FTR#1268 Interview #7 with Jim DiEugenio about “JFK Revisited”

In this broad­cast, we con­tin­ue our dis­cus­sion with the hero­ic Jim DiEu­ge­nio, select­ed by Oliv­er Stone to write the screen­play for his doc­u­men­tary JFK Revis­it­ed. Jim also wrote the book con­tain­ing tran­scripts of both the two-hour and four-hour ver­sions of the doc­u­men­tary and sup­ple­men­tal inter­views.

The pro­gram begins with review of the man­ner in which our soci­ety is dri­ven by visu­al events: the “crawl” at the end of the movie “JFK” led to the for­ma­tion of the ARRB, in a man­ner anal­o­gous to how the air­ing of the Zaprud­er film on Ger­al­do River­a’s Good Night Amer­i­ca led to the for­ma­tion of the House Select Com­mit­tee on Assas­si­na­tions.

Next, we note that the ARRB staffers were peo­ple who did not believe that JFK’s assas­si­na­tion was a con­spir­a­cy, nor did they think that there was a cov­er-up.

Notable in the ARRB’s pro­ceed­ings is the fact that nei­ther CIA oper­a­tions records nor Con­gres­sion­al records are acces­si­ble via FOIA requests.

Notable in the ARRB’s pro­ceed­ings is the fact that nei­ther CIA oper­a­tions records nor Con­gres­sion­al records are acces­si­ble via FOIA requests.

In this regard, the ARRB was empow­ered in an impor­tant and unprece­dent­ed way.

Meet­ing resis­tance from then President–and for­mer CIA chief–George H.W. Bush, the ARRB was not staffed until Clin­ton became Pres­i­dent.

Judge Tun­heim (of the ARRB) not­ed that var­i­ous Fed­er­al Agen­cies felt that they could just wait out the ARRB until its man­dat­ed time had expired.

The board received exten­sions of its man­dat­ed time, although it still was not able to get all the doc­u­ments released.

The exten­sions stretched out ARRB’s tenure to four years.

A telling inci­dent occurred when Judge Tun­heim and the ARRB was pars­ing a CIA doc­u­ment they want­ed released. The Agency offi­cer present stat­ed that there was a rea­son that the doc­u­ment could not be released, but he just “could­n’t think of it.”

The CIA’s coun­sel, who was present, indi­cat­ed that the ARRB could pro­ceed as planned.

Of note is the fact that Judge Tun­heim dis­closed that George Joan­nides, who over saw Car­los Bringuier’s DRE for the CIA, had served as the Agen­cy’s liai­son to the House Select Com­mit­tee on Assas­si­na­tions and that the ARRB, as well as the HSCA, was mis­led in this regard.

As not­ed pre­vi­ous­ly, researcher Jef­fer­son Mor­ley’s Free­dom of Infor­ma­tion Act law­suit direct­ed at oblig­ing CIA to dis­close more infor­ma­tion about Joan­nides was turned down by an appeals court, with Brett Kavanaugh cast­ing a deci­sive vote, just before his nom­i­na­tion to the Supreme Court.

The CIA did release records about Lee Har­vey Oswald, which had been in the province of the late James Jesus Angle­ton.

In our long series of inter­views with Mr. DiEu­ge­nio about Des­tiny Betrayed, we not­ed that Har­ry Con­nick, who suc­ceed­ed Jim Gar­ri­son as New Orleans DA, had ordered some of Gar­rison’s files to be burned.

Many were, how­ev­er one of Con­nick­’s assis­tants did not burn those records and kept the doc­u­ments. Even­tu­al­ly, the ARRB got those doc­u­ments.

Con­nick was not pleased.

Review­ing some of our syn­op­tic dis­cus­sion about Con­nick, from the writ­ten descrip­tion for FTR#1050:

Key points of dis­cus­sion and analy­sis about Con­nick:

1.–He was seem­ing­ly omnipresent in Clay Shaw’s crim­i­nal tri­al, oper­at­ing to obstruct Gar­ri­son and aid Clay Shaw and the Fed­er­al Gov­ern­ment, for which he  worked.
2.–Station WDSU–very close to Clay Shaw and the vehi­cle for both the Wal­ter Sheri­dan dis­in­for­ma­tion hit piece on Jim Gar­ri­son and the Ed Butler/Carlos Bringuier inter­view of the “Com­mu­nist” Oswald–was active on behalf of Con­nick.
3.–The Gur­vich broth­ers, who infil­trat­ed Gar­rison’s inves­ti­ga­tion and net­worked with Clay Shaw’s defense team (with William appear­ing as a wit­ness in the hear­ing on Shaw’s per­jury tri­al), were active on behalf of Har­ry Con­nick.
4.–Clay Shaw him­self, as well as DRE oper­a­tive Car­los Bringuier con­tributed to Con­nick­’s elec­tion cam­paign.
5.–In his sec­ond cam­paign to replace Gar­ri­son, Con­nick was suc­cess­ful.
6.–After becom­ing New Orleans DA, he burned many of Gar­rison’s files.

FTR#s 1264 & 1265 Interviews #3 and #4 with Jim Di Eugenio about “JFK Revisited”

Con­tin­u­ing our dis­cus­sion with Jim DiEu­ge­nio about JFK Revis­it­ed, we begin with analy­sis of com­par­i­son between the “stab in the back” hypoth­e­sis float­ed by reac­tionar­ies in Weimar Ger­many, deny­ing that they lost World War I, with sim­i­lar revi­sion­ism float­ed by the right wing con­cern­ing Amer­i­ca’s defeat in Viet­nam.

Bridg­ing dis­cus­sion that will be con­tin­ued in our pre­vi­ous pro­gram, we note a key quote from the book and doc­u­men­tary by Lisa Pease, not­ing that JFK stood apart from the Eisenhower/Dulles view that non-align­ment among the for­mer colo­nial ter­ri­to­ries that achieved inde­pen­dence was the equiv­a­lent of pro-Com­mu­nist ori­en­ta­tion.

JFK Revis­it­ed: Through the Look­ing Glass by Jim DiEu­ge­nio; Sky­horse Pub­lish­ing [HC]; Copy­right 2022 by Jim DiEu­ge­nio; ISBN 978–1‑5107–7287‑8; p. 352.

. . . . Lisa Pease: His [JFK’s] approach was a rad­i­cal break from his pre­de­ces­sor. In an oral his­to­ry inter­view that Sukarno gave after John Kennedy’s death, he said words to the effect that what made Kennedy spe­cial is that he believed non-align­ment was not amoral as it had been under John Fos­ter Dulles. I thought that was an inter­est­ing way of putting it. . . .

Exem­pli­fy­ing Kennedy’s under­stand­ing of how nation­al­ist aspi­ra­tions were at the fore­front of strug­gles for nation­al inde­pen­dence that were cast into the anni­hi­lat­ing Cold War meat­grinder, we detail his trip to Indochi­na, where he net­worked with French gen­er­als, who told him that France was win­ning its strug­gle against the Viet Minh, and then with State Depart­ment pro­fes­sion­al Edmund Gul­lion, who opined that France was los­ing the war and would, in the end, lose.

Gul­lion also told Kennedy that, if the U.S. got involved, it would lose as well. It was Gullion’s con­vic­tion that the Viet­namese peo­ples’ desire for inde­pen­dence trumped any­thing the West could do.

We note that rough­ly 80% of the bud­get of the French war effort was bankrolled by the U.S. We also note that there was a con­tin­gency plan devel­oped for a mas­sive U.S. air sup­port oper­a­tion on behalf of the French called “Oper­a­tion Vul­ture.” Part of that plan was the deploy­ment of three atom­ic bombs for use against the Viet­namese.

For more about Kennedy’s ear­ly edu­ca­tion about the real­i­ties of war in South­east Asia, see—among oth­er pro­grams, FTR#1031.

This aware­ness guid­ed JFK’s Viet­nam pol­i­cy, in which he not only resist­ed tremen­dous pres­sure to com­mit U.S. com­bat troops to Viet­nam, but planned a with­draw­al of U.S. forces from Viet­nam.

Per­haps the most impor­tant change made after JFK’s assas­si­na­tion was John­son’s nega­tion of Kennedy’s plans to with­draw from Viet­nam.

LBJ can­celled Kennedy’s sched­uled troop with­draw­al, sched­uled per­son­nel increas­es and imple­ment­ed the 34A pro­gram of covert oper­a­tions against North Viet­nam. Exe­cut­ed by South Viet­namese naval com­man­dos using small, Amer­i­can-made patrol boats, these raids were sup­port­ed by U.S. destroy­ers in the Gulf of Tonkin, which were elec­tron­i­cal­ly “fin­ger­print­ing” North Viet­namese radar instal­la­tions.

The elec­tron­ic fin­ger­print­ing of North Viet­namese radar was in antic­i­pa­tion of a pre-planned air war, a fun­da­men­tal part of a plan by LBJ to involve the Unit­ed States in a full-scale war in South­east Asia.

Despite hav­ing promised dur­ing the 1964 cam­paign that no Amer­i­can com­bat units would be com­mit­ted to Viet­nam, with­in three months of the elec­tion, the first com­bat units were dis­patched to that unfor­tu­nate nation.

In addi­tion to not­ing that Hubert Humphrey, con­trary to pop­u­lar mis­con­cep­tion, was an oppo­nent of John­son’s war strat­e­gy, we note that Robert McNa­ma­ra was also opposed to it, although he went along with the Com­man­der in Chief’s poli­cies.

McNa­ma­ra did com­mis­sion the Pen­ta­gon study of Viet­nam pol­i­cy that became the Pen­ta­gon Papers. 

Jim notes that Noam Chom­sky and Pro­fes­sor Howard Zinn ini­tial­ly opposed dis­cus­sion of how JFK’s assas­si­na­tion changed U.S. Viet­nam pol­i­cy.

There is a clip in the film of a con­ver­sa­tion between LBJ and McNa­ma­ra where LBJ cod­i­fies his oppo­si­tion to the JFK/McNamara poli­cies in Viet­nam.

The fledg­ling nation of Laos was also part of French Indochi­na, and Jim notes how out­go­ing Pres­i­dent Eisen­how­er coached Pres­i­dent-Elect Kennedy on the neces­si­ty of com­mit­ting  U.S. com­bat forces to Laos.

Again, Kennedy refused to com­mit U.S. ground forces and engi­neered a pol­i­cy of neu­tral­i­ty for Laos.

Where­as JFK had imple­ment­ed a pol­i­cy afford­ing neu­tral­i­ty to Laos–against the wish­es of the Joint Chiefs, CIA and many of his own cab­i­net, LBJ scrapped the neu­tral­ist pol­i­cy in favor of a CIA-imple­ment­ed strat­e­gy of employ­ing “nar­co-mili­tias” such as the Hmong tribes­men as com­bat­ants against the Pathet Lao. This counter-insur­gency war­fare was com­ple­ment­ed by a mas­sive aer­i­al bomb­ing cam­paign.

JFK’s pol­i­cy vis a vis the war of inde­pen­dence being waged by the French in Alge­ria is of par­tic­u­lar impor­tance.

The pro­gram  reviews Kennedy’s stance on Alge­ria. A French colony in North Africa, Alger­ian inde­pen­dence forces waged a fierce guer­ril­la war in an attempt at becom­ing free from France. Once again, Kennedy opposed the West­ern con­sen­sus on Alge­ria, which sought to retain that prop­er­ty as a French pos­ses­sion.

The French peo­ple were divid­ed over the Alger­ian strug­gle, and those divi­sions led to the fall of the Fourth Repub­lic and the rise of Charles De Gaulle. De Gaulle grant­ed Alge­ria its inde­pen­dence and then faced down the lethal oppo­si­tion of the OAS, a group of mil­i­tary offi­cers ground­ed in the fas­cist col­lab­o­ra­tionist pol­i­tics of Vichy France. De Gaulle sur­vived sev­er­al assas­si­na­tion attempts against him and there are a num­ber of evi­den­tiary trib­u­taries lead­ing between those attempts and the forces that killed Kennedy.

Mau­rice Brooks Gatlin–one of Guy Ban­is­ter’s investigators–boasted of hav­ing trans­ferred a large sum of mon­ey from the CIA to the OAS offi­cers plot­ting against De Gaulle. In addi­tion, Jean Souetre–a French OAS-linked assas­sin was in the Dal­las Fort Worth area on 11/22/1963.

JFK, Alge­ria and oper­a­tional links between JFK’s assas­si­na­tion and OAS attempts on De Gaulle’s life are dis­cussed in FTR#1162.

Note that JFK told the French that he could not con­trol his own intel­li­gence ser­vices.

The pro­gram con­cludes with dis­cus­sion of JFK’s poli­cies with regard to Africa, the Con­go in par­tic­u­lar. This top­ic is pre­sent­ed at greater length in our next inter­view with Jim.

Memorial Day Weekend Special on KFJC-FM

On Sun­day, 5/29, from 7 until 10pm and Mon­day, 5/30, from 6 until 7pm, KFJC-FM observes Memo­r­i­al Day Week­end by fea­tur­ing Dave Emory’s research on the fun­da­men­tal inter­re­la­tion­ship of fas­cism, mon­ey, war and mur­der. 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#1224 Update on Nazi Connections to the JFK Assassination

In our pre­vi­ous pro­grams, we set forth the deep polit­i­cal milieu span­ning the land­scape of the JFK assas­si­na­tion, as embod­ied by a French fas­cist net­work stretch­ing from the 1930’s up until the ear­ly 1990’s. Over­lap­ping dom­i­nant French and transna­tion­al fas­cist com­po­nents of mul­ti­ple intel­li­gence agen­cies and transna­tion­al cor­po­ra­tions, these net­works exem­pli­fy the pow­er­ful forces that killed Pres­i­dent Kennedy and sit astride the con­tem­po­rary polit­i­cal land­scape.

In this pro­gram, we fur­ther devel­op some of the Nazi net­works involved with the JFK assas­si­na­tion, in order to flesh out under­stand­ing of the struc­tur­al and oper­a­tional nature of the dom­i­nant ele­ments in our polit­i­cal cul­ture.

Rep­re­sen­ta­tive of the fas­cist con­nec­tions in the JFK assas­si­na­tion high­light­ed in Coup in Dal­las is the fact that Robert Schacht–a blood rel­a­tive of Hjal­mar  Horace Gree­ley Schacht, Hitler’s finance min­is­ter who was deeply involved with Clay Shaw and Permindex–was the admis­sions direc­tor for Albert Schweitzer Col­lege, the first des­ti­na­tion of Lee Har­vey Oswald when he “defect­ed” to the Sovi­et Union.

We also include a pas­sage from Jim DiEu­ge­nio’s clas­sic work on the Gar­ri­son investigation–Destiny Betrayed.

This pas­sage places the Schacht fam­i­ly con­nec­tion in greater depth.

We also include a pas­sage from Jim DiEu­ge­nio’s clas­sic work on the Gar­ri­son investigation–Destiny Betrayed.

This pas­sage places the Schacht fam­i­ly con­nec­tion in greater depth.

Per­min­dex was involved with, among oth­er things, attempts on the life of French pres­i­dent Charles De Gaulle in con­junc­tion with ele­ments of CIA and the OAS. 

he posi­tion of Hjal­mar Schacht’s rel­a­tive Robert as the New York admis­sions offi­cer of Albert Schweitzer Col­lege is the fact that Albert Schweitzer him­self was the hon­orary chair­man of Stille Hilfe—“Silent Help”—one of the post­war SS assis­tance orga­ni­za­tions, head­ed by Gudrun Bur­witz, Hein­rich Himmler’s daugh­ter. We have cov­ered Stille Hil­fe in pre­vi­ous pro­grams and posts.

When rail­road exec­u­tive Bill Thomp­son inquired of LBJ assis­tant Bob­by Bak­er about the pos­si­bil­i­ty of intro­duc­ing Pres­i­dent Kennedy to alleged East German/Soviet spy Ellen Rometsch, Bak­er offered a very inter­est­ing reply, indi­cat­ing that Rometsch was a Nazi.

Impor­tant polit­i­cal con­text to the alleged “Com­mu­nist Spy” cov­er sto­ry of Ellen Rometsch con­cerns the polit­i­cal affil­i­a­tions of the jour­nal­ist who was the pri­ma­ry shep­herd for the sto­ry. Clark Mol­len­hoff was an inti­mate of the ABN, OUN/B ele­ments who ascend­ed to a dom­i­nant role in the nation­al secu­ri­ty estab­lish­ment of the cur­rent Ukraine gov­ern­ment.

In AFA#15, as well as FTR#’s  777,  778 and 876, we set forth the role of OUN/B ele­ments in the assas­si­na­tion of Pres­i­dent Kennedy, chiefly in gen­er­at­ing what Pro­fes­sor Peter Dale Scott termed the “Lev­el One Cover-up.”—putting the blame on “the Com­mu­nists” in order to deflect atten­tion from the actu­al per­pe­tra­tors.

In the above-cit­ed pro­grams, we not­ed how the assas­si­na­tion of Stepan Bandera—represented as part of a Sovi­et assas­si­na­tion pro­gram with which Lee Har­vey Oswald was alleged­ly affil­i­at­ed, we not­ed that the behav­ior of assas­sin Bog­dan [or “Bohdan”] Stashyn­sky sug­gest­ed that he was a dou­ble agent and that the Ban­dera assas­si­na­tion was—in effect—a provoca­tive gam­bit lend­ing grav­i­tas to the “Lev­el-One Cov­er-up” posit­ed by Pro­fes­sor Scott.

Research uncov­ered by author Albarel­li strong­ly rein­forces the prob­a­bil­i­ty that Stashynsky’s work for the Sovi­ets was a dou­ble agent, with his remark­able behav­ior ele­vat­ing the Ban­dera hit to the lev­el of Gehlen/Western pro­pa­gan­da.

(Stashyn­sky still had the shaft of the bro­ken key to Bandera’s apart­ment at the time of his arrest and the head of the key was still in the lock of Bandera’s apart­ment when dis­cov­ered by the Ger­man police, as was revealed at Bandera’s tri­al two years lat­er.)

We con­clude with dis­cus­sion of Thomas Eli Davis.

Gun­run­ner Thomas Eli Davis appears to have been sub­ject­ed to a degree of mind con­trol at the Lafayette Clin­ic in Detroit. Ernst Rodin—his “therapist”—was an Aus­tri­an émi­gré with a Third Reich pedi­gree.

Of par­tic­u­lar note is the fact that MK/ULTRA oper­a­tive extra­or­di­naire Louis Joly­on West was a pro­tégé of Rodin.

Davis was a gun­run­ning asso­ciate of Jack Ruby and was, appar­ent­ly, involved with Lee Har­vey Oswald’s sojourn in Mex­i­co.

In our next pro­gram, we will set forth Davis’s con­nec­tions to Vik­tor Oswald, an “Under­ground Reich” asso­ciate who net­worked exten­sive­ly with the milieu of Otto Sko­rzeny in Spain.

Golden Lily Veterans Involved with 1965 Indonesian Coup

The “Deep Pol­i­tics” detailed by the bril­liant Berke­ley pro­fes­sor Peter Dale Scott in his opus “Amer­i­can War Machine” set forth the involve­ment Japan­ese war crim­i­nals Sasakawa Ryoichi and Kodama Yoshio in the Indone­sian coup of 1965. That epic blood­let­ting saw the engi­neers of the event kill a mil­lion peo­ple (some put the toll as high as three mil­lion.) In addi­tion to being prime movers behind the Uni­fi­ca­tion Church, Sasakawa Ryoichi and Kodama Yoshio were lynch­pins of the per­pet­u­a­tion of the oper­a­tional foun­da­tion of Japan­ese fas­cism under the aus­pices of the LDP in the post­war peri­od. WFMU-FM is pod­cast­ing For The Record–You can sub­scribe to the pod­cast HERE.

Please Get the Latest Edition of the 32GB Flash Drive, Containing All of Dave’s Work Through FTR#1215

“A nation of sheep will beget a gov­ern­ment of wolves.”–Edward R. Mur­row. As indi­cat­ed in the broad­casts for quite some time, Mr. Emory is pro­found­ly pes­simistic about the near-term and long-run future. Believ­ing that the cre­ation and dis­sem­i­na­tion of The Virus sig­nals the begin­ning of a pro­ces­sion of events like­ly to cul­mi­nate in World War III, he has worked might­i­ly to bring the For The Record archive up to date. The current–and latest–edition of the 32GB flash dri­ve con­tains all of Mr. Emory’s work through FTR#1215, and includes the library of old anti-fas­cist books on easy-to-down­load PDF files. Mr. Emory has offered his life’s work–42+ years and counting–free of charge, and can tes­ti­fy to the old adage that “No Good Deed Goes Unpun­ished.” Lis­ten­ers are emphat­i­cal­ly encour­aged to obtain that flash dri­ve and, in so doing, make them­selves repos­i­to­ries of infor­ma­tion chron­i­cling what may well be the end of our civ­i­liza­tion.

FTR#1187 The Oswald Institute of Virology, Part 6: Context, Part 2

In this pro­gram, we present more dis­cus­sion of the back­ground and con­text to Pen­ta­gon and USAID fund­ing for research into bat-borne coro­n­avirus­es through Eco­Health Alliance, in and around Chi­na.

Exem­pli­fy­ing the offen­sive mil­i­tary pos­ture in which the fund­ing of coro­n­avirus research has occurred is a quote from an oth­er­wise bel­li­cose Reuters sto­ry about U.S. with­draw­al from the inter­me­di­ate-range mis­sile treaty so that Amer­i­ca can build up forces to counter Chi­na. ” . . . . In a series last year, Reuters report­ed that while the U.S. was dis­tract­ed by almost two decades of war in the Mid­dle East and Afghanistan, the PLA had built a mis­sile force designed to attack the air­craft car­ri­ers, oth­er sur­face war­ships and net­work of bases that form the back­bone of Amer­i­can pow­er in Asia. Over that peri­od, Chi­nese ship­yards built the world’s biggest navy, which is now capa­ble of dom­i­nat­ing the country’s coastal waters and keep­ing U.S. forces at bay. . . .”

Imag­ine, for a moment Chi­na build­ing up its long-range mis­sile forces in the West­ern Pacif­ic to neu­tral­ize the U.S. Navy’s abil­i­ty to dom­i­nate Amer­i­ca’s coastal waters and keep an ene­my at bay.

This is a defen­sive gam­bit by China–America would respond with jus­ti­fi­able out­rage if Chi­na (or any oth­er nation) would chal­lenge Amer­i­ca’s abil­i­ty to dom­i­nate its coastal waters and keep an ene­my at bay.

The Pen­ta­gon fund­ing for these projects must be seen against the back­ground of three over­lap­ping areas of con­sid­er­a­tion:

1.–The fact that any virus can be syn­the­sized or mod­i­fied from scratch. As detailed in a very impor­tant arti­cle from The Guardian: “ . . . Advances in the area mean that sci­en­tists now have the capa­bil­i­ty to recre­ate dan­ger­ous virus­es from scratch; make harm­ful bac­te­ria more dead­ly; and mod­i­fy com­mon microbes so that they churn out lethal tox­ins once they enter the body. . . In the report, the sci­en­tists describe how syn­thet­ic biol­o­gy, which gives researchers pre­ci­sion tools to manip­u­late liv­ing organ­isms, ‘enhances and expands’ oppor­tu­ni­ties to cre­ate bioweapons. . . . Today, the genet­ic code of almost any mam­malian virus can be found online and syn­the­sised. ‘The tech­nol­o­gy to do this is avail­able now,’ said [Michael] “It requires some exper­tise, but it’s some­thing that’s rel­a­tive­ly easy to do, and that is why it tops the list. . . .”
2.–Also fun­da­men­tal to an under­stand­ing of the Covid “op” is the dev­as­tat­ing nature of bat-borne virus­es when intro­duced into the human body. “ . . . . As Boston Uni­ver­si­ty micro­bi­ol­o­gist Thomas Kepler explained to the Wash­ing­ton Post in 2018, the bat’s unique approach to viral infec­tion explains why virus­es that trans­fer from bats to humans are so severe. . . . ‘A virus that has co-evolved with the bat’s antivi­ral sys­tem is com­plete­ly out of its ele­ment in the human,’ Kepler said. ‘That’s why it is so dead­ly — the human immune sys­tem is over­whelmed by the inflam­ma­to­ry response.’ The bat immune sys­tem responds very dif­fer­ent­ly from ours to viral infec­tion. Instead of attack­ing and killing an infect­ed cell, which leads to a cas­cade of inflam­ma­to­ry respons­es, the bat immune sys­tem can starve the virus by turn­ing down cel­lu­lar metab­o­lism. The bat ori­gin of SARS-CoV­‑2 may explain the cytokine storms that are has­ten­ing some COVID-19 deaths. . . .”
3.–Analysis pre­sent­ed in the lib­er­al New York Mag­a­zine by Nichol­son Bak­er takes stock of the impli­ca­tions of con­tem­po­rary biotech­nol­o­gy and what we have termed (in past broad­casts) “The Mag­ic Virus The­o­ry.” “. . . . SARS‑2 seems almost per­fect­ly cal­i­brat­ed to grab and ran­sack our breath­ing cells and choke the life out of them. . . . Per­haps viral nature hit a bull’s‑eye of air­borne infec­tiv­i­ty, with almost no muta­tion­al drift, no peri­od of accom­mo­da­tion and adjust­ment, or per­haps some lab work­er some­where, inspired by Baric’s work with human air­way tis­sue, took a spike pro­tein that was spe­cial­ly groomed to col­o­nize and thrive deep in the cil­i­at­ed, mucos­al tun­nels of our inner core and cloned it onto some exist­ing viral bat back­bone. It could have hap­pened in Wuhan, but — because any­one can now ‘print out’ a ful­ly infec­tious clone of any sequenced dis­ease — it could also have hap­pened at Fort Det­rick, or in Texas, or in Italy, or in Rot­ter­dam, or in Wis­con­sin, or in some oth­er citadel of coro­n­avi­ral inquiry.. . .”

The ven­er­a­ble, bril­liant polit­i­cal researcher Peter Dale Scott has not­ed that “The cov­er-up obvi­ates the con­spir­a­cy.” Of great sig­nif­i­cance in this con­text is the appar­ent “scrub­bing” of infor­ma­tion on USAID’s fund­ing of key research in the Wuhan Insti­tute of Virol­o­gy: “ . . . . Shi’s most infa­mous Eco­Health Alliance-fund­ed paper is, ‘A SARS-Like Clus­ter of Cir­cu­lat­ing Bat Coro­n­avirus­es Shows Poten­tial for Human Emer­gence.’ In this con­tro­ver­sial gain-of-func­tion research col­lab­o­ra­tion with U.S. sci­en­tist Ralph Bar­ic of the Uni­ver­si­ty of North Car­oli­na at Chapel Hill, Shi and Bar­ic used genet­ic engi­neer­ing and syn­thet­ic biol­o­gy to weaponize a bat coro­n­avirus, max­i­miz­ing its poten­tial human infec­tiv­i­ty.

Shi’s fund­ing for this study came through a USAID Emerg­ing Pan­dem­ic Threats-PRE­DICT grant to Eco­Health Alliance—but the record for this grant appears to have been scrubbed from the U.S. government’s data­base.

Eco­Health Alliance was a PREDICT part­ner dur­ing the 2009–2014 fund­ing cycle, but there is no record of a USAID grant to Eco­Health Alliance for this time peri­od among the $100.9 mil­lion in grants it has received from the U.S. gov­ern­ment since 2003.

Shi’s con­tri­bu­tion to the work she did with Bar­ic was the ‘RsSHC014-CoV Sequence That Was Iso­lat­ed from Chi­nese Horse­shoe Bats.’ . . . .”

Of par­tic­u­lar sig­nif­i­cance in this con­text is the series of pro­grams record­ed in the fall of 2019, notably FTR#’s 1089, 1090, 1091, 1092, 1093, 1094, 1095.

Oth­er shows record­ed short­ly before, or in the after­math of, the begin­ning of the pan­dem­ic flesh out the panoply of oper­a­tions against Chi­na, includ­ing 1103, 1143, 1144, 1145, 1178, 1179, 1180.  1103, 1143, 1144, 1145, 1178, 1179, 1180.

Tak­en togeth­er and in the con­text of the full-court press against Chi­na dis­cussed in the above-enu­mer­at­ed pro­grams, the Pentagon/USAID fund­ing of Eco­Health Alliance, the impor­tant advi­so­ry role of for­mer Fort Det­rick com­man­der David Franz in Eco­Health Alliance and the research into bat-borne coro­n­avirus­es being con­duct­ed at the WIV and else­where in and around Chi­na, the four con­sid­er­a­tions just enu­mer­at­ed point omi­nous­ly to the Covid-19 pan­dem­ic as an “op.”

Key Points of Dis­cus­sion and Analy­sis Include: Joe Biden’s charge to intel­li­gence ser­vices to deter­mine the ori­gins of the coro­n­avirus; Biden’s deci­sion to autho­rize the intel­li­gence ser­vices to deter­mine the ori­gin of the virus derived momen­tum from Antho­ny Fau­ci’s expres­sion of doubts about the ori­gin of the vbirus; Fau­ci’s NIH was involved with the Eco­Health Alliance’s fund­ing of the WIV research; The sick­ness of sev­er­al WIV employ­ees in the fall of 2019; Attri­bu­tion by a Dutch researcher of that ill­ness to sea­son­al flu; Review of Direc­tor of Nation­al Intel­li­gence Avril Haines’ key role in Event 201 (Octo­ber of 2019) that fore­shad­owed the event; Haines’ vir­u­lent anti-Chi­na pro­cliv­i­ties; Overview of the mil­i­tary build-up and war-mon­ger­ing in which the Pen­ta­gon is involved; Review and fur­ther devel­op­ment of the weaponized media cov­er­age of Chi­na; Review of the fact that many per­son­nel at the Wuhan Insti­tute of Virol­o­gy were trained by the U.S.

FTR #1005 What the Hell Does Dave Emory Mean by “The So-Called Progressive Sector”?

“In the ’60’s, we had Mar­tin Luther King with ‘I Have a Dream.’ Now, we have Jesse Jack­son with ‘I Have a
Scheme.’ “–Mort Sahl

The third of his land­mark books about the assas­si­na­tion of Mar­tin Luther King, Dr. William Pep­per’s “The Plot to Kill King” is a well-writ­ten, inves­tiga­tive tour de force. In this pro­gram, we read excerpts of his book high­light­ing the duplic­i­ty and, in some cas­es, very pos­si­bly lethal treach­ery of some icon­ic, so-called “pro­gres­sive” polit­i­cal fig­ures.

In his inves­ti­ga­tion of King’s mur­der­ers, he detailed the appar­ent role of the late Rus­sell Lee Adkins, a mem­ber of the Dix­ie Mafia in Mem­phis, Ten­nessee. (The Dix­ie Mafia is dis­tinct from the Mafia, per se, that oper­at­ed in the South, although–as Pep­per makes clear–they worked with Mafiosi like New Orleans capo Car­los Mar­cel­lo and Mar­cel­lo asso­ciate Frank Lib­er­to, like Adkins, an oper­a­tor in Mem­phis.)

In “The Plot to Kill King,” Pep­per presents a depo­si­tion of Ron­nie Lee Adkins, Rus­sel­l’s son.  

In the depo­si­tion, Adkins alleged that the room switch to a room over­look­ing the swim­ming pool at the Lor­raine Motel was effect­ed by Jesse Jack­son. In AFA #8, we high­light­ed how this switch placed King in a per­fect posi­tion for the assas­sin to shoot him. This room switch was essen­tial for the suc­cess­ful killing of Dr. King.

1.-” . . . . . . . . Clyde Tol­son, Hoover’s Deputy (whom Ron­nie was told to call ‘Uncle Clyde’ from the first time he came to vis­it them in the 1950s) flew into the old air­port where the old Nation­al Guard planes were based. . . .”
2.-” . . . . Ron said that O.Z. dis­pensed mon­ey to, among oth­ers, Solomon Jones, Jesse Jack­son and Bil­ly Kyles. The mon­ey was paid for their obtain­ing and pass­ing on infor­ma­tion. Tol­son told his father that Jones, Jack­son, and Kyles were also paid infor­mants of the F.B.I. paid out of the Mem­phis office, but the mon­ey that came from Tol­son was sep­a­rate from the mon­ey they received from [Mem­phis Police and Fire Depart­ment head and for­mer FBI agent Frank] Hol­lo­man and the Mem­phis FBI Office. The Adkins mon­ey envelopes were wrapped up with rub­ber bands and paper with ini­tials on it, ‘BK,’ ‘JJ,’ and so forth. . . .”
3.-” . . . . . . . . Ron stat­ed (under oath) that when Dr. King returned to Mem­phis on April 3, Jesse Jack­son was instruct­ed to arrange for the room change from the low­er pro­tect­ed room 202, to the bal­cony room 306. . . .”
4.-” . . . . . . . . Years lat­er, when he asked his moth­er what the prob­lem was with Jones, she said that Jack­son (which was sub­se­quent­ly con­firmed by Junior) was pay­ing for every­thing. He was in charge of the mon­ey. . . .”

In FTR #46, we accessed William Pep­per’s first book on the King assas­si­na­tion, Orders to Kill. In that vol­ume, Pep­per set forth a Spe­cial Forces “A” Team deployed to Mem­phis to kill Dr. King and his aide Andrew Young. Pep­per repris­es that infor­ma­tion in this book, includ­ing infor­ma­tion giv­en to the Green Beret snipers by a Mem­phis Police oper­a­tive that “Friend­lies were not wear­ing ties.” In that con­text check out Jesse Jack­son, pho­tographed along­side Dr. King before the mur­der: ” . . . . . . . . War­ren [one of the snipers] report­ed that he had spo­ken over the radio with an MPD offi­cer whose first name he believed was Sam, who was the head of the “city TAC.” (This had to be Inspec­tor Sam Evans, head of the MPD tac­ti­cal units.) War­ren said that Sam pro­vid­ed details about the phys­i­cal struc­ture and lay­out of the Lor­raine. He also told War­ren that “friend­lies were not wear­ing ties.” War­ren took this to mean there was an infor­mant or infor­mants inside the King group. . . .”

Pep­per devotes much text to analy­sis of the active sup­pres­sion of the truth by media out­lets. A CNN  “doc­u­men­tary” about the King assas­si­na­tion host­ed by Soledad O’Brien con­sist­ed large­ly of bla­tant dis­in­for­ma­tion.

After dis­cussing the dis­heart­en­ing CNN doc­u­men­tary Pep­per high­lights media com­plic­i­ty in the cov­er-up of this coun­try’s polit­i­cal assas­si­na­tions, not­ing that many so-called pro­gres­sive com­men­ta­tors and out­lets adhere to this cen­sor­ship. ” . . . . The remain­ing, miss­ing point of this pic­ture of dis­in­for­ma­tion and infor­ma­tion con­trol is the coop­er­a­tive activ­i­ty of a num­ber of seem­ing­ly pro­gres­sive, inves­tiga­tive jour­nal­ists and researchers. These are a coterie of estab­lish­ment lib­er­al pro­fes­sion­als who come on to assist the gov­ern­men­t’s posi­tion in cas­es and extreme­ly sen­si­tive issues like polit­i­cal assas­si­na­tion. These indi­vid­u­als have usu­al­ly devel­oped respect and cred­i­bil­i­ty with­in the pro­gres­sive com­mu­ni­ty over a peri­od of time as activist oppo­nents of offi­cial gov­ern­ment posi­tions and actions. They have this devel­oped cred­i­bil­i­ty; thus, when they elect to support–or just ignore–the offi­cial gov­ern­ment posi­tion on a par­tic­u­lar issue or action, they have the abil­i­ty to under­cut dis­sent. . . .”

One of the indi­vid­u­als cit­ed by Pep­per is Daniel Ells­berg, although he does not men­tion him by name in the excerpt we read. Pep­per refers to Ells­berg, specif­i­cal­ly, in ear­li­er dis­cus­sion in his book.

Ells­berg leaked the Pen­ta­gon Papers, which were then pub­li­cized by “The New York Times,” as well as The “Wash­ing­ton  Post,” both very close­ly linked to the CIA.

As dis­cussed in FTR #978, among oth­er pro­grams, we not­ed that the Pen­ta­gon Papers were them­selves “sec­ond-lev­el” cov­er-up, false­ly main­tain­ing that there was con­ti­nu­ity from the Kennedy admin­is­tra­tion to the John­son admin­is­tra­tion with regard to Viet­nam war pol­i­cy.

Dou­glas Valen­tine has writ­ten exten­sive­ly about the U.S. nation­al secu­ri­ty estab­lish­ment. Best known for his sem­i­nal work on the Phoenix pro­gram in Viet­nam, he has recent­ly pub­lished “The CIA as Orga­nized Crime.”

In his recent vol­ume, Valen­tine notes Daniel Ells­berg’s long-stand­ing links to the CIA and the inability/unwillingness of what he calls “The Com­pat­i­ble Left” to talk about St. Ells­berg’s con­nec­tions to Lan­g­ley.

This under­scores why Mr. Emory has, for so long, referred to the “so-called pro­gres­sive sec­tor.”

1.-” . . . .  Peter Dale Scott had also been mar­gin­al­ized as a result of his 1972 book, The War Con­spir­a­cy, and his 1993 book Deep Pol­i­tics and the Death of JFK. Peter sup­port­ed me, and a few years after the Phoenix book was pub­lished, I men­tioned to him that I was writ­ing an arti­cle, based on my inter­views with Scot­ton and Conein, about Ells­berg’s deep polit­i­cal asso­ci­a­tion with the CIA. . . .”
2.-” . . . . [Alfred] McCoy [author of The Pol­i­tics of Hero­in in South­east Asia] accused CIA offi­cers Ed Lans­dale and Lou Conein of col­lab­o­rat­ing with Cor­si­can drug smug­glers in 1965, at the same time Ells­berg was work­ing close­ly with them. But when I inter­viewed him, Ells­berg insist­ed that these CIA offi­cers were not involved in the drug traf­fic, despite over­whelm­ing evi­dence to the con­trary. . . .”
3.-” . . . . But more impor­tant­ly, by  cov­er­ing up his own CIA con­nec­tions, he’s reas­sur­ing the bour­geoisie that sub­scribes to these media out­lets that every­thing they assume about their lead­ers is right. And that’s how sym­bol­ic heroes mis­lead the way. . . .”
4.-” . . . . If Ells­berg were to reveal the CIA’s secrets, he would no longer have the same reas­sur­ing effect on the lib­er­al bour­geoisie. So his spon­sors nev­er men­tion that he had an affair with the mis­tress of a Cor­si­can drug smug­gler in Saigon. That’s not in the book or the movie. He denies his CIA bud­dies were involved in the drug trade, even though they were. . . .”

Pep­per con­cludes the main body of his text with obser­va­tions about the role of the pow­er elite and the news media in per­pet­u­at­ing the social and eco­nom­ic sta­tus quo: ” . . . . “Look” decid­ed to pub­lish my work, but in the inter­im, Bill met with New Orleans DA Jim Gar­ri­son, and was shak­en by Gar­rison’s evi­dence of the involve­ment of the CIA in the assas­si­na­tion of John Kennedy. Right after the Gar­ri­son meet­ing, he called Bob Kennedy around 1:00 a.m., and Bob con­firmed the con­clu­sion, but said he would have to get to the White House in order to open the case. Bill Atwood had a heart attack about three hours lat­er, around 4:00 a.m., and left “Look.” Need­less to say, nei­ther my piece nor Gar­rison’s were pub­lished, and the asso­ciate edi­tor, Chan­dler Brossard, who brought us to Atwood, was let go. . . .”

Daniel Ellsberg and the CIA

In FTR # 978 (among oth­er pro­grams) we not­ed that the Pen­ta­gon Papers were them­selves “sec­ond-lev­el” cov­er-up, false­ly main­tain­ing that there was con­ti­nu­ity from the Kennedy admin­is­tra­tion to the John­son admin­is­tra­tion with regard to Viet­nam war pol­i­cy. Dou­glas Valen­tine has writ­ten exten­sive­ly about the U.S. nation­al secu­ri­ty estab­lish­ment. Best known for his sem­i­nal work on the Phoenix pro­gram in Viet­nam, he has recent­ly pub­lished “The CIA as Orga­nized Crime.” In his recent vol­ume, Valen­tine notes Daniel Ells­berg’s long-stand­ing links to the CIA and the inability/unwillingness of what he calls “The Com­pat­i­ble Left” to talk about St. Ells­berg’s con­nec­tions to Lan­g­ley. All of the con­tents of this web­site as of 12/19/2014–Dave Emory’s 37+ years of research and broadcasting–as well as hours of video­taped lec­tures are avail­able on a 32GB flash dri­ve. Dave offers his pro­grams and arti­cles for free–your sup­port is very much appre­ci­at­ed.

FTR #978 The JFK Assassination and the Vietnam War

Con­sid­er­able atten­tion has been devot­ed by the media to a TV doc­u­men­tary by Ken Burns about the Viet­nam War. What has not been cov­ered by Burns et al is the fact that JFK’s assas­si­na­tion was the deci­sive piv­ot-point of the pol­i­cy pur­sued by the U.S. in the con­flict.

Excerpt­ing The Guns of Novem­ber, Part 3 (record­ed on 11/15/1983), this pro­gram notes how Kennedy’s deci­sion to begin a phased with­draw­al from Viet­nam was one of the cen­tral rea­sons for his mur­der.

The cen­tral ele­ment in the broad­cast is pro­fes­sor Peter Dale Scot­t’s skill­ful dis­cus­sion (and excerpt­ing) of rel­e­vant Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Action Mem­o­ran­da per­tain­ing to Kennedy’s Viet­nam pol­i­cy. The pro­gram details Kennedy’s plans to phase out direct U.S. mil­i­tary par­tic­i­pa­tion in the con­flict.

Pre­sid­ing over severe dis­sent from with­in his own admin­is­tra­tion, as well as from the mil­i­tary and intel­li­gence estab­lish­ments, Kennedy ini­ti­at­ed this U.S. with­draw­al sev­en weeks before his death. Two days after the assas­si­na­tion, Kennedy’s Viet­nam pol­i­cy was reversed and the course of action was deter­mined for what was to fol­low. In addi­tion to can­cel­ing the troop with­draw­al and pro­vid­ing for troop increas­es, the pol­i­cy shift resumed the pro­gram of covert action against North Viet­nam that was to lead to the Gulf of Tonkin inci­dent. That alleged attack on U.S. destroy­ers (nev­er inde­pen­dent­ly ver­i­fied and wide­ly believed to be fraud­u­lent) pre­cip­i­tat­ed U.S. mil­i­tary esca­la­tion.

The prin­ci­pal doc­u­ments in ques­tion are Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Action Mem­o­ran­da #‘s 111, 249, 263 and 273.

Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Mem­o­ran­dum 111, dat­ed two years to the day from JFK’s assas­si­na­tion, resolved a long-stand­ing debate with­in the Kennedy assas­si­na­tion. That mem­o­ran­dum com­mit­ted the U.S. to “help­ing” the South Viet­namese gov­ern­ment in the war, point­ed­ly avoid­ing the lan­guage “help­ing the South Viet­namese win the war.”

Although this might appear to an untrained observ­er as a minor seman­tic dis­tinc­tion, it was well under­stood with­in the Kennedy admin­is­tra­tion to define the dif­fer­ence between a lim­it­ed com­mit­ment to aid­ing the South Viet­namese and an unlim­it­ed, open-end­ed com­mit­ment to help­ing the South Viet­namese win. 

Craft­ed in June 25 of 1963, NSAM 249 sus­pend­ed covert oper­a­tions against North Viet­nam pend­ing a review of pol­i­cy.

In Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Action Mem­o­ran­dum 263 (10/11/1963), Kennedy sched­uled the ini­tial with­draw­al of 1,000 mil­i­tary per­son­nel by the end of 1963, as part of a phased with­draw­al of all U.S. mil­i­tary per­son­nel.

Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Action Mem­o­ran­dum 273, which was for­mu­lat­ed by LBJ on the Sun­day after Kennedy’s mur­der (the day Jack Ruby killed Oswald) and released two days after that, negat­ed the pre­vi­ous three doc­u­ments. The troop with­draw­al for­mu­lat­ed in NSAM 263 was can­celled and troop increas­es were sched­uled. The U.S. was com­mit­ted to “help­ing the South Viet­namese win,” point­ed­ly using the lan­guage avoid­ed by Kennedy in NSAM 111. Fur­ther­more plans were for­mu­lat­ed for the pro­gram of covert oper­a­tions against North Viet­nam that result­ed in the Gulf of Tonkin Inci­dent and the Gulf of Tonkin Res­o­lu­tion (per­mit­ting LBJ to plunge the U.S. into the war).

Covert oper­a­tions against the North had been sus­pend­ed  and were resumed in June of 1963 against JFK’s wish­es and appar­ent­ly with­out his knowl­edge.

In the rough­ly 34 years since this pro­gram excerpt was record­ed, oth­er books have explored how JFK’s assas­si­na­tion reversed U.S. Viet­nam pol­i­cy. One of the best is James Dou­glass’s “JFK and the Unspeak­able: Why He Died and Why It Mat­ters.”

Pro­gram High­lights Include:

1.-The inten­si­fi­ca­tion in late 1963 of U.S. covert para­mil­i­tary oper­a­tions in Laos.
2.-The inten­si­fi­ca­tion in that same peri­od of U.S. covert para­mil­i­tary oper­a­tions against Cam­bo­dia.
3.-The Pen­ta­gon Papers’ appar­ent­ly delib­er­ate fal­si­fi­ca­tion of U.S. Viet­nam pol­i­cy, main­tain­ing against the his­tor­i­cal record that there was con­ti­nu­ity of Viet­nam pol­i­cy from JFK’s admin­is­tra­tion to LBJ’s.
4.-NSAM’s instruc­tion that admin­is­tra­tion mem­bers were to refrain from crit­i­ciz­ing Amer­i­can Viet­nam pol­i­cy.