram begins with the sec­tion titled “Cov­er-Up and Stonewalling.”

Addi­tion­al per­spec­tive on the appar­ent non-inves­ti­ga­tion of the Maid­an sniper shoot­ings is pro­vid­ed by Ana­toliy Matios, Ukraine’s Deputy Pros­e­cu­tor and Chief Mil­i­tary Pros­e­cu­tor:

Matios, Ukraine’s chief mil­i­tary pros­e­cu­tor, gave an exten­sive inter­view where he said that Jews are behind all wars and want to “drown eth­nic Slavs in blood.”

Also recall the cryp­tic state­ment Matios made back in 2016 about the iden­ti­ty of the peo­ple involved with the 2014 sniper attacks: “When pub­lic learns who is involved in this, peo­ple will be very sur­prised.” In FTR #‘s 982, 993,  1004, 1023, we exam­ined evi­dence that Ukrain­ian fas­cists may well have exe­cut­ed those sniper attacks. It is omi­nous that the chief mil­i­tary pros­e­cu­tor who is involved in that inves­ti­ga­tion is a neo-Nazi. ” . . . . In an exten­sive inter­view with the Ukrain­ian news out­let Insid­er, Ana­toliy Matios, Ukraine’s chief mil­i­tary pros­e­cu­tor, espoused anti-Semit­ic con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries in which he implied that Jews want to drown eth­nic Slavs in blood. . . .”

Return­ing to pro­fes­sor Katchanovski’s thought-pro­vok­ing con­clu­sion to his online poster: “ . . . . The puz­zling mis­rep­re­sen­ta­tion of the Maid­an mas­sacre, its inves­ti­ga­tion, and the tri­al by West­ern media and gov­ern­ments require fur­ther research con­cern­ing rea­sons for such mis­rep­re­sen­ta­tion . . . . ”

With the Syr­i­an gov­ern­ment appar­ent­ly com­menc­ing an offen­sive to van­quish Al-Qae­da jihadis in Idlib province (with Russ­ian mil­i­tary sup­port), the stage is set for a pos­si­ble Russian‑U.S./Western mil­i­tary con­flict.

Against the back­ground of the Maid­an snip­ing as a prob­a­ble false flag provo­ca­tion, the impend­ing Syr­i­an offen­sive to re-cap­ture the last ter­ri­to­r­i­al enclave of the Islamists in Syr­ia should be viewed with appre­hen­sion. As not­ed in the arti­cle we present, the so-called “rebels” are Al-Qae­da off­shoots. Omi­nous­ly, they have appar­ent­ly suc­cess­ful­ly exe­cut­ed false-flag chem­i­cal weapons attacks before, includ­ing in Idlib province.

Rus­sia has warned that such a provo­ca­tion is in the wings–an unre­mark­able deduc­tion in light of past his­to­ry. In turn, the West has warned of retal­ia­to­ry action if such actions are under­tak­en.

The stage appears set for an Islamist/Al-Qae­da chem­i­cal weapons false flag/provocation, upon which U.S., British and French mil­i­tary inter­ven­tion will be pred­i­cat­ed.

In this con­text, one should not lose sight of the fact that Chech­nyan Islamist vet­er­ans of the Syr­i­an war have already made their appear­ance in the com­bat in East­ern Ukraine, part­ner­ing with Pravy Sek­tor in their deploy­ments. (The Chechen/Right Sector/Islamist link is dis­cussed in FTR #‘s 857, 862, 863, 872, 878, 893, 911.)

We note pos­si­ble out­comes of U.S./Western Russ­ian com­bat:

1.–If the Western/U.S. forces are vic­to­ri­ous, this will cov­er Trump’s rump  with regard to the “Rus­sia-Gate” so-called inves­ti­ga­tion and bol­ster the GOP’s posi­tion in upcom­ing 2018 midterm elec­tions.
2.–If the Western/U.S. forces pre­vail, it will weak­en Putin polit­i­cal­ly, which is a goal of the West.
The last part of the pro­gram con­sists of a par­tial read­ing of an arti­cle by CFR mem­ber Bruce Hoff­man. Not­ing Al Qaeda’s resur­gence and Al Qaeda’s empha­sis on the Syr­i­an con­flict, Hoff­man cites the so-called “Arab Spring” as the key event in Al Qaeda’s resur­gence. ” . . . . The thou­sands of hard­ened al-Qae­da fight­ers freed from Egypt­ian pris­ons in 2012–2013 by Pres­i­dent Mohammed Mor­si gal­va­nized the move­ment at a crit­i­cal moment, when insta­bil­i­ty reigned and a hand­ful of men well-versed in ter­ror­ism and sub­ver­sion could plunge a coun­try or a region into chaos. Whether in Libya, Turkey, Syr­ia, or Yemen, their arrival was prov­i­den­tial in terms of advanc­ing al-Qaeda’s inter­ests or increas­ing its influ­ence. . . . It was Syr­ia where al-Qaeda’s inter­ven­tion proved most con­se­quen­tial. One of Zawahiri’s first offi­cial acts after suc­ceed­ing bin Laden as emir was to order a Syr­i­an vet­er­an of the Iraqi insur­gency named Abu Moham­mad al-Julani to return home and estab­lish the al-Qae­da fran­chise that would even­tu­al­ly become Jab­hat al-Nus­ra. . . .”

In FTR #‘s 733 through 739, we pre­sent­ed our view that the so-called Arab Spring was a U.S. intel­li­gence oper­a­tion, aimed at plac­ing the Broth­er­hood in pow­er in Mus­lim coun­tries dom­i­nat­ed either by a sec­u­lar dic­ta­tor or absolute monar­chy.

It is our view that the Broth­er­hood was seen as use­ful because of its mil­i­tary off­shoots (Al-Qae­da in par­tic­u­lar) were use­ful proxy war­riors in places like the Cau­ca­sus and the Balka­ns and because the Broth­er­hood’s cor­po­ratist, neo-lib­er­al eco­nom­ic doc­trine was in keep­ing with the desires and goals of the trans-nation­al cor­po­rate com­mu­ni­ty.

In FTR #787, we solid­i­fied our analy­sis with defin­i­tive con­fir­ma­tion of our work­ing hypoth­e­sis pre­sent­ed years ear­li­er.

About the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood’s eco­nom­ic doc­trine: ” . . . . The Mus­lim Broth­er­hood hails 14th cen­tury philoso­pher Ibn Khal­dun as its eco­nomic guide. Antic­i­pat­ing sup­ply-side eco­nom­ics, Khal­dun argued that cut­ting tax­es rais­es pro­duc­tion and tax rev­enues, and that state con­trol should be lim­ited to pro­vid­ing water, fire and free graz­ing land, the util­i­ties of the ancient world. The World Bank has called Ibn Khal­dun the first advo­cate of pri­va­ti­za­tion. [Empha­sis added.] His found­ing influ­ence is a sign of mod­er­a­tion. If Islamists in pow­er ever do clash with the West, it won’t be over com­merce. . . .”

Stephen Glain’s cita­tion of Ibn Khal­dun res­onates with Ronald Rea­gan’s pre­sen­ta­tion of “sup­ply-side eco­nom­ics.” ” . . . . Respond­ing to a ques­tion about the effects of tax and spend­ing cuts that began tak­ing effect yes­ter­day, Mr. Rea­gan said the sup­ply-side prin­ci­ple dat­ed at least as far back as Ibn Khal­dun, who is gen­er­al­ly regard­ed as the great­est Arab his­to­ri­an to emerge from the high­ly devel­oped Ara­bic cul­ture of the Mid­dle Ages. . . .”

FTR #1010 Summary Analysis of the Habsburg Redux, Russia-Gate Psy-Op Material

In FTR #‘s 1007, 1008 and 1009, we pre­sent­ed a high­ly com­plex con­stel­la­tion of polit­i­cal events and enti­ties that are embod­ied in the “Rus­sia-Gate” psy-op, and that track back to a pro­gres­sion of over­lap­ping intel­li­gence scan­dals track­ing back decades. In this pro­gram, we attempt to give greater coher­ence to analy­sis of this con­sum­mate­ly impor­tant phe­nom­e­non.

For pur­pos­es of clar­i­ty, we present syn­op­tic analy­sis of key points of dis­cus­sion and analy­sis in FTR #‘s 1007 and relat­ed pro­grams.

1.–The Alfa con­glom­er­ate main­tains the Alfa Fel­low­ship pro­gram, a sub­sidiary of the Carl Duis­berg Soci­ety’s new umbrel­la the Cul­tur­al Vis­tas orga­ni­za­tion.
2.–The Carl Duis­berg Soci­ety was the vehi­cle that shep­herd­ed 9/11 hijack­er Mohamed Atta around Ger­many and the U.S.
3.–Alfa sub­sidiary Crown Alfa had deal­ings with com­modi­ties Marc Rich, whose par­don was inves­ti­gat­ed by James Comey. The nego­ti­a­tions between Rich and Crown Alfa were ulti­mate­ly unsuc­cess­ful.
4.–In FTR #930, we not­ed that anoth­er Alfa asso­ciate Mikhail Frid­man did pur­chase Marc Rich assets.
5.–Also in FTR #930, we not­ed an Alfa Bank serv­er com­mu­ni­cat­ing with the Trump orga­ni­za­tion.
6.–In 2001, Crown Alfa asso­ciate Nor­bert Seeger’s Pro­gres­sive Cit­i­zens Par­ty of Liecht­en­stein gave Prince Hans-Adam II of Liecht­en­stein unprece­dent­ed pow­er, mak­ing him, in effect, Europe’s only absolute monarch. Hans-Adam’s new pow­ers gave him con­trol over the courts and judi­cial sys­tem just as the 9/11 attacks and result­ing Oper­a­tion Green Quest inves­ti­ga­tions were mov­ing in the direc­tion of the Licht­en­stein-based Al-Taqwa nexus.
7.–An Al-Taqwa sub­sidiary, the Asat Trust had links to the House of Liechtenstein–the rul­ing fam­i­ly of Liecht­en­stein.
8.–Robert Mueller helped derail the Oper­a­tion Green Quest inves­ti­ga­tion while serv­ing as head of the FBI.
9.–The House of Liecht­en­stein is a sub­sidiary of the House of Hab­s­burg.

Again, for pur­pos­es of clar­i­ty, we review links of the Hab­s­burg fam­i­ly to “Euro­pean inte­gra­tion,” anti-Sovi­et/­Cold War activism and Ukraine:

1.–Members of the Hab­s­burg dynasty have been involved in the con­text in which Lee Har­vey Man­afort and the Hab­s­burg Group were operating–European integration–in order to ease Ukraine into the West­ern, rather than the Russ­ian orbit. ” . . . .The most strik­ing exam­ple of the trend is the appoint­ment this week of Georg von Hab­s­burg, the 32-year-old-grand­son of Emper­or Karl I, to the posi­tion of Hungary’s ambas­sador for Euro­pean Inte­gra­tion. In neigh­bour­ing Aus­tria, the tra­di­tional heart of Hab­s­burg pow­er, Georg’s broth­er, Karl, 35, was recent­ly elect­ed to rep­re­sent the coun­try in the Euro­pean par­lia­ment. In addi­tion to this, he serves as the pres­i­dent of the Aus­trian branch of the Pan-Euro­pean move­ment. . . . .”
2.–Jumping for­ward some 14 years from our pre­vi­ous arti­cle, we see that a Hab­s­burg princess was anoint­ed as Geor­gia’s ambas­sador to Ger­many. Note that [now for­mer] Geor­gian pres­i­dent Mikheil Saakashvili endorsed her. Saakashvili became, for a time, the gov­er­nor of the Ukrain­ian province of Odessa! Note, also, the role of the Hab­s­burgs in the final phase of the Cold War: “. . . . The heirs to the Hab­s­burg emper­ors helped speed the down­fall of the Sovi­et empire, par­tic­u­larly by arrang­ing the cross-bor­der exo­dus from Hun­gary to Aus­tria in the sum­mer of 1989 that punched the first big hole in the iron cur­tain. . . .”
3.–Karl von Hab­s­burg has been active in Ukraine for some years before estab­lish­ing a radio sta­tion. Karl von Hab­s­burg is the head of the UNPO. Note the Ukrain­ian ori­en­ta­tion and influ­ence of Wil­helm von Hab­s­burg, in World War I through the World War II eras, as well as his anti-Sovi­et activism: ” . . . . A mil­i­tary offi­cer by train­ing, Wil­helm sup­ported Ukraine’s inde­pen­dence strug­gle dur­ing World War I. He fought with Ukrain­ian troops against the Rus­sians, and had schemed and cajoled a myr­iad of politi­cians to sup­port his monar­chial aspi­ra­tions. Almost until his death at the hands of the Sovi­ets in 1948 – he was snatched off the streets of Vien­na and trans­ported to a prison in Kyiv for work­ing as an agent against the Sovi­et Union – Wil­helm believed this slice of the family’s empire could be his. . . .”
4.–Fast-forwarding again some five years from our pre­vi­ous two arti­cles and one year after the Euro­Maid­an coup we see that actions speak loud­er than words, and Karl’s new Ukrain­ian radio sta­tion says a lot: “Since 20 Jan­u­ary, a tru­ly Euro­pean radio sta­tion [Note this–D.E.] is broad­cast­ing in Ukraine, its main spon­sor, Karl-Hab­s­burg Lothrin­gen, told EurAc­tiv in an exclu­sive inter­view . . . . Karl Hab­s­burg-Lothrin­gen is an Aus­trian politi­cian and head of the House of Hab­s­burg. Since 1986, he has served as Pres­i­dent of the Aus­trian branch of the Paneu­ro­pean Union. . . .”
5.–As we not­ed, “Plan B” for Ukraine might be termed “Plan OUN/B.” Otto von Hab­s­burg formed the Euro­pean Free­dom Coun­cil with Jaroslav Stet­zko, the wartime head of the Ukrain­ian Nazi col­lab­o­ra­tionist gov­ern­ment that imple­ment­ed Third Reich eth­nic cleans­ing pro­grams in Ukraine. The EFC was close­ly aligned with the Anti-Bol­she­vik Bloc of Nations, head­ed by Stet­zko. The ABN, as we have seen in the past, is a re-nam­ing of the Com­mit­tee of Sub­ju­gat­ed Nations, a con­sor­tium of East­ern Euro­pean fas­cist groups formed by Hitler in 1943.”. . . . The Haps­burg monar­chy helped guide the lead­er­ship in their for­mer pos­ses­sions. The Free­dom Coun­cil was formed by Otto von Haps­burg and Jaroslav Stet­zko at a con­fer­ence in Munich on June 30-July 2 1967, as a coor­di­nat­ing body for orga­ni­za­tions fight­ing com­mu­nism in Europe. EMP H.R.H. Otto von Haps­burg was hon­orary chair­man of the Euro­pean Free­dom Coun­cil, based in Munich, dur­ing the 1980s and allied to the Anti-Bol­she­vik Bloc of Nations (ABN). . . .”

Lee Har­vey Man­afort’s activ­i­ties over­lap the dynam­ics high­light­ed above:

1.–Manafort’s net­work­ing with the “Hab­s­burg Group” of Euro­pean politi­cians to effect Ukraine’s inte­gra­tion into the EU orbit: ” . . . . . . . . A sec­ond Wash­ing­ton lob­by­ing firm hired by Mr. Man­afort, the Podes­ta Group, also said last year that it had ‘arranged meet­ings and media oppor­tu­ni­ties’ for vis­it­ing Euro­pean lead­ers regard­ing Ukraine, start­ing in 2012, includ­ing for Mr. Gusen­bauer, Mr. Pro­di and two for­mer pres­i­dents, Alek­sander Kwas­niews­ki of Poland and Vik­tor A. Yushchenko of Ukraine. . . . The group of senior for­mer politi­cians, accord­ing to the indict­ment, was infor­mal­ly called the Haps­burg Group, after the Aus­tro-Hun­gar­i­an dynasty, the Hab­s­burgs. . . .”
2.–Lee Har­vey Man­afort and the Hab­s­burg Group enlist­ed Alex van Der Zwaan, son-in-law of Ger­man Khan the (Kiev) Ukraine-born founder of Alfa Bank: ” . . . . Alex van der Zwaan was charged with lying to the FBI about his con­tacts with Rick Gates, who served as a top offi­cial on Pres­i­dent Trump’s cam­paign and a long­time busi­ness part­ner of for­mer cam­paign chair­man Paul Man­afort. Based in Lon­don, van der Zwaan worked for the law firm Skad­den, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, which worked with Man­afort and Gates when they served as polit­i­cal con­sul­tants in Ukraine. Van der Zwaan is the son-in-law of Ger­man Khan, a bil­lion­aire and an own­er of Alfa Group, Russia’s largest finan­cial and indus­tri­al invest­ment group. . . . Like the Man­afort and Gates charges, van der Zwaan’s case is root­ed in Ukraine, where Man­afort worked as an inter­na­tion­al polit­i­cal con­sul­tant start­ing in 2005. . . .”

Of cen­tral inter­est in our analy­sis is the long espi­onage career of Felix Sater, the point man for Trump’s attempt­ed deal­ings with Rus­sia. Sater is a spy, work­ing for both CIA and FBI. Much of his work links to events and insti­tu­tions con­nect­ed to Osama bin Laden/9/11. In an ear­li­er polit­i­cal incar­na­tion, Robert Mueller head­ed the FBI dur­ing part of the peri­od when Sater worked for the Bureau, in addi­tion to his work for the Agency. With long-time spook Sater as the point man for Trump’s [hith­er­to unsuc­cess­ful] busi­ness deal­ings with Rus­sia and evi­dent spy Man­afort Trump’s for­mer cam­paign man­ag­er, it is alto­geth­er rea­son­able to see “Team Trump” in both the USA and Rus­sia as an intel­li­gence “op.” 

The fol­low­ing excerpt high­lights those efforts, espe­cial­ly some which place his work direct­ly in the milieu of the Oper­a­tion Green Quest raids, which were effec­tive­ly cov­ered up by Robert Mueller when he head­ed the FBI.  ” . . . . Sater report­ed back to intel­li­gence agen­cies on the results of coali­tion bomb­ings, kills on the bat­tle­field, the finan­cial net­works behind the 9/11 bombers and oth­er al-Qae­da mem­bers world­wide, and even the iden­ti­ty of a New Mex­i­co com­pa­ny believed to be laun­der­ing ter­ror funds in the US. . . .”

The foun­da­tion of the U.S. intelligence/Hapsburg/Underground Reich con­cate­na­tion dates to the peri­od imme­di­ate­ly after World War I: ” . . . .  . . . . The Haps­burgs would desert Ger­many in return for an Amer­i­can com­mit­ment. Sub­si­dized by the Unit­ed States—which brought over to Europe the Pres­i­den­t’s close advis­er Pro­fes­sor George D. Her­ron to impart Wilson’s vital imprimatur—this updat­ed Haps­burg sov­er­eign­ty must com­mit in advance to erad­i­cat­ing the Bol­she­viks. A revi­tal­ized Aus­tro-Hun­gar­i­an buffer zone to fend off Sovi­et pen­e­tra­tion of the Balka­ns turned into a life­long chimera for Dulles, and spurred his devo­tion over the many years to some man­ner of ‘Danu­bian Fed­er­a­tion.’ . . . .”

This rela­tion­ship gained momen­tum dur­ing the Sec­ond World War, with approach­es by the Third Reich to Allied as a Nazi defeat began to take shape.

Of para­mount sig­nif­i­cance for our pur­pos­es is a “Chris­t­ian West­er” accom­mo­da­tion appar­ent­ly involv­ing Prince Egon Max von Hohen­loe, who mar­ried into the Hab­s­burg fam­i­ly. Oper­at­ing out of Licht­en­stein and trav­el­ing on a Licht­en­stein pass­port, von Hohen­loe served as an inter­me­di­ary between U.S. intel­li­gence and Wal­ter Schel­len­berg, in charge of over­seas intel­li­gence for the SS. (Schel­len­berg was also on the board of direc­tors of Inter­na­tion­al Tele­phone and Tele­graph and became a key oper­a­tive for the post­war Gehlen orga­ni­za­tion.)

Allen Dulles’s strate­gic out­look embraced and shaped much of what appears to under­lie the Habsburg/OUN/Western intel­li­gence activ­i­ty with regard to Ukraine: ” . . . Pro­nounce­ments alter­nat­ed with rich meals in a Liecht­en­stein chateau; Hohen­lo­he bit by bit exposed his qua­si-offi­cial sta­tus as a spokesman for SS ele­ments with in the Ger­man gov­ern­ment who now looked beyond the ‘wild men’ in con­trol. What casts a longer shad­ow is the out­line of Allen’s geopo­lit­i­cal ideas. The peace he has in mind, Dulles indi­cates, must avoid the excess­es of Ver­sailles and per­mit the expand­ed Ger­man poli­ty to sur­vive, Aus­tria includ­ed and pos­si­bly at least a sec­tion of Czecho­slo­va­kia, while exclud­ing all thought of ‘vic­tors and van­quished . . . . as a fac­tor of order and progress.’ . . . . The resul­tant ‘Greater Ger­many’ would back­stop the ‘for­ma­tion of a cor­don san­i­taire against Bol­she­vism and pan-Slav­ism through the east­ward enlarge­ment of Poland and the preser­va­tion of a strong Hun­gary.’ This ‘Fed­er­al Greater Ger­many (sim­i­lar to the Unit­ed States), with an asso­ci­at­ed Danube Con­fed­er­a­tion, would be the best guar­an­tee of order and progress in Cen­tral and East­ern Europe.’ . . . . ”

A for­mer Abwehr offi­cer alleges that he attend­ed a meet­ing in Spain between Abwehr head Wil­helm Canaris, Dono­van and Stew­art Men­zies, chief of MI6–British Intel­li­gence. ” . . . . . . . . An Abwehr offi­cer, F. Jus­tus von Einem, lat­er claimed to have sat in on a care­ful­ly pre­pared meet­ing at San­tander in Spain in the sum­mer of 1943 dur­ing which both Men­zies and Dono­van agreed to Chris­t­ian West­er terms as  reca­pit­u­lat­ed by Canaris per­son­al­ly. If this exchange occurred, Dono­van kept it qui­et. . . .”

In this pro­gram, we extend analy­sis the oper­a­tions of the “Greater Hab­s­burg” milieu and the asso­ci­at­ed Under­ground Reich around the world and into dynam­ics incor­po­rat­ing the use of Islamist proxy war­riors in that impor­tant geopo­lit­i­cal province, as well as the manip­u­la­tion of oth­er Third World eth­nic groups as desta­bi­liz­ing ele­ments in tar­get­ed areas.

At the epi­cen­ter of this dynam­ic is the Earth Island.

Stretch­ing from the Straits of Gibral­tar, all across Europe, most of the Mid­dle East, Eura­sia, Rus­sia, Chi­na and India, that stretch of land: com­pris­es most of the world’s land mass; con­tains most of the world’s pop­u­la­tion and most of the world’s nat­ur­al resources (includ­ing oil and nat­ur­al gas.) Geopoliti­cians have long seen con­trol­ling that land mass as the key to world dom­i­na­tion.  The pop­u­la­tion that occu­pies the mid­dle of that stretch of geog­ra­phy is large­ly Mus­lim.

Among the salient points to be con­sid­ered in the con­text of the Habsburg/Underground Reich/Western intel­li­gence dynam­ic:

1.–Liechtenstein monarch Prince Hans-Adam II’s 2000 gift to Prince­ton Uni­ver­si­ty: “. . . . A $12 mil­lion gift to Prince­ton from Prince Hans-Adam II of Liecht­en­stein will cre­ate the Liecht­en­stein Insti­tute on Self-Deter­mi­na­tion . . . .The gift will expand the Uni­ver­si­ty’s exist­ing Liecht­en­stein Research Pro­gram on Self-Deter­mi­na­tion, which also has been fund­ed by Prince Hans-Adam II. It will enable Prince­ton fac­ul­ty, stu­dents and out­side experts to expand their work and embark on wide-rang­ing new projects in such places as Koso­vo, Kash­mir, and Chech­nya. . . .”
2.–In this con­text, one should not lose sight of the sim­i­lar­i­ty of the focus of the Liecht­en­stein Insti­tute and the Hab­s­burg-affil­i­at­ed UNPO. Are both of these orga­ni­za­tions part of the new “kinder, gen­tler” covert oper­a­tions par­a­digm? Bear in mind that both the Haps­burgs and the close­ly-asso­ci­at­ed House of Liecht­en­stein are con­ser­v­a­tive Catholics. Their inter­est in “native peo­ples” and “self-deter­mi­na­tion” for Islamists, Turks, Tibetan Bud­dhists and Lako­ta Sioux is all the more sus­pi­cious, under the cir­cum­stances!!
3.–We review (from FTR #550) links between pro-Uighur activist Erkin Alptekin and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty—both close­ly con­nect­ed to U.S. intelligence—Erkin Alptekin is a founder and key mem­ber of the UNPO, about which we will have more to say below. Alptekin is also on the board of the Dalai Lama Foun­da­tion. Michael Van Walt, anoth­er close asso­ciate of the Dalai Lama, is also deeply involved with the UNPO.
With the Dalai Lama and his milieu, we appear to be look­ing at man­i­fes­ta­tions of the Under­ground Reich as a “vir­tu­al state”—a state with­out for­mal geo­graph­i­cal bor­ders. We should also note that Cen­tral Asia—the area that is the focal point of the Dalai Lama’s and UNPO’s sup­port for Uighur sep­a­ratist ele­ments was viewed by geopoliti­cians as crit­i­cal for main­tain­ing con­trol of the Earth Island.
5.–We review Karl von Hab­s­burg’s role as head of the UNPO and his mar­riage to Francesca Thyssen-Borne­misza. Note that the UNPO cham­pi­ons the Dalai Lama and the Tibetans. (We looked at the Dalai Lama’s pro­found links to the Nazi SS and the Under­ground Reich in–among oth­er programs–FTR #‘s 547, 842 and 843.)
6.–An arti­cle accessed in FTR #‘s 635 and 636 high­lights sup­port for the Uighurs by the UNPO.
7.–Emblematic of the true nature of the sup­pos­ed­ly “human­is­tic, pro­gres­sive” UNPO is the fact that they have incor­po­rat­ed the Afrikan­ers into their pan­theon of “dis­en­fran­chised” peo­ples.
8.–Note that the UNPO counts the seces­sion of Koso­vo as one of its suc­ces­sors. As dis­cussed in—among oth­er programs—FTRs 330, 622, the Koso­vo Lib­er­a­tion Army is the direct descen­dant of the 21st Waf­fen SS Divi­sion (Skan­der­beg) and oth­er fas­cist fight­ing for­ma­tions of World War II.

FTR #1008 Alfa Males, Part 5: Lee Harvey Manafort, The Russia-Gate Psy-Op, and the Underground Reich (Habsburg Redux, Part 2)

The title of the pro­gram ref­er­ences for­mer Trump cam­paign man­ag­er and for­mer Ukrain­ian pres­i­dent Vik­tor Yanukovich’s advi­sor Paul Man­afort as “Lee Har­vey Man­afort.”

Far from being a “Russian/Putin/Kremlin agent, Paul Man­afort is a U.S. intel­li­gence offi­cer, who was charged with the task of teas­ing Ukraine from the Russ­ian into the West­ern orbit. Heed­ing polls that found Ukraine’s cit­i­zens to oppose the coun­try’s inclu­sion into NATO and mid­wiv­ing a report that exon­er­at­ed then Ukrain­ian pres­i­dent Vik­tor Yanukovich of crim­i­nal excess in the jail­ing of his pre­de­ces­sor and rival Yulia Tim­o­shenko, Man­afort under­took polit­i­cal activism on behalf of both caus­es in order to effect his goal of West­ern­iz­ing Ukraine.

When the com­bi­na­tion of pop­u­lar dis­sat­is­fac­tion with the aus­ter­i­ty-laden EU asso­ci­a­tion pro­pos­al and Russ­ian pres­sure led to Yanukovy­ch’s can­cel­la­tion of the deep­en­ing of Ukrainian/EU rela­tions, the Euro­maid­an coup sealed the fate of the Yanukovych gov­ern­ment. “Plan B” for the inte­gra­tion of Ukraine into the West­ern camp was the Euro­maid­an coup, which cul­mi­nat­ed in the sniper killings of numer­ous civil­ians. As dis­cussed in FTR #‘s 982 and 993, those sniper attacks may well have been a provo­ca­tion, effect­ed by Ukrain­ian fas­cist and OUN/B suc­ces­sor Andriy Paru­biy chris­tened “The Cap­tain of the Maid­an” and–very possibly–Manafort him­self.

Plan B, for  the maneu­ver­ing of Ukraine into the West­ern camp might be termed “Plan OUN/B.”

Manafort–like Lee Har­vey Oswald and Edwin Wil­son before him–has been “left out in the cold” by his spy­mas­ters, left to take the fall for an oper­a­tion he under­took on their behalf. Hence, our chris­ten­ing of Trump’s for­mer, unfor­tu­nate cam­paign man­ag­er as “Lee Har­vey Man­afort.”

A major fac­tor in the events high­light­ed in our last pro­gram, this broad­cast and the forth­com­ing pro­gram is the Hab­s­burg (also spelled “Haps­burg”) dynasty and relat­ed ele­ments. The Hab­s­burgs are the roy­al fam­i­ly that presided over the Aus­tro-Hun­gar­i­an Empire, which ruled Cen­tral and much of East­ern Europe for 600 years.

In addi­tion to the Hab­s­burg pow­er polit­i­cal forces, our analy­sis focus­es on the tiny, Hab­s­burg-affil­i­at­ed Euro­pean prin­ci­pal­i­ty of Liecht­en­stein. With a pop­u­la­tion of just 32.000, Liecht­en­stein is a ver­ti­cal­ly-inte­grat­ed lean, mean mon­ey-laun­der­ing machine.

Over­lap­ping the Liecht­en­stein con­nec­tion is the Alfa Group–a Russ­ian con­glom­er­ate, the most impor­tant com­po­nent of which is the Alfa Bank.

For pur­pos­es of clar­i­ty, we present syn­op­tic analy­sis of key points of dis­cus­sion and analy­sis in FTR #‘s 1007 and relat­ed pro­grams.

1.–The Alfa con­glom­er­ate main­tains the Alfa Fel­low­ship pro­gram, a sub­sidiary of the Carl Duis­berg Soci­ety’s new umbrel­la the Cul­tur­al Vis­tas orga­ni­za­tion.
2.–The Carl Duis­berg Soci­ety was the vehi­cle that shep­herd­ed 9/11 hijack­er Mohamed Atta around Ger­many and the U.S.
3.–Alfa sub­sidiary Crown Alfa had deal­ings with com­modi­ties Marc Rich, whose par­don was inves­ti­gat­ed by James Comey.
4.–In FTR #930, we not­ed that anoth­er Alfa asso­ciate Mikhail Frid­man did pur­chase Marc Rich assets.
5.–Also in FTR #930, we not­ed an Alfa Bank serv­er com­mu­ni­cat­ing with the Trump orga­ni­za­tion.
6.–In 2001, Crown Alfa asso­ciate Nor­bert Seeger’s Pro­gres­sive Cit­i­zens Par­ty of Liecht­en­stein gave Prince Hans-Adam II of Liecht­en­stein unprece­dent­ed pow­er, mak­ing him, in effect, Europe’s only absolute monarch. Hans-Adam’s new pow­ers gave him con­trol over the courts and judi­cial sys­tem just as the 9/11 attacks and result­ing Oper­a­tion Green Quest inves­ti­ga­tions were mov­ing in the direc­tion of the Licht­en­stein-based Al-Taqwa nexus.
7.–An Al-Taqwa sub­sidiary, the Asat Trust had links to the House of Liechtenstein–the rul­ing fam­i­ly of Liecht­en­stein.
8.–Robert Mueller helped derail the Oper­a­tion Green Quest inves­ti­ga­tion while serv­ing as head of the FBI.
9.–The House of Liecht­en­stein is a sub­sidiary of the House of Hab­s­burg.

In this pro­gram, we set forth ele­ments over­lap­ping the dynam­ics pre­sent­ed above, includ­ing:

1.–Manafort’s net­work­ing with the “Hab­s­burg Group” of Euro­pean politi­cians to effect Ukraine’s inte­gra­tion into the EU orbit: ” . . . . . . . . A sec­ond Wash­ing­ton lob­by­ing firm hired by Mr. Man­afort, the Podes­ta Group, also said last year that it had ‘arranged meet­ings and media oppor­tu­ni­ties’ for vis­it­ing Euro­pean lead­ers regard­ing Ukraine, start­ing in 2012, includ­ing for Mr. Gusen­bauer, Mr. Pro­di and two for­mer pres­i­dents, Alek­sander Kwas­niews­ki of Poland and Vik­tor A. Yushchenko of Ukraine. . . . The group of senior for­mer politi­cians, accord­ing to the indict­ment, was infor­mal­ly called the Haps­burg Group, after the Aus­tro-Hun­gar­i­an dynasty, the Hab­s­burgs. . . .”
2.–Lee Har­vey Man­afort and the Hab­s­burg Group enlist­ed Alex van Der Zwaan, son-in-law of Ger­man Khan the (Kiev) Ukraine-born founder of Alfa Bank: ” . . . . Alex van der Zwaan was charged with lying to the FBI about his con­tacts with Rick Gates, who served as a top offi­cial on Pres­i­dent Trump’s cam­paign and a long­time busi­ness part­ner of for­mer cam­paign chair­man Paul Man­afort. Based in Lon­don, van der Zwaan worked for the law firm Skad­den, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, which worked with Man­afort and Gates when they served as polit­i­cal con­sul­tants in Ukraine. Van der Zwaan is the son-in-law of Ger­man Khan, a bil­lion­aire and an own­er of Alfa Group, Russia’s largest finan­cial and indus­tri­al invest­ment group. . . . Like the Man­afort and Gates charges, van der Zwaan’s case is root­ed in Ukraine, where Man­afort worked as an inter­na­tion­al polit­i­cal con­sul­tant start­ing in 2005. . . .”
3.–Members of the Hab­s­burg dynasty have been involved in the con­text in which Lee Har­vey Man­afort and the Hab­s­burg Group were oper­at­ing, in order to ease Ukraine into the West­ern, rather than the Russ­ian orbit. ” . . . . Georg von Hab­s­burg, the 32-year-old-grand­son of Emper­or karl I, to the posi­tion of Hungary’s ambas­sador for Euro­pean Inte­gra­tion. In neigh­bour­ing Aus­tria, the tra­di­tional heart of Hab­s­burg pow­er, Georg’s broth­er, Karl, 35, was recent­ly elect­ed to rep­re­sent the coun­try in the Euro­pean par­lia­ment. In addi­tion to this, he serves as the pres­i­dent of the Aus­trian branch of the Pan-Euro­pean move­ment. . . . .”
Jump­ing for­ward some 14 years from our pre­vi­ous arti­cle, we see that a Hab­s­burg princess was anoint­ed as Geor­gia’s ambas­sador to Ger­many. Note that [now for­mer] Geor­gian pres­i­dent Mikheil Saakashvili endorsed her. Saakashvili became, for a time, the gov­er­nor of the Ukrain­ian province of Odessa! Note, also, the role of the Hab­s­burgs in the final phase of the Cold War: “. . . . The heirs to the Hab­s­burg emper­ors helped speed the down­fall of the Sovi­et empire, par­tic­u­larly by arrang­ing the cross-bor­der exo­dus from Hun­gary to Aus­tria in the sum­mer of 1989 that punched the first big hole in the iron cur­tain. . . .”
Karl von Hab­s­burg has been active in Ukraine for some years before estab­lish­ing a radio sta­tion. Karl von Hab­s­burg is the head of the UNPO. Note the Ukrain­ian ori­en­ta­tion and influ­ence of Wil­helm von Hab­s­burg, in World War I through the World War II eras, as well as his anti-Sovi­et activism: ” . . . . A mil­i­tary offi­cer by train­ing, Wil­helm sup­ported Ukraine’s inde­pen­dence strug­gle dur­ing World War I. He fought with Ukrain­ian troops against the Rus­sians, and had schemed and cajoled a myr­iad of politi­cians to sup­port his monar­chial aspi­ra­tions. Almost until his death at the hands of the Sovi­ets in 1948 – he was snatched off the streets of Vien­na and trans­ported to a prison in Kyiv for work­ing as an agent against the Sovi­et Union – Wil­helm believed this slice of the family’s empire could be his. . . .”
4.–Fast-forwarding again some five years from our pre­vi­ous two arti­cles and one year after the Euro­Maid­an coup we see that actions speak loud­er than words, and Karl’s new Ukrain­ian radio sta­tion says a lot: “Since 20 Jan­u­ary, a tru­ly Euro­pean radio sta­tion [Note this–D.E.] is broad­cast­ing in Ukraine, its main spon­sor, Karl-Hab­s­burg Lothrin­gen, told EurAc­tiv in an exclu­sive inter­view . . . . Karl Hab­s­burg-Lothrin­gen is an Aus­trian politi­cian and head of the House of Hab­s­burg. Since 1986, he has served as Pres­i­dent of the Aus­trian branch of the Paneu­ro­pean Union. . . .”

As we not­ed, “Plan B” for Ukraine might be termed “Plan OUN/B.” Otto von Hab­s­burg formed the Euro­pean Free­dom Coun­cil with Jaroslav Stet­zko, the wartime head of the Ukrain­ian Nazi col­lab­o­ra­tionist gov­ern­ment that imple­ment­ed Third Reich eth­nic cleans­ing pro­grams in Ukraine. The EFC was close­ly aligned with the Anti-Bol­she­vik Bloc of Nations, head­ed by Stet­zko. The ABN, as we have seen in the past, is a re-nam­ing of the Com­mit­tee of Sub­ju­gat­ed Nations, a con­sor­tium of East­ern Euro­pean fas­cist groups formed by Hitler in 1943.”. . . . The Haps­burg monar­chy helped guide the lead­er­ship in their for­mer pos­ses­sions. The Free­dom Coun­cil was formed by Otto von Haps­burg and Jaroslav Stet­zko at a con­fer­ence in Munich on June 30-July 2 1967, as a coor­di­nat­ing body for orga­ni­za­tions fight­ing com­mu­nism in Europe. EMP H.R.H. Otto von Haps­burg was hon­orary chair­man of the Euro­pean Free­dom Coun­cil, based in Munich, dur­ing the 1980s and allied to the Anti-Bol­she­vik Bloc of Nations (ABN). . . .”

An impor­tant con­sid­er­a­tion in the con­text of his pro­gram is the career and posi­tion of Roman Zvarych. In addi­tion to being the spokesman for the Nazi Azov Bat­tal­ion, Zvarych was:

1.–Minister of Jus­tice under Vik­tor Yuschenko.
2.–Minister of Jus­tice under both Tymoshenko gov­ern­ments.
3.–An advis­er to Petro Poroshenko.
4.–In the 1980’s, the per­son­al sec­re­tary to Jaroslav Stet­zko, the wartime head of the Nazi col­lab­o­ra­tionist gov­ern­ment in Ukraine. Stet­zko imple­ment­ed Nazi eth­nic cleans­ing in Ukraine dur­ing World War II.

Pro­gram High­lights Include:

1.–Ukraine’s sus­pen­sion of coop­er­a­tion with the Mueller probe, in order to avoid endan­ger­ing Trump’s arm­ing of Ukraine.
2.–Manafort and the Hab­s­burg Group’s net­work­ing with Andrei Arte­menko, a Pravy Sek­tor affil­i­ate whose oper­a­tions with Felix Sater and Michael Cohen were described as part of a Russ­ian con­spir­a­cy but were, in fact, part of an anti-Russ­ian con­spir­a­cy. This is dis­cussed at length in FTR #967.
3.–Review of Felix Sater’s intel­li­gence back­ground. Sater is the point man for Trump’s deal­ings with Rus­sia. ” . . . . Sater report­ed back to intel­li­gence agen­cies on the results of coali­tion bomb­ings, kills on the bat­tle­field, the finan­cial net­works behind the 9/11 bombers and oth­er al-Qae­da mem­bers world­wide, and even the iden­ti­ty of a New Mex­i­co com­pa­ny believed to be laun­der­ing ter­ror funds in the US. . . .”