Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.
The tag 'Avril Haines' is associated with 3 posts.

Update on the Patreon Site

Updat­ing the sta­tus of Mr. Emory’s Patre­on site: The tran­scrip­tion soft­ware has proved too impre­cise to per­mit easy edit­ing. Instead of the tran­scrip­tions we will be offer­ing: bi-week­ly Zoom Q & A ses­sions and access to writ­ten arti­cles that Mr. Emory will cre­ate. Record­ed seg­ments con­tin­ue to be uploaded and should be com­plete present­ly.
Ukrain­ian tele­vi­sion anchor quotes Adolf Eich­mann ver­ba­tim in this video from UKRAINE 24. WFMU-FM is pod­cast­ing For The Record–You can sub­scribe to the pod­cast HERE. Mr. Emory emphat­i­cal­ly rec­om­mends that listeners/readers get the 32GB flash dri­ve con­tain­ing all of Mr. Emory’s 43 years on the air, plus a library of old anti-fas­cist books on easy-to-down­load PDF files.

FTR#1213 The Narco-Fascism of Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang, Part 20

This pro­gram under­takes a spec­u­la­tive look at the life and fam­i­ly his­to­ry of Barack Oba­ma, ana­lyzed in the con­text of the Amer­i­can Deep State.

It was under Oba­ma that the “piv­ot to Asia” took place, with his then Vice-Pres­i­dent Joe Biden now pur­su­ing the anti-Chi­na pol­i­cy with a con­sum­ing vig­or.

(We note, also, Avril Haines, who was Oba­ma’s Deputy Direc­tor of Cen­tral Intel­li­gence, then worked as a paid con­sul­tant for Peter Thiel’s Palan­tir firm, was a key par­tic­i­pant in Event 201, served as a key mem­ber of Biden’s tran­si­tion team and, ulti­mate­ly, became Direc­tor of Nation­al Intel­li­gence, a posi­tion from which she helped ini­ti­ate the momen­tum to legit­imize the “Lab-Leak The­o­ry” of the ori­gin of Covid.)

The cen­tral ele­ment in our analy­sis is the pro­fes­sion­al and polit­i­cal cir­cum­stances sur­round­ing the Oba­ma fam­i­ly’s involve­ment in Indone­sia in the imme­di­ate after­math of the slaugh­ter.

The avail­able infor­ma­tion sug­gests that the benign inter­pre­ta­tion of the Oba­ma fam­i­ly’s cir­cum­stances is not accu­rate. 

Those cir­cum­stances are encap­su­lat­ed: Key Points of Dis­cus­sion nd Analy­sis Include: Lolo Soe­toro’s work as a civil­ian employ­ee of the Indone­sian Army at the East-West Insti­tute in Hawaii (head­ed up at the time by Howard Jones, for years U.S. Ambas­sador to Indone­sia); Soe­toro’s meet­ing of (Stan­ley) Ann Dun­ham at the East-West Insti­tute; Soe­toro’s return to Indone­sia in 1966; Soe­toro’s work for the Indone­sian army fol­low­ing the coup; Soe­toro’s work for Uno­cal and Mobil, two of the key oil com­pa­nies in Indone­sia that faced pos­si­ble nation­al­iza­tion by Sukarno; Ann Dun­ham’s work for USAID and Ford Foun­da­tion in Indone­sia (both com­mon cov­ers for CIA work abroad); Soe­toro’s account of hav­ing seen a man killed in “bloody” fash­ion; the dubi­ous nature of claims by the Oba­ma clan that Ms. Dun­ham learned of the slaugh­ter that had just tak­en place through qui­et asides and innu­en­do (numer­ous press accounts avail­able through U.S. media out­lets had report­ed the mas­sacre); Ann Dun­ham’s sub­se­quent work for the Ford Foun­da­tion in Indone­sia, under Peter Gei­th­n­er (whose son Tim­o­thy Gei­th­n­er became Oba­ma’s Sec­re­tary of the Trea­sury); Barack Oba­ma’s work for the Busi­ness Inter­na­tion­al Cor­po­ra­tion between col­lege and grad­u­ate school (the com­pa­ny has, in the past, served as a “cor­po­rate cov­er” for CIA employ­ees); Oba­ma’s bio­log­i­cal father’s meet­ing of Ann Dun­ham in a Russ­ian lan­guage class at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Hawaii in 1960, after enter­ing the U.S. under a joint CIA-State Depart­ment pro­gram ini­ti­at­ed under the aus­pices of Tom Mboya in Kenya (lat­er assas­si­nat­ed because of his perceived/alleged links to CIA).

We are of the opin­ion that Oba­ma is part of a Deep State, trans-gen­er­a­tional intel­li­gence net­work and his stew­ard­ship of the “piv­ot to Asia,” Avril Haines key posi­tion in the events sur­round­ing the full-court press against Chi­na, and “Delaware Joe” [Biden]‘s pur­suit of a vig­or­ous anti-Chi­na pol­i­cy are part of the straight rail­way line of Asian pol­i­cy described by Stan­ley Horn­beck: “.  . . . the doyen of State’s Far East­ern Divi­sion. . . . [Horn­beck] had only the most abbre­vi­at­ed and stilt­ed knowl­edge of Chi­na, and had been out of touch per­son­al­ly for many years. . . . He with­held cables from the Sec­re­tary of State that were crit­i­cal of Chi­ang, and once stat­ed that ‘the Unit­ed States Far East­ern pol­i­cy is like a train run­ning on a rail­road track.  It has been clear­ly laid out and where it is going is plain to all.’ It was in fact bound for Saigon in 1975, with whis­tle stops along the way at Peking, Que­moy, Mat­su, and the Yalu Riv­er. . . .”

The pro­gram begins with dis­cus­sion of the for­ma­tion of the World Anti-Com­mu­nist League in Tai­wan under Chi­ang Kai-shek.

Key Points of Dis­cus­sion and Analy­sis Include: Chi­ang Kai-shek’s Kuom­intang and their sup­port for the Indone­sian coup, includ­ing stag­ing attacks on the Chi­nese embassy in Jakar­ta; Tai­wan as the site for the merg­ing of the Asian Peo­ple’s Anti-Com­mu­nist League with the Anti-Bol­she­vik Bloc of Nations to form the World Anti-Com­mu­nist League; the role of Adri­an Zenz in the fab­ri­ca­tion of the Uighur geno­cide meme; Zen­z’s asso­ci­a­tion with the Vic­tims of Com­mu­nism Memo­r­i­al Foun­da­tion, a deriv­a­tive of the Cap­tive Nations Com­mit­tee, a sub­sidiary of the OUN/B and deeply involved with the Anti-Bol­she­vik Bloc of Nations; the role of ele­ments of the Azov Bat­tal­ion and Pravy Sek­tor in the “pro-democ­ra­cy” move­ment in Hong Kong; the adop­tion by the “pro-Democ­ra­cy move­ment” of a per­mu­ta­tion of the “Glo­ry to Ukraine, Glo­ry to The Heroes” salute of the OUN/B; review of the net­work­ing between Ruzy Nazar and the Pan-Turk­ist and Nazi deep polit­i­cal forces at work in Xin­jiang province; review of Nazar’s rep­re­sen­ta­tion of the ABN at WACL’s con­fer­ence in Dal­las, Texas.

Fol­low­ing dis­cus­sion of the for­ma­tion of WACL, the pro­gram high­lights the impor­tance of the Indone­sian oil com­pa­nies to the U.S. and their Indone­sian satraps. 

FTR#1189 The Oswald Institute of Virology, Part 8: Covid-19 and The American Deep State, Part 2 (The Cover-Up Obviates the Conspiracy)

This pro­gram con­tin­ues our series ana­lyz­ing the Wuhan Insti­tute of Virol­o­gy as hav­ing been set up to take the fall for the Covid-19 pan­dem­ic, which–in our con­sid­ered opinion–is a covert oper­a­tion by the U.S. as part of the full-court press against Chi­na.

Under­scor­ing a point of analy­sis from pre­vi­ous broad­casts, we note that, of para­mount impor­tance in this con­text, is the fact that ANY virus can be made in a lab­o­ra­to­ry, from scratch as is being done for the SARS-CoV­‑2 (Covid-19) virus.

Ralph Baric–who did the gain-of-func­tion mod­i­fi­ca­tion on the Horse­shoe Bat coro­n­avirus, has been select­ed to engi­neer the Covid-19.

Note what might be termed a “viro­log­ic Juras­sic Park” man­i­fes­ta­tion: ” . . . . The tech­nol­o­gy imme­di­ate­ly cre­at­ed bio-weapon wor­ries. . . . Researchers at the US Cen­ters for Dis­ease Con­trol and Pre­ven­tion (CDC) drove that point home in 2005 when they res­ur­rect­ed the influen­za virus that killed tens of mil­lions in 1918–1919. . . .”

Cen­tral to the inquiry about a lab­o­ra­to­ry gen­e­sis for the virus is Ralph Bar­ic. We note that:

1.–Baric’s mod­i­fi­ca­tion of a horse­shoe bat virus to make it more infec­tious (in col­lab­o­ra­tion with Shi Zhengli and in an Eco­Health Alliance affil­i­at­ed project) took place in North Car­oli­na, not Wuhan. “. . . . Crit­ics have jumped on this paper as evi­dence that Shi was con­duct­ing “gain of func­tion” exper­i­ments that could have cre­at­ed a super­bug, but Shi denies it. The research cit­ed in the paper was con­duct­ed in North Car­oli­na.
2.–Baric has been using relat­ed tech­niques to text remde­sivir (in 2017) and the Mod­er­na vac­cine. This places him in a milieu inex­tri­ca­bly linked to the mil­i­tary and pre-dat­ing the pan­dem­ic. ” . . . . Using a sim­i­lar tech­nique, in 2017, Baric’s lab showed that remde­sivir — cur­rent­ly the only licensed drug for treat­ing covid — could be use­ful in fight­ing coro­n­avirus infec­tions. Bar­ic also helped test the Mod­er­na covid vac­cine and a lead­ing new drug can­di­date against covid. . . .”

Next, we present analy­sis of a very impor­tant, albeit slant­ed Van­i­ty Fair arti­cle:

1.–Pompeo State Depart­ment offi­cials pur­su­ing the lab-leak hypoth­e­sis were told to cov­er it up lest it shed light on U.S. gov­ern­ment fund­ing of research at the “Oswald Insti­tute of Virol­o­gy!”: ” . . . . In one State Depart­ment meet­ing, offi­cials seek­ing to demand trans­paren­cy from the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment say they were explic­it­ly told by col­leagues not to explore the Wuhan Insti­tute of Virology’s gain-of-func­tion research, because it would bring unwel­come atten­tion to U.S. gov­ern­ment fund­ing of it. . . . . In an inter­nal memo obtained by Van­i­ty Fair, Thomas DiNan­no, for­mer act­ing assis­tant sec­re­tary of the State Department’s Bureau of Arms Con­trol, Ver­i­fi­ca­tion, and Com­pli­ance, wrote that. . .  staff from two bureaus . . . “warned” lead­ers with­in his bureau ‘not to pur­sue an inves­ti­ga­tion into the ori­gin of COVID-19’ because it would ‘open a can of worms’ if it con­tin­ued.’ . . . . As the group probed the lab-leak sce­nario, among oth­er pos­si­bil­i­ties, its mem­bers were repeat­ed­ly advised not to open a ‘Pandora’s box,’ said four for­mer State Depart­ment offi­cials inter­viewed by Van­i­ty Fair. . . .”
2.–Setting the ortho­doxy in ear­ly 2020 with a Lancet arti­cle rul­ing out a lab­o­ra­to­ry ori­gin for the virus was Peter Daszak, with approval from Ralph Bar­ic: ” . . . . It soon emerged, based on emails obtained by a Free­dom of Infor­ma­tion group called U.S. Right to Know, that Daszak had not only signed but orga­nized the influ­en­tial Lancet state­ment, with the inten­tion of con­ceal­ing his role and cre­at­ing the impres­sion of sci­en­tif­ic una­nim­i­ty. . . .”
3.–” . . . . In late March, for­mer Cen­ters for Dis­ease Con­trol direc­tor Robert Red­field received death threats from fel­low sci­en­tists after telling CNN that he believed COVID-19 had orig­i­nat­ed in a lab. . . . ”
4.–Matthew Pot­tinger, a Chi­na hawk in the Trump admin­is­tra­tion, head­ed up a team to inves­ti­gate the Wuhan lab leak hypoth­e­sis. Note that the gain-of-func­tion milieu in the U.S. nation­al secu­ri­ty estab­lish­ment was a retard­ing fac­tor in the inquiry: ” . . . . By then, Matthew Pot­tinger had approved a COVID-19 ori­gins team, run by the NSC direc­torate that over­saw issues relat­ed to weapons of mass destruc­tion. A long­time Asia expert and for­mer jour­nal­ist, Pot­tinger pur­pose­ful­ly kept the team small . . . . In addi­tion, many lead­ing experts had either received or approved fund­ing for gain-of-func­tion research. Their ‘con­flict­ed’ sta­tus, said Pot­tinger, ‘played a pro­found role in mud­dy­ing the waters and con­t­a­m­i­nat­ing the shot at hav­ing an impar­tial inquiry.’  . . . .” 
5.–Note that Lawrence Liv­er­more sci­en­tists were involved with the gen­e­sis of the “Chi­na did it” hypoth­e­sis, after alleged­ly being alert­ed by a for­eign source to look into their own files. ” . . . . An intel­li­gence ana­lyst work­ing with David Ash­er sift­ed through clas­si­fied chan­nels and turned up a report that out­lined why the lab-leak hypoth­e­sis was plau­si­ble. It had been writ­ten in May by researchers at the Lawrence Liv­er­more Nation­al Lab­o­ra­to­ry, which per­forms nation­al secu­ri­ty research for the Depart­ment of Ener­gy. But it appeared to have been buried with­in the clas­si­fied col­lec­tions sys­tem. . . .”
6.–Note, also, that Chris Ford, a Chi­na hawk, was work­ing to sup­press the Wuhan lab leak hypoth­e­sis: ” . . . . Their frus­tra­tion crest­ed in Decem­ber, when they final­ly briefed Chris Ford, act­ing under­sec­re­tary for Arms Con­trol and Inter­na­tion­al Secu­ri­ty. He seemed so hos­tile to their probe that they viewed him as a blink­ered func­tionary bent on white­wash­ing China’s malfea­sance. But Ford, who had years of expe­ri­ence in nuclear non­pro­lif­er­a­tion, had long been a Chi­na hawk. . . .”
7.–The “Chi­na did it/Wuhan lab leak” hypoth­e­sis sur­vived from the Trump admin­is­tra­tion and Mike Pom­peo’s State Depart­ment to the Biden admin­is­tra­tion: ” . . . .. . . . The state­ment with­stood ‘aggres­sive sus­pi­cion,’ as one for­mer State Depart­ment offi­cial said, and the Biden admin­is­tra­tion has not walked it back. ‘I was very pleased to see Pompeo’s state­ment come through,’ said Chris Ford, who per­son­al­ly signed off on a draft of the fact sheet before leav­ing the State Depart­ment. ‘I was so relieved that they were using real report­ing that had been vet­ted and cleared.’ . . . .”
8.–Avril Haines, whom we have cit­ed in this series as a key par­tic­i­pant in the Deep State shep­herd­ing of the “Lab-Leak Hypoth­e­sis,” looms large in the inquiry into the per­pet­u­a­tion of this pro­pa­gan­da meme: ” . . . . Inside the U.S. gov­ern­ment, mean­while, the lab-leak hypoth­e­sis had sur­vived the tran­si­tion from Trump to Biden. On April 15, Direc­tor of Nation­al Intel­li­gence Avril Haines told the House Intel­li­gence Com­mit­tee that two ‘plau­si­ble the­o­ries’ were being weighed: a lab acci­dent or nat­ur­al emer­gence. . . .”
9.–The arti­cle con­cludes with the inter­est­ing use of the term “cut-out” to describe the Eco­Health Alliance. The term gen­er­al­ly refers to an intel­li­gence-com­mu­ni­ty front orga­ni­za­tion. Is the author hint­ing at more? Did her edi­tor take infor­ma­tion out? ” . . . . The Unit­ed States deserves a healthy share of blame as well. Thanks to their unprece­dent­ed track record of men­dac­i­ty and race-bait­ing, Trump and his allies had less than zero cred­i­bil­i­ty. And the prac­tice of fund­ing risky research via cutouts like Eco­Health Alliance enmeshed lead­ing virol­o­gists in con­flicts of inter­est at the exact moment their exper­tise was most des­per­ate­ly need­ed. . . .”

We con­clude with two impor­tant points from an arti­cle used ear­li­er in the pro­gram.

1.–Shi Zhengli has not­ed that open­ing up the WIV’s records is unac­cept­able: ” . . . . That demand is ‘def­i­nite­ly not accept­able,’ respond­ed Shi Zhengli, who directs the Cen­ter for Emerg­ing Infec­tious Dis­eases at the Wuhan Insti­tute. ‘Who can pro­vide evi­dence that does not exist?’ she told MIT Tech­nol­o­gy Review. Shi has said that thou­sands of attempts to hack its com­put­er sys­tems forced the insti­tute to close its data­base. . . .”
2.–The U.S. would not be accept­able to such a propo­si­tion, if the Chi­nese demand­ed access to Ft. Det­rick (part of which was shut down by the CDC in ear­ly August of 2019 on the eve of the pan­dem­ic). A com­menter also not­ed the Rocky Moun­tain lab in his analy­sis, which we not­ed was one of the areas where Willy Burgdor­fer appears to have worked on the devel­op­ment of Lyme Dis­ease.) ” . . . . If a dis­ease had emerged from the U.S. and the Chi­nese blamed the Pen­ta­gon and demand­ed access to the data, ‘what would we say?’ [Dr. Getrald] Keusch asked. ‘Would we throw out the red car­pet, ‘Come on over to Fort Det­rick and the Rocky Moun­tain Lab?’ We’d have done exact­ly what the Chi­nese did, which is say, ‘Screw you!’’ . . . .”