Spitfire List | Peter Thiel

“FascisBook” Update

Posted by Dave Emory ⋅ May 20, 2021 ⋅ Post a comment

In FTR#718, we noted the intelligence community and fascist underpinnings of the genesis of Facebook, including the central role of Peter Thiel in the firm’s beginning. In numerous programs since, we have chronicled the anti-democratic and fascist manifestations of Facebook, including the company’s decisive role in the Cambridge Analytica gambit, in which elements of Peter Thiel’s Palantir–the Alpha predator of the electronic surveillance landscape–helped to “game” the 2016 election in favor of Trump. Updating that coverage, we note that an enormous Facebook bot farm, deceptively noted as “Russian,” was assembled to swing the 2020 election to Donald Trump. ” . . . . According to Paul Bischoff of Comparitech, a British cybersecurity company, the network includes 13,775 unique Facebook accounts that each posted roughly 15 times per month, for an output of more than 50,000 posts a week. The accounts appear to have been used for ‘political manipulation,’ Bischoff says, with roughly half the posts being related to political topics and another 17 percent related to COVID-19. . . .” Facebook has also implemented a low-profile, high-dollar financial support program for major news outlets that have suffered because of Facebook’s incursion into the information business. ” . . . . Less well known, and potentially far more dangerous, is a secretive, multimillion-dollar-a-year payout scheme aimed at the most influential news outlets in America. Under the cover of launching a feature called Facebook News, Facebook has been funneling money to The “New York Times”, “The Washington Post”, “The Wall Street Journal’, ‘ABC News’, ‘Bloomberg’, and other select paid partners since late 2019. . .”

Peter Thiel’s “Curative” Influence

Posted by Dave Emory ⋅ April 21, 2021 ⋅ Post a comment

We present the story of a firm called Curative, headed by Fred Turner, a Peter Thiel protege who successfully marketed a simplified testing procedure–partially funded by the Pentagon–that initially reaped rich financial rewards. ” . . . . It’s a story rooted in a debilitated public sector that in response to an overwhelming catastrophe opted to relax regulations and place its faith in companies large and small that were ready and able to profit from a once-in-a-century pandemic. . . . An FDA reviewer told the company a few days before Christmas that it found the test did not even appear to be accurate on symptomatic people, much less those without any symptoms, according to BullDog. . . .”

Thiel and Bannon: “Yellow Peril” in Silicon Valley

Posted by Dave Emory ⋅ March 30, 2021 ⋅ 2 comments

Peter Thiel–lynchpin of power in the Trump administration, the top dog in Palantir (the alpha predator of the electronic surveillance milieu), a key player in Facebook–has disseminated anti-Chinese vitriol about the “yellow peril” in Silicon Valley. He has been joined in that effort by Steve Bannon, a coordinator of anti-China activity in Washington D.C. Bannon’s statements and actions are particularly ironic in light of his cynical use of remnants of “the old China” in his “Gold Farming” business the first decade of this century. “. . . . From 2007 to 2012, he had been the CEO of a multimillion-dollar video-game gold-farming scheme. “Gold farming” was a term for letting third-world laborers to do; the same repetitive tasks in massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MORPGs) to acquire in-game currency. . . . . The self-proclaimed anti-globalist Bannon ran the scheme by subcontracting Chinese labor. According to Wired writer Julian Dibbel, who visited one of the Chinese business partners who employed miners for Bannon’s company in 2009, the digital laborers “slept upstairs on plywood bunks, day-shift workers sat in the hot, dimly-lit workshop.” They earned about four dollars a day with eighty-four-hour workweeks. . . .”

FTR #1134 Bio-Psy-Op Apocalypse Now, Part 9: Covid-19 Updates

Posted by Dave Emory ⋅ June 17, 2020 ⋅ 6 comments

As indicated by the title of the program, this broadcast updates various articles and book excerpts concerning Covid-19.

A Daily Mail Online [UK] article sets forth two bogus papers contending that the SARS CoV‑2 virus was genetically engineered by the Chinese as a bioweapon in a laboratory and that it “escaped.” Note the championing of one of the papers by a former head of MI6 and the authorship of the second by The Epoch Times, the paper of the Falun Gong cult. Linked to CIA, Steve Bannon’s anti-China milieu and the Trump administration, the organization is a fascist mind control cult discussed in numerous shows, including FTR #‘s 1089 and 1090.

1.–“A former MI6 chief was yesterday accused by Government officials of peddling ‘fanciful claims’ that coronavirus was accidentally created in a Chinese laboratory. British security agencies believe Covid-19 is not a man-made virus and is ‘highly likely’ to have occurred naturally and spread to humans through animals. And Health Secretary Matt Hancock has said there is ‘no evidence’ to back up the theory that it originated in a laboratory. But Sir Richard Dearlove, who was head of the MI6 from 1999 to 2004, cited a recent report claiming the disease was accidentally manufactured by Chinese scientists.
2.–“ ‘I do think that this started as an accident,’ Sir Richard told The Daily Telegraph’s ‘Planet Normal’ podcast. ‘It raises the issue: if China ever were to admit responsibility, does it pay reparations? I think it will make every country in the world rethink how it treats its relationship with China.’ He added: ‘Look at the stories... of attempts by the [Beijing] leadership to lock down any debate about the origins of the pandemic and the way people have been arrested or silenced.’ . . . . The paper – co-authored by Professor Angus Dalgleish, a renowned oncologist and vaccine researcher who works at St George’s Hospital, University of London, and Birger Sorensen, a Norwegian virologist – contains none of the stark allegations that originally stunned its reviewers.
3..–“The initial paper that triggered wild rumours failed stringent tests of verification and is understood to have been rejected in April by eminent international journals such as Nature and the Journal of Virology. Biomedical experts from the Francis Crick Institute and Imperial College London are said to have refuted its conclusions. Then one of the paper’s co-authors, Dr John Fredrik Moxnes, chief scientific adviser to the Norwegian military, asked for his name to be withdrawn. This week, after numerous rewrites, the paper was published by the Quarterly Review of Biophysics Discovery. And those original world-shaking conclusions have now withered to innuendo. No accusation of Chinese manipulation appears. . . .”
4.–”. . . . Back in April, a slickly produced investigative documentary, Tracking Down The Origin Of The Wuhan Coronavirus, was released online. It claimed conclusive proof that the Covid-19 virus had been created as a biological ‘weapon of mass destruction’ in a Chinese lab. . . .”
5.–“At first sight, it seemed a shockingly convincing piece of journalism. On behalf of this newspaper, I cross-checked every claim: The experts it cited and the factual evidence unearthed. I also researched the backgrounds of its makers. I then approached some of the world’s best independent scientific authorities to ask their opinion. They all agreed – this enticingly spicy story just didn’t stand up.”
6.–“It had been produced by a US based anti-Chinese government media organisation called the Epoch Times. Its ‘experts’ were veteran hard-Rightists. Most damningly, its scientific ‘facts’ were twisted out of shape.So much, then, for the Chinese-manufactured coronavirus conspiracy . . .”

Steve Bannon is at the epicenter of the anti-China effort and–to no one’s surprise–never really left the Trump White House.

When assessing Bannon as a political animal, one should never forget that among the important ideological influences on him is Julius Evola, an Italian fascist who found Mussolini too moderate and ultimately took his cues from the Nazi SS, who were financing his work by the end of World War II.

” . . . . Donald Trump’s lightning-rod 2016 campaign boss and former White House chief strategist who was banished from the West Wing in 2017 has quietly crept back into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., reestablishing ties to staffers, particularly with regard to his pet issues of China and immigration. . . . Another former administration official told The Post that Bannon never really left the White House after he was fired, maintaining contacts and keeping up regular channels of communications with officials there. . . .”

In addition, as discussed in FTR #‘s 1111 and 1112, Bannon is part of a network that includes J. Kyle Bass and Tommy Hicks, Jr. This nexus involves asymmetrical investing with regard to the Hong Kong and Chinese economies and the inter-agency governmental networks involved in both overt and covert anti-China policies implemented by Team Trump. As will be seen below, they also are networking with the mis-named “Scientists to Stop Covid-19.” In that regard, they are also helping steer policy that controls development of treatment and vaccines for Covid-19. The management of drug and vaccine development, in turn, doubles back to market-driving investment dynamics.

An interesting summation of characteristics of a “deliberate” epidemic are evaluated against the finding that New York City was the epicenter of the U.S. Covid-19 outbreak:

Potential epidemiological clues to a deliberate epidemic:

Clue no. 1–A highly unusual event with large numbers of casualties: Check!

Clue no. 2–Higher morbidity or mortality than is expected. Check!

Clue no. 3–Uncommon disease. Check!

Clue no. 4–Point-source outbreak. Check!

Clue no. 5–Multiple epidemics. Check! (Global pandemic)

–Z. F. Dembek, et al., “Discernment Between Deliberate and Natural Infectious Disease Outbreaks”

The prevailing view of the Covid-19 outbreak contends that the American outbreak spread outward from New York City. The strain of SARS CoV‑2 that appeared in New York came, in turn, from Europe.

This doesn’t make sense. There were confirmed cases of the virus on the West Coast that did not come from New York. A European strain of the virus transmitted to New York City would have come in via air. In such an event, there would have been a well-documented outbreak of Covid-19 among flight attendants, who operate in close contact with passengers in cramped circumstances, as well as experiencing jet lag, which compromises the immune system.

Next, we review an aspect of the 2001 anthrax attacks. We highlighted the 2001 anthrax attacks in connection with the Covid-19 outbreak in New York City in FTR #1128.

We note that the Anthrax attacks appear to have operated in overlapping contexts, including justification for the war in Iraq.

The 2001 anthrax attacks appear to have served as a provocation that justified a ten-fold increase in spending for biological warfare development. The number of BSL‑4 labs (having dual civilian and military use) increased from two in 2001, to a dozen in 2007.

This increase occurred while Donald Rumsfeld was George W. Bush’s secretary of defense. He went to that position from being Chairman of the Board of Directors for Gilead Sciences, the manufacturer of remdesivir.

We will delve into the politics of the anthrax attacks in the future.

In the context of the above article, note that the National Institutes of Health have also partnered with CIA and the Pentagon, as underscored by an article about a BSL‑4 lab at Boston University. Note that Europe and the U.S. have twelve BSL4 labs apiece. Taiwan has two. China has one:

1.–As the article notes, as of 2007, the U.S. had “more than a dozen” BSL4 labs–China commissioned its first as of 2017. a tenfold increase in funding for BSL4 labs occurred because of the anthrax attacks of 2001. Those attacks might be seen as something of a provocation, spurring a dramatic increase in “dual use” biowarfare research, under the cover of “legitimate” medical/scientific research. In FTR #1128, we hypothesized about the milieu of Stephen Hatfill and apartheid-linked interests as possible authors of a vectoring of New York City with Sars COV2: ” . . . . Before the anthrax mailings of 2001, the United States had just two BSL4 labs—both within the razor-wire confines of government-owned campuses. Now, thanks to a tenfold increase in funding—from $200 million in 2001 to $2 billion in 2006—more than a dozen such facilities can be found at universities and private companies across the country. . . .”
2.–The Boston University lab exemplifies the Pentagon and CIA presence in BSL‑4 facility “dual use”: ” . . . . But some scientists say that argument obscures the true purpose of the current biodefense boom: to study potential biological weapons. ‘The university portrays it as an emerging infectious disease lab,’ says David Ozonoff, a Boston University epidemiologist whose office is right across the street from the new BSL4 facility. ‘But they are talking about studying things like small pox and inhalation anthrax, which pose no public health threat other than as bioweapons.’ . . . The original NIH mandate for the lab indicated that many groups—including the CIA and Department of Defense—would be allowed to use the lab for their own research, the nature of which BU might have little control over. . . .”

Pivoting to discussion and review of the political, financial and corporate connections to the development of medicinal treatments for, and vaccines to prevent, Covid-19, we recap details relevant to the extraordinary timing of a 4/29 announcement of favorable results for a trial of remdesivir. That announcement drove equities markets higher and was beneficial to the stock of Gilead Sciences.

We present a Stat News article on the internal deliberations behind the decisions to modify the NIAID study. Of particular significance is the DSMB deliberation. Note the timeline of the DSMB deliberation, combined with the announcement on 4/29 that drove the markets higher.

1.–The decision was made to cut it short before the question of remdesivir’s impact on mortality could be answered: ” . . . .The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases has described to STAT in new detail how it made its fateful decision: to start giving remdesivir to patients who had been assigned to receive a placebo in the study, essentially limiting researchers’ ability to collect more data about whether the drug saves lives — something the study, called ACTT‑1, suggests but does not prove. In the trial, 8% of the participants given remdesivir died, compared with 11.6% of the placebo group, a difference that was not statistically significant. A top NIAID official said he had no regrets about the decision. ‘There certainly was unanimity within the institute that this was the right thing to do,’ said H. Clifford Lane, NIAID’s clinical director. . . .”
2.–In addition, patients scheduled to receive placebo received remdesivir, instead. ” . . . . Steven Nissen, a veteran trialist and cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic, disagreed that giving placebo patients remdesivir was the right call. ‘I believe it is in society’s best interest to determine whether remdesivir can reduce mortality, and with the release of this information doing a placebo-controlled trial to determine if there is a mortality benefit will be very difficult,’ he said. ‘The question is: Was there a route, or is there a route, to determine if the drug can prevent death?’ The decision is ‘a lost opportunity,’ he said. . . .”
3.–Steven Nissen was not alone in his criticism of the NIAID’s decision. ” . . . .Peter Bach, the director of the Center for Health Policy and Outcomes at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, agreed with Nissen. ‘The core understanding of clinical research participation and clinical research conduct is we run the trial rigorously to provide the most accurate information about the right treatment,’ he said. And that answer, he argued, should ideally have determined whether remdesivir saves lives. The reason we have shut our whole society down, Bach said, is not to prevent Covid-19 patients from spending a few more days in the hospital. It is to prevent patients from dying. ‘Mortality is the right endpoint,’ he said. . . .”
4.–Not only was the administration of remdesivir instead of placebo prioritized, but the NIAID study itself was attenuated! ” . . . . But the change in the study’s main goal also changed the way the study would be analyzed. Now, the NIAID decided, the analysis would be calculated when 400 patients out of the 1,063 patients the study enrolled had recovered. If remdesivir turned out to be much more effective than expected, ‘interim’ analyses would be conducted at a third and two-thirds that number.The job of reviewing these analyses would fall to a committee of outside experts on what is known as an independent data and safety monitoring board, or DSMB. . . .”
5.–The performance of the DSMB for the remdesivir study is noteworthy: ” . . . . But the DSMB for the remdesivir study did not ever meet for an interim efficacy analysis, Lane said. All patients had been enrolled by April 20. The data for a DSMB meeting was cut off on April 22. The DSMB met and, on April 27, it made a recommendation to the NIAID. . . .”
The DSMB meeting on 4/27 determined the switch from placebo to remdesivir. Of paramount importance is the fact that this was JUST BEFORE the 4/29 announcement that drove the markets higher and the same day on which key Trump aide–and former Gilead Sciences lobbyist Joe Grogan resigned! ” . . . . . That decision, Lane said, led the NIAID to conclude that patients who had been given placebo should be offered remdesivir, something that started happening after April 28. . . .”
6.–Dr. Ethan Weiss gave an accurate evaluation of the NIAID study: ” . . . . ‘We’ve squandered an incredible opportunity to do good science,’ [Dr. Ethan] Weiss said. ‘If we could ever go back and do something all over, it would be the infrastructure to actually learn something. Because we’re not learning enough.’ . . . .”

The remarkable handling of the NIAID study, the timing of the announcement of the altogether limited success of the attenuated trial and the rise in equities as a result of the announcement may be best understood in the context of the role played in Trump pandemic decision-making by an elite group of billionaires and scientists–including convicted felon Michael Milken (the “junk bond king”).

1.–” . . . . Calling themselves ‘Scientists to Stop COVID-19,’ the collection of top researchers, billionaires and industry captains will act as an ‘ad hoc review board’ for the torrent of coronavirus research, ‘weeding out’ flawed data before it reaches policymakers, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday. They are also acting as a go-between for pharmaceutical companies seeking to build a communication channel with Trump administration officials. The group . . . . has advised Nick Ayers, an aide to Vice President Mike Pence, as well as other agency heads, in the past month. Pence is heading up the White House coronavirus task force. . . .”
2.–” . . . The brainy bunch is led by Thomas Cahill, a 33-year-old doctor who became a venture capitalist . . . . Cahill’s clout comes from building connections through his investment firm, Newpath Partners, with Silicon Valley’s Peter Thiel, the founder of PayPal, and billionaire businessmen Jim Palotta and Michael Milken. . . .”

Note that Peter Thiel played a dominant role in bankrolling Newpath Partners, and the other financial angel who elevated Cahill–Brian Sheth–introduced him to Tommy Hicks, Jr., the co-chairman of the RNC. In FTR #‘s 1111 and 1112, we looked at Hicks’ networking with Steve Bannon associate J. Kyle Bass, as well as his role in the inter-agency networks driving the anti-China effort.

” . . . . At the helm of the effort: The 33-year-old and very-much-under-the-radar venture capitalist Tom Cahill, who leads life sciences-focused Newpath Partners. Cahill completed his M.D. and PhD at Duke University a mere two years ago before landing at blue-chip investment firm Raptor Group through a friend. He went on to found Newpath with some $125 million after impressing well-connected names like venture capitalist Peter Thiel and Vista Equity Partners co-founder Brian Sheth. . . . It was through Sheth, for example, that Scientists to Stop Covid-19 connected with the co-chairman of the Republican National Committee, Thomas Hicks Jr. . . .”

The federal government’s extreme focus on remdesivir has been shaped, in large measure, by the influence of “Scientists to Stop COVID-19”:

1.–“Scientists to Stop Covid-19” is shepherding remdesivir: ” . . . . Scientists to Stop COVID-19 recommends that in this phase, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should work to coordinate with Gilead pharmaceuticals to focus on expediting the results of clinical trials of remdesivir, a drug identified as a potential treatment for COVID-19. The group also recommends administering doses of the drug to patients in an early stage of infection, and notes remdesivir will essentially be a placeholder until a more effective treatment is produced.
2.–The group is doing so by attenuating the regulatory process for coronavirus drugs: “Government entities and agencies appear to adhere to the recommendations outlined by the group, with the Journal reporting that the FDA and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) have implemented some of the suggestions, namely relaxing drug manufacturer regulations and requirements for potential coronavirus treatment drugs. . . .”

We conclude discussion of the remdesivir machinations with a piece about the timing of the announcement of Grogan’s departure.

” . . . . Grogan has served as the director of the White House Domestic Policy Council since February 2019, overseeing a broad array of policy issues including health care and regulation. . . . Grogan was one of the original members of the White House coronavirus task force launched in late January. . . . Grogan worked as a lobbyist for drug company Gilead Sciences before joining the Trump administration. . . .”

The departure was announced in the Wall Street Journal on the morning of Wednesday, April 29, the same day we got our first public reports of the NIAID clinical trial of remdesivir that was positive enough to show it shortened the time to recovery and the same day the FDA granted remdesivir emergency use status.

Note, again, the timing of the DSMB’s actions, as well as the influence of “Scientists to Stop Covid-19.”

In FTR #1130, we noted that Moncef Slaoui–formerly in charge of product development for Moderna–was chosen to head Trump’s “Operation Warp Speed.” He will be working with Four-Star General Gustave Perna, chosen by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley.

Even after agreeing to sell his Moderna stock, Moncef Slaoui’s investments raise alarming questions–note that he is a “venture capitalist” and a longtime former executive at Glaxo-Smithkline:

The circumstances of his appointment will permit him to avoid scrutiny: ” . . . . In agreeing to accept the position, Dr. Slaoui did not come on board as a government employee. Instead, he is on a contract, receiving $1 for his service. That leaves him exempt from federal disclosure rules that would require him to list his outside positions, stock holdings and other potential conflicts. And the contract position is not subject to the same conflict-of-interest laws and regulations that executive branch employees must follow. . . .”
He will retain a great deal of Glaxo-Smithkline stock: ” . . . . He did not say how much his GSK shares were worth. When he left the company in 2017, he held about [500,000 in Western Print Edition] 240,000 shares and share equivalents, according to the drug company’s annual report and an analysis by the executive compensation firm Equilar. . . .”
Further analysis of Slaoui’s position deepens concern about the integrity of the process: ” . . . . ‘This is basically absurd,’ said Virginia Canter, who is chief ethics counsel for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. ‘It allows for no public scrutiny of his conflicts of interest.’ Ms. Canter also said federal law barred government contractors from supervising government employees. . . . Ms. Canter, a former ethics lawyer in the Obama and Clinton administrations, the Securities and Exchange Commission and other agencies, pointed out that GSK’s vaccine candidate with Sanofi could wind up competing with other manufacturers vying for government approval and support. ‘If he retains stock in companies that are investing in the development of a vaccine, and he’s involved in overseeing this process to select the safest vaccine to combat Covid-19, regardless of how wonderful a person he is, we can’t be confident of the integrity of any process in which he is involved,’ Ms. Canter said.In addition, his affiliation with Medicxi could complicate matters: Two of its investors are GSK and a division of Johnson & Johnson, which is also developing a potential vaccine. . . .”

Next, we turn to Moderna’s animal trial for the messenger RNA vaccine it is developing. There are several considerations to be weighed in connection with the Moderna vaccine.

1.–Again, the chairman of Trump’s “Warp Speed” vaccine development program–Moncef Slaoui–was in charge of Moderna’s product development operation.
2.–Moderna’s trial with mice was positive with regard to generating antibody levels high enough to prevent ADE.
3.–Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE), is a phenomena where low levels of ineffective antibodies latch onto the virus and exacerbate an overactive immune response that leads to the deadliest symptoms likes cytokine-storms. This danger was seen with SARS and attempts to create a SARS vaccine so it’s a reasonable fear with SARS-CoV‑2.
4.–The Phase III (human) trial is going to be started in July, involving 30,000 people. Alarmingly, those 30,000 people will all be receiving the exact same dosage, 100 micrograms, and that means the phase III trial won’t be testing sub-optimal dosages. The big Phase III trial won’t be testing for ADE in humans.
5.–We may have a nightmare situation where political pressure gives undo weight to animal safety results, leapfrogging over the necessity of testing for side effects.
6.–The animal trials have been severely criticized: ” . . . . ‘This is the barest beginning of preliminary information,’ said Dr. Gregory Poland, an immunologist and vaccine researcher at the Mayo Clinic who has seen the paper, which has yet to undergo peer-review. Poland said the paper was incomplete, disorganized and the numbers of animals tested were small. . . . Poland, who was not involved with the research, said the paper leaves out ‘important parameters’ that could help scientists judge the work. . . .”
7.–We MIGHT create a vaccine that protects those who get a strong immune response while endangering those with sub-protective responses–a “eugenic” vaccine.
8.–The animal trials have been severely criticized: ” . . . . ‘This is the barest beginning of preliminary information,’ said Dr. Gregory Poland, an immunologist and vaccine researcher at the Mayo Clinic who has seen the paper, which has yet to undergo peer-review. Poland said the paper was incomplete, disorganized and the numbers of animals tested were small. . . . Poland, who was not involved with the research, said the paper leaves out ‘important parameters’ that could help scientists judge the work. . . .”
9.–The phase II clinical trials on humans are still underway and won’t be completed before November. Phase III is going to be getting underway in July. The Human clinical trials are already underway at the same time the animal safety trials have yet to be completed.
10.–Side effects can take a while to manifest.

We provided detailed critical comments on Moderna’s Phase I trial in FTR #1132.

We conclude with a New York Times article sets forth a “Vaccine October Surprise” scenario for this fall.

” . . . . In a desperate search for a boost, he could release a coronavirus vaccine that has not been shown to be safe and effective as an October surprise. Oct. 23, 2020, 9 a.m., with 10 days before the election, Fox New releases a poll showing President Trump trailing Joe Biden by eight percentage points. Oct. 23, 2020, 3 p.m., at a hastily convened news conference, President Trump announces that the Food and Drug Administration has just issued an Emergency Use Authorization for a coronavirus vaccine. Mr. Trump declares victory over Covid-19, demands that all businesses reopen immediately and predicts a rapid economic recovery. Given how this president has behaved, this incredibly dangerous scenario is not far-fetched. In a desperate search for a political boost, he could release a coronavirus vaccine before it had been thoroughly tested and shown to be safe and effective. . . .”

FTR #1132 Bio-Psy-Op Apocalypse Now, Part 8: Remdesivir Uber Alles

Posted by Dave Emory ⋅ June 2, 2020 ⋅ 3 comments

This broadcast details the process of vetting the anti-Covid-19 drug remdesivir, highlighting the institutional shortcuts taken in testing the product, as well as the dubious nature of the billionaires networking with officials involved in the approval process.

Before analyzing remdesivir, however, we update discussion about the SARS CoV‑2 virus having been engineered, noting joint U.S.-Chinese projects in which bat-borne coronaviruses were genetically engineered. The processes used to modify the viruses would not show any overt evidence of human manipulation.

Most importantly, these projects received financing from institutions with documented links to U.S. intelligence and military interests.

Research into the history of GOF (gain-of-function) work on bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology indicates multiple areas of U.S. intelligence presence in that work.

It was publicly disclosed in a 2017 paper that the US and China collaborated on “gain-of-function” research on bat coronaviruses to infect humans and that the work received funding from the United States Agency for International Development–a frequent cut-out for the CIA.

In addition, the work was also funded in part by the National Institutes of Health, which have collaborated with both CIA and the Pentagon in BSL‑4 (Bio-Safety-Level 4) projects.

The Wuhan Institute of Virology has also partnered with the USAMRIID since the mid-1980’s.

Important to note is the fact that it was public information that some of this work was done in a biosafety-level 2 laboratory, giving an observer intent on undertaking a biological warfare covert operation against China useful field intelligence about the vulnerability of WIV for such an “op.”

1.–The investigation of infectivity used undetectable methods, negating articles claiming the virus could not have been genetically engineered: ” Evidence has emerged that researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China, working in collaboration with scientists in the USA, have been genetically engineering bat viruses for the past several years to investigate infectivity – using undetectable methods. . . . The evidence rebuts claims by journalists and some scientists that the SARS-CoV‑2 virus responsible for the current COVID-19 pandemic could not have been genetically engineered because it lacks the ‘signs’ or ‘signatures’ that supposedly would be left behind by genetic engineering techniques. . . .”

2.–Dr. Richard Ebright noted that the research was jointly funded by the U.S. and China, that Peter Daszak (about whom we have voiced reservations in the past) was one of the American collaborators. Furthermore, the research was funded in part by USAID, a common U.S. intelligence cut-out. ” . . . . Dr Richard Ebright, an infectious disease expert at Rutgers University (USA), has alerted the public to evidence that WIV and US-based researchers were genetically engineering bat viruses to investigate their ability to infect humans, using commonly used methods that leave no sign or signature of human manipulation. Ebright flagged up a scientific paper published in 2017 by WIV scientists, including Shi Zhengli, the virologist leading the research into bat coronaviruses, working in collaboration with Peter Daszak of the US-based EcoHealth Alliance. Funding was shared between Chinese and US institutions, the latter including the US National Institutes of Health and USAID. The researchers report having conducted virus infectivity experiments where genetic material is combined from different varieties of SARS-related coronaviruses to form novel ‘chimeric’ versions. This formed part of their research into what mutations were needed to allow certain bat coronaviruses to bind to the human ACE2 receptor – a key step in the human infectivity of SARS-CoV‑2. . . .”

3.–Furthermore, the researchers used a type of genetic engineering that leaves no signature of human manipulation: ” . . . . The WIV scientists did this, Ebright points out, ‘using ‘seamless ligation’ procedures that leave no signatures of human manipulation’. This is noteworthy because it is a type of genetic engineering that Andersen and his team excluded from their investigation into whether SARS-CoV‑2 could have been engineered – and it was in use at the very lab that is the prime suspect for a lab escape. . . .”

4.–In addition, Ebright highlights the 2015 work done by Ralph Baric in collaboration with WIV’s Shi Zhengli–a project we have discussed at length in the past: ” . . . . A group of scientists from the University of North Carolina in the USA, with the WIV’s Shi Zhengli as a collaborator, published a study in 2015 describing similar experiments involving chimeric coronaviruses, which were also created using standard undetectable genetic engineering techniques. . . .”

5.–Ebright also cites work done in a bio-safety level 2 laboratory. : ” . . . . Ebright points out that the paper states, ‘All work with the infectious virus was performed under biosafety level 2 conditions’. This level is suitable for work involving agents of only ‘moderate potential hazard to personnel and the environment’. . . .But they are not at fault in failing to use BSL‑4 for this work, as SARS coronaviruses are not aerosol-transmitted. The work does, however, fall under biosafety level 3, which is for work involving microbes that can cause serious and potentially lethal disease via inhalation. . . .”

6.–Dr. Jonathan Latham underscored the reservations expressed by many concerning “gain-of-function” experiments on these kinds of coronaviruses: ” . . . . The bioscientist Dr Jonathan Latham criticised the kind of research on bat coronaviruses that has been taking place in Wuhan and the USA as ‘providing an evolutionary opportunity’ for such viruses ‘to jump into humans’. Latham, who has a doctorate in virology, argues that this kind of work is simply ‘providing opportunities for contamination events and leakages from labs, which happen on a routine basis’. . . .”

U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Disease–located at Ft. Detrick and closed by the CDC for safety violations in August, 2019.

Note, again, that the whole world was informed back in 2017 that dangerous research involving the creation of bat coronaviruses to infect humans was being carried out in China. Note again, that the research was funded in part by the US, including USAID–a frequent U.S. intelligence cut-out; the NIH–which has actively collaborated with both CIA and Pentagon. The WIV has also partnered with the USAMRIID.

Flash forward a couple of years and we have a nightmare virus that initially appeared to pop up nearby the WIV, with the Trump administration aggressively pushing the idea that it escaped from that lab.

In that context, we note the following:

1.–In 2017, China got approval for its first BSL‑4 lab in Wuhan, the first of several planned BSL‑4 labs. “A laboratory in Wuhan is on the cusp of being cleared to work with the world’s most dangerous pathogens. The move is part of a plan to build between five and seven biosafety level‑4 (BSL‑4) labs across the Chinese mainland by 2025, and has generated much excitement, as well as some concerns. . . . Some scientists outside China worry about pathogens escaping, and the addition of a biological dimension to geopolitical tensions between China and other nations. . . .”

2.–As will be seen below, the proliferation of BSL‑4 labs has sparked worries about “dual use” technology: ” . . . . The expansion of BSL-4-lab networks in the United States and Europe over the past 15 years — with more than a dozen now in operation or under construction in each region — also met with resistance, including questions about the need for so many facilities. . . .”

3.–The above-mentioned Richard Ebright notes that the proliferation of BSL‑4 labs will spur suspicion of “dual use” technology, in which ostensible medical research masks biological warfare research: ” . . . . But Ebright is not convinced of the need for more than one BSL‑4 lab in mainland China. He suspects that the expansion there is a reaction to the networks in the United States and Europe, which he says are also unwarranted. He adds that governments will assume that such excess capacity is for the potential development of bioweapons. ‘These facilities are inherently dual use,’ he says. . . .”

In the context of the above articles, note that the National Institutes of Health have also partnered with CIA and the Pentagon, as underscored by an article about a BSL‑4 lab at Boston University. Note that the U.S. and Europe have twelve BSL4 labs apiece, Taiwan has two, while China has one:

1.–As the article notes, as of 2007, the U.S. had “more than a dozen” BSL4 labs–China commissioned its first as of 2017. a tenfold increase in funding for BSL4 labs occurred because of the anthrax attacks of 2001. Those attacks might be seen as something of a provocation, spurring a dramatic increase in “dual use” biowarfare research, under the cover of “legitimate” medical/scientific research. In FTR #1128, we hypothesized about the milieu of Stephen Hatfill and apartheid-linked interests as possible authors of a vectoring of New York City with Sars COV2: ” . . . . Before the anthrax mailings of 2001, the United States had just two BSL4 labs—both within the razor-wire confines of government-owned campuses. Now, thanks to a tenfold increase in funding—from $200 million in 2001 to $2 billion in 2006—more than a dozen such facilities can be found at universities and private companies across the country. . . .”

2.–The Boston University lab exemplifies the Pentagon and CIA presence in BSL‑4 facility “dual use”: ” . . . . But some scientists say that argument obscures the true purpose of the current biodefense boom: to study potential biological weapons. ‘The university portrays it as an emerging infectious disease lab,’ says David Ozonoff, a Boston University epidemiologist whose office is right across the street from the new BSL4 facility. ‘But they are talking about studying things like small pox and inhalation anthrax, which pose no public health threat other than as bioweapons.’ . . . The original NIH mandate for the lab indicated that many groups—including the CIA and Department of Defense—would be allowed to use the lab for their own research, the nature of which BU might have little control over. . . .”

Note, also that:

1.–The WIV has partnered with the U.S. Army’s Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, located at Ft. Detrick.

2.–In early August of 2019, shortly before the recorded start of the outbreak in Wuhan, China, the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at that facility was closed down by the CDC due to multiple safety violations.“All research at a Fort Detrick laboratory that handles high-level disease-causing material, such as Ebola, is on hold indefinitely after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found the organization failed to meet biosafety standards. . . . The CDC sent a cease and desist order in July. After USAMRIID received the order from the CDC, its registration with the Federal Select Agent Program, which oversees disease-causing material use and possession, was suspended. That suspension effectively halted all biological select agents and toxin research at USAMRIID . . . .”

Following the update on the WIV and BSL‑4 laboratories, we pivot to analysis of the elevation of remdesivir as the “go-to” treatment du jour for Covid-19. Of paramount importance is the remarkable timeline: The DSMB (data safety and monitoring board) ” . . . . the DSMB for the remdesivir study did not ever meet for an interim efficacy analysis, Lane said. All patients had been enrolled by April 20. The data for a DSMB meeting was cut off on April 22. The DSMB met and, on April 27, it made a recommendation to the NIAID. . . . That decision, Lane said, led the NIAID to conclude that patients who had been given placebo should be offered remdesivir, something that started happening after April 28. . . .”

As will be seen, it was on 4/29 that Joe Grogan resigned. (See below.)

When positive news on a NIAID study on the drug remdesivir were released–on 4/29–it drove broad gains in the stock market. In FTR #1131, we noted that disclosures concerning positive news about Moderna’s experimental Covid-19 vaccine also proved to be a similar driver of the stock market, as well as of Moderna’s stock.

Discussion of the hard details of several remdesivir trials begins with discussion of an NIAID trial that helped move the markets, as seen above. The trial was a modest success, indicating that recovery for recently infected patients was about 31% faster than for placebo. There was no significant statistical difference in mortality–the most important measure of effectiveness according to many experts.

” . . . . During an appearance alongside President Trump in the Oval Office, Anthony Fauci, the director of NIAID, part of the National Institutes of Health, said the data are a ‘very important proof of concept’ and that there was reason for optimism. He cautioned the data were not a ‘knockout.’ At the same time, the study achieved its primary goal, which was to improve the time to recovery, which was reduced by four days for patients on remdesivir. The preliminary data showed that the time to recovery was 11 days on remdesivir compared to 15 days for placebo, a 31% decrease. The mortality rate for the remdesivir group was 8%, compared to 11.6% for the placebo group; that mortality difference was not statistically significant. . . .”

Next we present a Stat News article on the internal deliberations behind the decisions to modify the NIAID study. Of particular significance is the DSMB deliberation. Note the timeline of the DSMB deliberation, combined with the announcement on 4/29 that drove the markets higher.

1.–The decision was made to cut it short before the question of remdesivir’s impact on mortality could be answered: ” . . . .The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases has described to STAT in new detail how it made its fateful decision: to start giving remdesivir to patients who had been assigned to receive a placebo in the study, essentially limiting researchers’ ability to collect more data about whether the drug saves lives — something the study, called ACTT‑1, suggests but does not prove. In the trial, 8% of the participants given remdesivir died, compared with 11.6% of the placebo group, a difference that was not statistically significant. A top NIAID official said he had no regrets about the decision. ‘There certainly was unanimity within the institute that this was the right thing to do,’ said H. Clifford Lane, NIAID’s clinical director. . . .”

2.–In addition, patients scheduled to receive placebo received remdesivir, instead. ” . . . . Steven Nissen, a veteran trialist and cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic, disagreed that giving placebo patients remdesivir was the right call. ‘I believe it is in society’s best interest to determine whether remdesivir can reduce mortality, and with the release of this information doing a placebo-controlled trial to determine if there is a mortality benefit will be very difficult,’ he said. ‘The question is: Was there a route, or is there a route, to determine if the drug can prevent death?’ The decision is ‘a lost opportunity,’ he said. . . .”

3.–Steven Nissen was not alone in his criticism of the NIAID’s decision. ” . . . .Peter Bach, the director of the Center for Health Policy and Outcomes at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, agreed with Nissen. ‘The core understanding of clinical research participation and clinical research conduct is we run the trial rigorously to provide the most accurate information about the right treatment,’ he said. And that answer, he argued, should ideally have determined whether remdesivir saves lives. The reason we have shut our whole society down, Bach said, is not to prevent Covid-19 patients from spending a few more days in the hospital. It is to prevent patients from dying. ‘Mortality is the right endpoint,’ he said. . . .”

4.–Not only was the administration of remdesivir instead of placebo prioritized, but the NIAID study itself was attenuated! ” . . . . But the change in the study’s main goal also changed the way the study would be analyzed. Now, the NIAID decided, the analysis would be calculated when 400 patients out of the 1,063 patients the study enrolled had recovered. If remdesivir turned out to be much more effective than expected, ‘interim’ analyses would be conducted at a third and two-thirds that number.The job of reviewing these analyses would fall to a committee of outside experts on what is known as an independent data and safety monitoring board, or DSMB. . . .”

5.–The performance of the DSMB for the remdesivir study is noteworthy: ” . . . . But the DSMB for the remdesivir study did not ever meet for an interim efficacy analysis, Lane said. All patients had been enrolled by April 20. The data for a DSMB meeting was cut off on April 22. The DSMB met and, on April 27, it made a recommendation to the NIAID. . . .”

6.–The DSMB meeting on 4/27 determined the switch from placebo to remdesivir. Of paramount importance is the fact that this was JUST BEFORE the 4/29 announcement that drove the markets higher and the same day on which key Trump aide–and former Gilead Sciences lobbyist Joe Grogan resigned! ” . . . . . That decision, Lane said, led the NIAID to conclude that patients who had been given placebo should be offered remdesivir, something that started happening after April 28. . . .”

7.–Dr. Ethan Weiss gave an accurate evaluation of the NIAID study: ” . . . . ‘We’ve squandered an incredible opportunity to do good science,’ [Dr. Ethan] Weiss said. ‘If we could ever go back and do something all over, it would be the infrastructure to actually learn something. Because we’re not learning enough.’ . . . .”

Next, we analyze a STAT News excerpt that goes into more of the concerns about the Gilead study design.

The Gilead study was designed without any control group, so the question of how much remdesivir actually helps sick patients (or doesn’t help) can’t be definitively answered by that study.

The article also gives Gilead’s explanation for why they left out a control group: due to the limited supplies of the drug the company decided to prioritize on producing more of the drug itself rather than a placebo control. It’s an explanation that only makes sense if producing placebo doses was somehow a significant technical challenge, which seems dubious.

Due to a lack of a control group, the study instead focuses on answering the question of whether or not the recovery times for patients differs between groups receiving a 10-day course of the drug vs a 5‑day course. The patients were severely ill but not on ventilators when enrolled in the study (so the patients that need the drug most weren’t tested). The preliminary results released Wednesday suggest there is no difference between the recovery times for the two groups.

1.–The Gilead study lacked a control group: ” . . . . But outside experts in clinical trial design worry that the results, instead of leading to a clear picture of whether the medicine is effective, will instead muddy the waters further. The main concern, they say, stems from the fact that the Gilead trial expected to read out this week, which was conducted among patients with severe disease, lacks a control group — that is, patients who are randomly assigned to receive the best treatment available, but not remdesivir. As designed, the only randomization is the duration of treatment: either five days or 10 days of drug. Without a true control group of patients, many experts say, it will be difficult to determine whether remdesivir is effective. . . .”

2.–The above-mentioned Steven Nissen summed up the usefulness of the Gilead trial. ” . . . . ‘The overall study itself has little or no scientific value since all patients are receiving the drug,’ said Steven Nissen, the chief academic officer at the Cleveland Clinic and lead investigator of many trials for heart drugs that have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. ‘The study, as designed, is essentially useless and cannot be used by the FDA for consideration of remdesivir for approval to treat coronavirus,’ Nissen said. . . .”

3.–Gilead’s spokesperson alleged that the company had a limited supply of placebo and remdesivir. ” . . . . ‘In the early stages of the pandemic, we not only had a limited supply of remdesivir but also a limited supply of the matched placebo required for placebo-controlled studies,’ said Amy Flood, a Gilead spokesperson. ‘We chose to prioritize manufacturing active drug over placebo, and we provided our supply of placebo to China and NIAID for their studies of remdesivir.’ . . .”

5.–A number of critics shared Steven Nissen’s opinion about the scientific value of the study. ” . . . . Critics point to Gilead’s decision to compare two groups given remdesivir for either five days or 10 days. The problem with this strategy, they say, is that an ineffective drug that did nothing and a very effective drug that consistently helped patients overcome the virus would look the same in such a study. Only if the 10-day course were more effective, or if it was worse because of side effects, would the study have any clear result. . . .”

6.–Nissen was more optimistic about a second forthcoming Gilead trial. Sloan Kettering’s Peter Bach did not share that optimism. ” . . . .Yet another trial in less sick patients, also run by Gilead, does have a control group and may give a clearer answer. Nissen sees ‘a reasonable study design.’ But Bach was more critical, saying that even though that study has a control group, the lack of a placebo means the study might not be trustworthy. That’s because its main goal, time to improvement of symptoms, could be affected by the perceptions of clinicians and the patients themselves. Bach said the hospitals conducting the study ‘are easily capable of wrapping syringes in brown paper and blinding the whole thing. I don’t understand why you would run a trial like this.’ . . . .”

Although it was cut short due to the waning of the pandemic in China, a WHO-leaked study was not encouraging with regard to remdesivir’s efficacy as a treatment for Covid-19.

1.–The Chinese study was a ramdomized controlled trial: ” . . . . Encouraging data from patients in that study at the University of Chicago were described by researchers at a virtual town hall and obtained by STAT last week. However, unlike those data, these new results are from a randomized controlled trial, the medical gold standard. . . .”

2.–The Chinese study found that remdesivir was of no value in preventing Covid-19 deaths. As noted above, the effect of the drug on mortality was the main consideration. Our society has not been shut down to afford people shorter stays in the hospital, but to prevent death. ” . . . . According to the summary of the China study, remdesivir was ‘not associated with a difference in time to clinical improvement’ compared to a standard of care control. After one month, it appeared 13.9% of the remdesivir patients had died compared to 12.8% of patients in the control arm. The difference was not statistically significant. . . .”

3.–The Chinese study produced a grim assessment of remdesivir: ” . . . . ‘In this study of hospitalized adult patients with severe COVID-19 that was terminated prematurely, remdesivir was not associated with clinical or virological benefits,’ the summary states. The study was terminated prematurely because it was difficult to enroll patients in China, where the number of Covid-19 cases was decreasing. An outside researcher said that the results mean that any benefit from remdesivir is likely to be small. ‘If there is no benefit to remdesivir in a study this size, this suggests that the overall benefit of remdesivir in this population with advanced infection is likely to be small in the larger Gilead trial,’ said Andrew Hill, senior visiting research fellow at Liverpool University. . . .”

After discussing a number of problems that Gilead Sciences may encounter in the production of significant quantities of remdesivir to be effective, the broadcast concludes with discussion of the inappropriately-named “Scientists to Stop Covid-19.”

The remarkable handling of the NIAID study, the timing of the announcement of the altogether limited success of the attenuated trial, and the rise in equities as a result of the announcement may be best understood in the context of the role played in Trump pandemic decision-making by an elite group of billionaires and scientists–including Peter Thiel and convicted felon Michael Milken (the “junk bond king”).

1.–” . . . . Calling themselves ‘Scientists to Stop COVID-19,’ the collection of top researchers, billionaires and industry captains will act as an ‘ad hoc review board’ for the torrent of coronavirus research, ‘weeding out’ flawed data before it reaches policymakers, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday. They are also acting as a go-between for pharmaceutical companies seeking to build a communication channel with Trump administration officials. The group . . . . has advised Nick Ayers, an aide to Vice President Mike Pence, as well as other agency heads, in the past month. Pence is heading up the White House coronavirus task force. . . .”

2.–” . . . The brainy bunch is led by Thomas Cahill, a 33-year-old doctor who became a venture capitalist . . . . Cahill’s clout comes from building connections through his investment firm, Newpath Partners, with Silicon Valley’s Peter Thiel, the founder of PayPal, and billionaire businessmen Jim Palotta and Michael Milken. . . .”

Note that Thiel played a dominant role in bankrolling Newpath Partners, and the other financial angel who elevated Cahill–Brian Sheth–introduced him to Tommy Hicks, Jr., the co-chairman of the RNC. In FTR #‘s 1111 and 1112, we looked at Hicks’ networking with Steve Bannon associate J. Kyle Bass, as well as his role in the inter-agency networks driving the anti-China effort.

1.–” . . . . At the helm of the effort: The 33-year-old and very-much-under-the-radar venture capitalist Tom Cahill, who leads life sciences-focused Newpath Partners. Cahill completed his M.D. and PhD at Duke University a mere two years ago before landing at blue-chip investment firm Raptor Group through a friend. He went on to found Newpath with some $125 million after impressing well-connected names like venture capitalist Peter Thiel and Vista Equity Partners co-founder Brian Sheth. . . . It was through Sheth, for example, that Scientists to Stop Covid-19 connected with the co-chairman of the Republican National Committee, Thomas Hicks Jr. . . .”

The federal government’s extreme focus on remdesivir has been shaped, in large measure, by the influence of “Scientists to Stop COVID-19”:

1.–“Scientists to Stop Covid-19” is shepherding remdesivir: ” . . . . Scientists to Stop COVID-19 recommends that in this phase, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should work to coordinate with Gilead pharmaceuticals to focus on expediting the results of clinical trials of remdesivir, a drug identified as a potential treatment for COVID-19. The group also recommends administering doses of the drug to patients in an early stage of infection, and notes remdesivir will essentially be a placeholder until a more effective treatment is produced.

2.–The group is doing so by attenuating the regulatory process for coronavirus drugs: “Government entities and agencies appear to adhere to the recommendations outlined by the group, with the Journal reporting that the FDA and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) have implemented some of the suggestions, namely relaxing drug manufacturer regulations and requirements for potential coronavirus treatment drugs. . . .”

We conclude with a piece about the announcement of Grogan’s departure.

” . . . . Grogan has served as the director of the White House Domestic Policy Council since February 2019, overseeing a broad array of policy issues including health care and regulation. . . . Grogan was one of the original members of the White House coronavirus task force launched in late January. . . . Grogan worked as a lobbyist for drug company Gilead Sciences before joining the Trump administration. . . .”

The departure was announced in the Wall Street Journal on the morning of Wednesday, April 29, the same day we got our first public reports of the NIAID clinical trial of remdesivir that was positive enough to show it shortened the time to recovery and the same day the FDA granted remdesivir emergency use status.

Note, again, the timing of the DSMB’s actions, as well as the imfluence of “Scientists to Stop Covid-19.”

FTR #1126 Bio-Psy-Op Apocalypse Now, Part 2: The Democracy-Killing Virus

Posted by Dave Emory ⋅ April 20, 2020 ⋅ 22 comments

We begin a series of programs highlighting various aspects of the “three-dimensional chess” aspect of the Covid-19 “bio-psy-op” we feel is underway. Actually six or seven dimensional chess might be a better way of expressing this analytical concept.

It is of paramount importance for listeners/readers to understand that the conceptual breakdown is for cognitive clarity only. The bio-psy-op” is multi-dimensional in its entirety and must be understood to be a type of “fascist/totalitarian lasagna” with many layers to be consumed.

In this program, we present ways in which the Covid-19 outbreak is subverting democracy, both inside and outside of the United States.

Although he has only flirted with exercising them, to date, Trump does indeed have some emergency powers that can be invoked to further his agenda” ” . . . . The most notable aspect of presidential emergency action documents might be their extreme secrecy. It’s not uncommon for the government to classify its plans or activities in the area of national security. . . . By contrast, we know of no evidence that the executive branch has ever consulted with Congress — or even informed any of its members — regarding the contents of presidential emergency action documents. . . . That is a dangerous state of affairs. The coronavirus pandemic is fast becoming the most serious crisis to face this country since World War II. And it is happening under the watch of a president who has claimed that Article II of the Constitution gives him ‘the right to do whatever I want.’ It is not far-fetched to think that we might see the deployment of these documents for the first time and that they will assert presidential powers beyond those granted by Congress or recognized by the courts as flowing from the Constitution. . . .”

Next, we add that the Bio-Psy-Op Apocalypse is spawning totalitarian manifestations–not surprisingly–at the Department of Justice headed by “ex” CIA officer William Barr. ” . . . . The request raised eyebrows because of its potential implications for habeas corpus — the constitutional right to appear before a judge after arrest and seek release. ‘Not only would it be a violation of that, but it says ‘affecting pre-arrest,’” said Norman L. Reimer, executive director of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. ‘So that means you could be arrested and never brought before a judge until they decide that the emergency or the civil disobedience is over. I find it absolutely terrifying. Especially in a time of emergency, we should be very careful about granting new powers to the government.’ . . .”

It will come as no surprise to veteran listeners, the Pentagon has contingency plans for varying degrees of governmental and/or civic disability. ” . . . . But Coronavirus is also new territory, where the military itself is vulnerable and the disaster scenarios being contemplated — including the possibility of widespread domestic violence as a result of food shortages — are forcing planners to look at what are called ‘extraordinary circumstances’. Above-Top Secret contingency plans already exist for what the military is supposed to do if all the Constitutional successors are incapacitated. Standby orders were issued more than three weeks ago to ready these plans, not just to protect Washington but also to prepare for the possibility of some form of martial law. . . .”

The military’s contingency plans have been partially activated: ” . . . . While being hit with coronavirus at rates equivalent to the civilian population, the U.S. military has activated its ‘defense support of civil authorities’ apparatus, establishing liaisons in all 50 states, activating units and command posts, and moving forces to provide medical, transportation, logistics, and communications support in New York and Washington states. Lt. Gen. Laura Richardson, the command of Army North (ARNORTH), has requested and received approval for the deployment of ground units in response to the now declared national emergency. . . .”

We note, in passing, that, although not in effect at this point, discussion of “martial law” are far more than just social media fodder, to coin a term. ” . . . . Because of so many rumors flying in social media, the Pentagon established a ‘rumor control’ website to beat down stories of military-imposed quarantines and even martial law. And it said it was going to limit details of both the specific numbers of coronavirus cases and operational details. . . .”

Martial law discussion has been spurred by, among other things, Trump’s ruminations about what he can and will do: “. . . . Earlier Saturday, Mr. Trump said that he is considering declaring an ‘enforceable’ quarantine affecting some residents of the New York metropolitan area, possibly including New Jersey and Connecticut. He called the region a ‘hot spot’ of the coronavirus outbreak sweeping the country. . . . Mr. Trump reiterated in his remarks before the send off of the USNS Comfort that he was considering a quarantine of the area. The Comfort is a naval hospital boat which is carrying over 1,000 beds and 1,200 medical personnel to New York City. . . . Using active duty troops to enforce a quarantine would require the president to suspend the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids the use of the armed services for law enforcement. . . .”

Trump has plenty of company: ” . . . . In Hungary, a new law has granted Prime Minister Viktor Orban the power to sidestep Parliament and suspend existing laws. Mr. Orban, who declared a state of emergency this month, now has the sole power to end the emergency. Parliament, where two-thirds of the seats are controlled by his party, approved the legislation on Monday. . . .‘The draft law is alarming,’ said Daniel Karsai, a lawyer in Budapest who said the new legislation had created ‘a big fear’ among Hungarians that ‘the Orban administration will be a real dictatorship.’ . . .”

Orban’s Hungary has been joined by, among others, the long-standing British democracy: ” . . . . some of the provisions . . . . will give the government unchecked control. The legislation gives sweeping powers to border agents and the police, which could lead to indefinite detention and reinforce ‘hostile environment’ policies against immigrants, critics said. ‘Each clause could have had months of debate, and instead it’s all being debated in a few days,’ said Adam Wagner, a lawyer who advises a parliamentary committee on human rights. . . . ‘These are eye-watering powers that would have not been really imaginable in peacetime in this country before,’ said Silkie Carlo, the director of Big Brother Watch, a rights group. She called the measures ‘draconian.’ . . . .”

Privacy is being dramatically curtailed under cover of combatting the virus: ” . . . . As Thomas Gaulkin of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists noted earlier this month, many Americans— often fierce in their objections to perceived government overreach into their lives—might normally object to dystopian images of flying robots policing lockdowns. But these, of course, are not normal times. ‘If drones do begin to hover over U.S. streets to help control this pandemic,’ Gaulkin wrote, ‘it will be yet another visible reminder that we’ve entered a public health Twilight Zone where Americans have no better option than to embrace what was once only imaginable, and never real.’ . . . ”

The alpha predator of the electronic surveillance landscape is Peter Thiel’s Palantir. They have landed two key government contracts in connection with the Covid-19 outbreak:” . . . . Palantir, the $20 billion-valued Palo Alto tech company backed by Facebook-funder Peter Thiel, has been handed a $17.3 million contract with one of the leading health bodies leading the charge against COVID-19. It’s the biggest contract handed to a Silicon Valley company to assist America’s COVID-19 response, according to Forbes’ review of public contracts, and comes as other Californian giants like Apple and Google try to figure out how best to help governments fight the deadly virus. . . . The money, from the federal government’s COVID-19 relief fund, is for Palantir Gotham licenses, according to a contract record reviewed by Forbes. That technology is designed to draw in data from myriad sources and, regardless of what form or size, turn the information into a coherent whole. The ‘platform’ is customized for each client, so it meets with their mission needs, according to Palantir. . . . Palantir Gotham is slightly different to Foundry, a newer product that’s aimed more at general users rather than data science whizzes, with more automation than Gotham. As Forbes previously reported, Foundry is being used by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to ingest information from all manner of hospitals across America to see where best to provide more or less resource. . . . Palantir is now working with at least 12 governments on their responses to coronavirus, according to two sources with knowledge of its COVID-19 work. That includes the U.K.’s National Health Service, which is using Foundry for similar purposes as the CDC. . . .”

Exemplifying the multi-dimensional chess scenario in connection with the “bio-psy-op” is the GOP’s plan to use the Covid-19 outbreak to scapegoat China and tar the Democrats and Joe Biden with the same brush. Of particular note in this regard is the Steve Bannon‑J. Kyle Bass-Tommy Hicks, Jr. triumvirate discussed in–among other programs–FTR #‘s 1111 and 1112.

At the epicenter of the anti-China effort, Bannon is networked with Bass, who is asymmetrically invested with regard to the Hong Kong and Chinese economies. Hicks, in turn, is a co-investor with Bass, co-chairman of the RNC, and one of the prime movers of the interagency governmental networks involved in the anti-China destabilization operation. This networked relationship affords investors like Bass and Hicks the ultimate position from which to profit from “insider” information.

The synthesis of covert operations and electoral politics reminds us of the 1952 election, in which Arthur Bliss Lane occupied a key position in the Crusade For Freedom, as well as the GOP. (We discussed this in AFA #37, and utilized information from, among other sources, Blowback by Christopher Simpson.

Exemplary, as well, of the bio-psy-op as synthesis of covert operation and political crusading is the GOP’s cynical manipulation of emergency appropriations to achieve their longstanding objective of crippling state and local governments, as well as driving the Postal Service into bankruptcy. Privatizing postal service has been a right-wing/GOP objective for a long time. ” . . . . Everyone, and I mean everyone, knows what is really happening: McConnell is trying to get more money for businesses while continuing to shortchange state and local governments. After all, “starve the beast” — forcing governments to cut services by depriving them of resources — has been Republican strategy for decades. This is just more of the same. . . . Oh, and Trump personally has ruled out aid for the Postal Service. . . .”

FTR #1083 AOC and The Immigrant “Psy-Op”: More about Socialists for Trump and Hitler (“The Assistance”)

Posted by Dave Emory ⋅ August 13, 2019 ⋅ 2 comments

Resuming analysis of AOC’s highly questionable credentials, we note the shady circumstances of her victory over long-time incumbent Joe Crowley: ” . . . . she capitalized on an extremely low primary turnout to eek out a 57% vs. 43% (15,897 vs. 11,761) victory. And while it is true that the young candidate deployed an impressive grassroots canvassing strategy, the devil is in the details— including dirty local politics, vitriolic campaign rhetoric, far left agitators, and an intensive Facebook advertising blitz in the lead up to the primary. . . .”

She drew on the support of disgraced and convicted abuser Hiram Monserrate, and deflected criticism with her standard retreat into identity politics: ” . . . . Part of the local controversy revolved around the involvement of disgraced ex-Queens politician Hiram Monserrate. A domestic abuser who spent time in prison on a corruption conviction, Monserrate has feuded with Crowley for years. During their contentious primary, Crowley accused Ocasio-Cortez of seeking support from the ex-con, even speaking at an event held at a Democrat Club he runs in Queens. . . . Monserrate told the New York Post ‘there were a group of us, in the (club) and other community activists I have been working with for years who understood that we would do our part to get rid of Joe Crowley…We were in support of Alexandria’s campaign.’ . . . .”

In our series on Surveillance Valley (FTR #‘s 1075 through 1081) we noted that the Internet is an information weapon, conceived in the context of counterinsurgency and solidified in applications of counter-democracy. The rise and operations of AOC are inextricably linked with the Internet, social media, in particular.

AOC’s campaign drew on Internet resources, and interests outside of her district: ” . . . . In fact, the vast majority of Ocasio-Cortez campaign donations have come from out-of-district and out-of-state. Of particular note is Blue America PAC, a “collaboration between the authors/publishers of DownWithTyranny.com, Hullabaloo.com and CrooksandLiars.com.” The PAC made an $11,000 independent expenditure in opposition to Joe Crowley, creating the website QueensAgainstCrowley.com. . . . The meme-heavy social media pages for the PAC’s various websites pushed out vitriolic blog and social media posts during the primary, using budget graphics with British-English copy to promote hashtags like #AbolishICE #Berniewouldhavewon and #MobBossCrowley. . . .”

Drawing momentum, in part, from foreign trolls and bots, AOC’s signature “Abolish Ice” campaign plays right into the hands of Team Trump and the racist/xenophobic right. ” . . . . . For anyone engaging with Ocasio-Cortez’ social media posts, the foreign bot and troll activity is noticeably synchronized and pervasive. There’s no better example than the #AbolishICE campaign she championed as her number one primary issue and has helped take national. Much of her social media content has focused on the “Abolish ICE solution” to immigration reform while accusing “Boss Crowley” and other Democrats of being “Pro-ICE”. In the one month lead up to the June primary, Ocasio-Cortez’ campaign spent over $80,000 on Facebook advertising — the largest of her expenditures. . . .”

Next, we note AOC has quoted and defended Eva Peron. Although this may well just be another manifestation of identity politics, it is worth noting that Eva Peron (nee Eva Duarte) was a Nazi spy prior to, and during, World War II, and a Bormann/Vatican agent after that:

” . . . . . . . .The all-conquering Evita left Spain for Rome on June 25, 1947. Father Benitez would smooth her way in the Vatican with the aid of Bishop Alois Hudal [one of the key members of the Vatican/Nazi “Ratline”]. Two days after she arrived she was given an audience with pope Pius XII, spending twenty minutes with the Holy Father–“a time usually allotted by Vatican protocol to queens.” However, there was a more sinister side to the Rome trip. Using Bishop Hudal as an intermediary, she arranged to meet Bormann in an Italian villa at Rapallo provided for her use by [Argentine shipping billionaire Alberto] Dodero. The shipowner was also present at the meeting, as was Eva’s brother Juan Duarte. There, she and her former paymaster cut the deal that guaranteed that his Fuhrer’s safe haven would continue to remain safe, and allowed Bormann to leave Europe at last for a new life in South America. . . . ”

Next, the discussion turns to Peter Thiel and his Palantir firm, the alpha predator of the high-tech surveillance jungle. As we have seen and as we will review, there is reason to suspect that “Mr. AOC”–“Subhas Chandra” Chakrabarti–is a Thiel protege.

Palantir is one of the firms pivotally involved with facilitating ICE’s activities: ” . . . . The database created by Palantir uses information pulled from the DHS, FBI and other sources to build profiles of people who have crossed the border, including ‘schooling, family relationships, employment information, phone records, immigration history, foreign exchange program status, personal connections, biometric traits, criminal records, and home and work addresses,’ the Intercept reported last year. . . . . Policing software provided by Palantir and Forensic Logic’s COPLINK program enables Information sharing between ICE and state and local law enforcement. . . . Palantir software has been implemented by DHS fusion centers across California, as well as by police departments in Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Burbank; and sheriff’s departments in Sacramento, Ventura, and Los Angeles counties. The company has received more than $50 million from these agencies since 2009, mostly financed by DHS grants, the report shows. . . .”

We then review substantive evidence of Thiel/Palantir/Chakrabarti networking:

1.–Chakrabarti worked for Bridgewater Associates: ” . . . . After graduating from Harvard, Mr. Chakrabarti worked for a year as a technology associate at the hedge fund Bridgewater Associates, and then moved to Silicon Valley to help found the technology company Stripe. . . .”
2.–Bridgewater Associates was a major source of the venture capital to launch Palantir.
3.–Former FBI director James Comey was the chief counsel for Bridgewater Associates. As FBI director, Comey was instrumental in handling the election to Trump.
4.–It appears that Chakrabarti’s stint as head of product development at Stripe may well have been as a Thiel protege.

Reviewing information from past broadcasts, there are indications that the scapegoating of illegal immigrants by Team Trump is part of a “psy-op,” with AOC helping to generate “black propaganda” by branding the Democratic Party as “Illegal Immigrants R Us.”

In FTR #718, we warned [back in 2010] that Facebook was not the cuddly little entity it was perceived to be but a potential engine of fascism enabling. Momentum for the remarkably timed immigrant caravan that became a focal point for Trump/GOP/Fox News propaganda during the 2018 midterm elections was generated by a fake Facebook account, which mimicked a Honduran politician/human rights activist, Bartolo Fuentes. Significant aspects of the event:

1.–” . . . . Facebook has admitted the account was an imposter account impersonating a prominent Honduran politician. But it is refusing to release information about the account, who may have set it up or what country it originated from. . . .”
2.–” . . . . In response to a query from BuzzFeed News, a Facebook spokesperson said the phony account ‘was removed for violating [the company’s] misrepresentation policy,’ but declined to share any further information, such as what country it originated from, what email address was used to open it, or any other details that might reveal who was behind it. Facebook added that, barring a subpoena or request from law enforcement, it does not share such information out of respect for the privacy of its users. Fuentes said he believes it’s important to find out who was behind the rogue account — but hasn’t gotten any answers from Facebook. ‘Who knows how many messages could have been sent and who received them?’ . . . .”
4.–” . . . . Fuentes has been unable to get any information from Facebook about the account, but one small detail stood out. Whoever created it listed the Honduran capital of Tegucigalpa as Fuentes’s hometown, rather than the San Pedro Sula suburb of El Progreso. That might seem like a minor error, but it’s the sort of mistake a foreigner — not a Honduran — would make about the well-known former lawmaker, whose left-wing party stands in opposition to the current president’s administration. . . . ”
5.–” . . . . It operated entirely in Spanish and precisely targeted influencers within the migrant rights community. And rather than criticize or undermine the caravan — as other online campaigns would later attempt to do — it was used to legitimize the event, making a loosely structured grassroots event appear to be a well-organized effort by an established migrant group with a proven track record of successfully bringing Central American people to the US border. . . .”
6.–” . . . . before the account got started not many people seemed to be joining. Only after the account kicked into gear did enthusiasm and participation spike. The account also claimed falsely that the caravan was being led by a migrant rights organization called Pueblo Sin Fronteras. Later, once the caravan swelled to a massive scale, the Pueblo Sin Fronteras did get involved, though in a support rather than leadership role. . . .”
7.–” . . . . It appears that this account helped the caravan gain key momentum to the point where its size became a self-fulfilling prophecy, spurring even more to join and groups which hadn’t been supportive to get involved. . . .”
8.–” . . . . It’s hard to believe one Facebook account could play that decisive a role. But the account seems to have been sophisticated. And it is equally difficult to believe that a sophisticated operator or organization would have gone to such trouble and limited their efforts to a single imposter account. . . .”

In the summer of 2018, we highlighted the first degree murder charge laid against an “illegal” Mexican migrant worker following the discovery of a deceased white Iowa college girl Mollie Tibbetts. This became propaganda fodder for Team Trump.

We note in this context that:

1.–The announcement of Rivera’s arrest for the Tibbetts murder happened on the same day that Paul Manafort’s conviction was announced and Michael Cohen pleaded guilty. Might we be looking at an “op,” intended to eclipse the negative publicity from the the Manafort/Cohen judicial events?
2.–Rivera exhibited possible symptoms of being subjected to mind control, not unlike Sirhan Sirhan. ” . . . . Investigators say Rivera followed Mollie in his dark Chevy Malibu as she went for a run around 7.30pm on July 18. He ‘blacked out’ and attacked her after she threatened to call the police unless he left her alone, officers said. . . . It is not yet clear how Mollie died. . . . Rivera told police that after seeing her, he pulled over and parked his car to get out and run with her. . . . Mollie grabbed her phone and threatened to call the police before running off ahead. The suspect said that made him ‘panic’ and he chased after her. That’s when he ‘blacked out.’ He claims he remembers nothing from then until he was back in his car, driving. He then noticed one of her earphones sitting on his lap and blood in the car then remembered he’d stuffed her in the truck. . . . ‘He followed her and seemed to be drawn to her on that particular day. For whatever reason he chose to abduct her,’ Iowa Department of Criminal Investigation special agent Rick Ryan said on Tuesday afternoon. . . . ‘Rivera stated that she grabbed her phone and said: ‘I’m gonna call the police.’ . . . . ‘Rivera said he then panicked and he got mad and that he ‘blocked’ his memory which is what he does when he gets very upset and doesn’t remember anything after that until he came to at an intersection.’ . . .”
4.–Just as Sirhan had been in a right-wing milieu prior to the Robert Kennedy assassination, so, too, was Rivera: ” . . . . The prominent Republican family which owns the farm where Mollie Tibbetts’ alleged killer worked have insisted that he passed background checks for migrant workers. Christhian Rivera, 24, who is from Mexico, was charged with first degree murder on Tuesday after leading police to a corn field where Mollie’s body was dumped. Dane Lang, co-owner of Yarrabee Farms along with Eric Lang, confirmed that Rivera had worked there for four years and was an employee ‘of good standing.’ Dane’s brother is Craig Lang, former president of the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation and the Iowa Board of Regents, and a 2018 Republican candidate for state secretary of agriculture. . . .”
5.–Trump cited the Tibbetts murder in a Charleston, West Virginia, rally that day: ” . . . . President Donald Trump chirped in during his Tuesday address at a rally in Charleston, West Virginia, blaming immigration laws for Mollie’s death. ‘You heard about today with the illegal alien coming in very sadly from Mexico,’ he said. ‘And you saw what happened to that incredible beautiful young woman. ‘Should’ve never happened, illegally in our country. We’ve had a huge impact but the laws are so bad. The immigration laws are such a disgrace. ‘We are getting them changed but we have to get more Republicans.’ Gov. Kim Reynolds complained about the ‘broken’ immigration system that allowed a ‘predator’ to live in her state. . . .”

In a transition to our next program, we underscore the decisive role of Glenn Greenwald in paving the legal road for the realization of the “Leaderless Resistance” strategy that dominates the contemporary political landscape.

We note in this context:

Citizen Greenwald’s views on immigration echo those of Donald Trump: “ . . . . ‘The parade of evils caused by illegal immigration is widely known,’ Greenwald wrote in 2005. The facts, to him, were indisputable: ‘illegal immigration wreaks havoc economically, socially, and culturally; makes a mockery of the rule of law; and is disgraceful just on basic fairness grounds alone.’ Defending the nativist congressman Tom Tancredo from charges of racism, Greenwald wrote of ‘unmanageably endless hordes of people [who] pour over the border in numbers far too large to assimilate, and who consequently have no need, motivation or ability to assimilate.’ Those hordes, Greenwald wrote, posed a threat to ‘middle-class suburban voters.’ . . . .”

FTR #1082 Funky Resumes: Update on Socialists for Trump and Hitler (“The Assistance”)

Posted by Dave Emory ⋅ August 6, 2019 ⋅ One comment

In this program, we highlight the disconcerting CV’s of Saikat Chakrabarti, Cenk Uygur, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, as well as PACs and related entities created by Chakrabarti and underpinning AOC. Chakrabarti appears to be a political acolyte of Subhas Chandra Bose, “The Duce of Bengal.” In a YouTube segment defending AOC against criticism, the recently resigned Chakrabarti sported a T‑shirt featuring the likeness of that key Indian fascist.

“Subhas Chandra” Chakrabarti ignited the war within the Democratic Party that he had intended. Noteworthy in his “funky resume” is the fact that he worked for Bridgewater Associates, the world’s largest hedge fund. James Comey was the firm’s chief legal counsel, before moving to head the FBI. His reopening of the Hillary Clinton e‑mail “non-scandal” just before election day helped give Trump the victory.

Following his resignation this past week, “Subhas Chandra” Chakrabarti is now under investigation for his campaign finance activities: ” . . . The inquiry centers on two political action committees founded by Saikat Chakrabarti . . . . The two PACs being probed, Brand New Congress and Justice Democrats, were both set up by Chakrabarti to support progressive candidates across the country. . . . But they funneled more than $1 million in political donations into two private companies that Chakrabarti also incorporated and controlled, according to Federal Election Commission filings and a complaint filed in March with the regulatory agency. In 2016 and 2017, the PACs raised about $3.3 million, mostly from small donors. A third of the cash was transferred to two private companies whose names are similar to one of the PACs — Brand New Congress LLC and Brand New Campaign LLC — federal campaign filings show. . . .”

We suspect that the irregularities in Chakrabarti’s activities and the irregularities in Ocasio-Cortez’s resume and activities were not only deliberately preconceived, but are part of an electoral “Psy-Op” that will get considerable coverage in the 2020 campaign, possibly handing victory to Trump.

“Team AOC” will of, course, cry “racism” via Twitter.

AOC has already been handed Martyr Status by Donald Trump’s attacks, and we believe she may well become the face of the Democratic Party, as Team Trump wishes.

A blog post from “The Medium” notes the fishy elements of AOC’s CV, the questionable activities of the Chakrabarti entities and the indications that “Team AOC” has more in common with the very right-wing elements and individuals that they decry than anything that could be called “progressive:” ” . . . . independent research into her background and funding has revealed ‘Democratic Socialist’ Ocasio-Cortez is neither a progressive Democrat nor a good faith candidate. And for someone with an economics degree — one of the only claims on her resume that checks out — the 28-year-old candidate has a lot to learn about campaign finance and election law. At any other time, Ocasio-Cortez’ myriad red flags — her unlikely victory, antagonistic rhetoric, national amplification, and shady funding — would beg media scrutiny. . . .This new breed of supposed “progressives” — with their radicalized, anti-establishment fervor — appear to have more in common with that far-right insurgency [the Tea Party] than either group has with mainstream American politics. . . . But we are not living in ordinary times — a situation Ocasio-Cortez and her “progressive” posse are all too willing to exploit to accomplish their destructive goals. As natural as any evolution, the “Bernie or Bust” influence operation that infected our 2016 election is alive, well, and adapted for survival. It’s new useful idiots are Ocasio-Cortez and the murky entanglement of two new Political Action Committees (PACs)— founded by The Young Turks’ scandal-plagued host Cenk Uygur and a group of tech-savvy ex-Bernie campaign staffers. . . .”

Questionable aspects of Team AOC include:

1.–Her entrepreneurial pretense, which appears to be illusory.
2.–Her elevation of undergraduate/internship activities to be political posts.
3. –The dubious fabric of her Bronx working class cache: ” . . . . Ocasio-Cortez has claimed to be a ‘third-generation Bronxite’ from a ‘working class’ family. . . . She graduated from the predominately white Yorktown High School located in Yorktown Heights, NY, where the average household income is $141,254 and average household net worth is $1,192,838. . . .”
4.–The fact that she appears to have vetted herself as a candidate: ” . . . . A review of the core staff reveals significant crossover and a musical chairs of board members between the two [PACs]. Ocasio-Cortez assumed a leadership role with Justice Democrats sometime in 2017 — thereby effectively vetting herself for the role of candidate. . . .”
5.–Brand New Congress recruiting candidates to run as Republicans in red districts: ” . . . . Brand New Congress, the PAC we now see Ocasio-Cortez criss-crossing the country helping to promote, has the perplexing mission of ‘attempting to recruit Congressional candidates to run as Republicans in red districts.’ . . .”
6.–The contradictory nature of Team AOC’s activities is encapsulated in the following analytical synopsis: ” . . . . An analysis of FEC filings shows that their network of PACs, LLCs, board and staff navigate in the same legal and ethical grey area their entire “anti-dark money” platform is based on combatting. Beginning with Justice Democrats, the PAC has raised $2,100,399 over the course of the 2017–2018 election season. Yet over that same time period, the PAC has made zero independent expenditures in support of any candidates. In fact, dozens of candidates have instead made payments to Justice Democrats. . . .”
7.–The central role of the “Bernie Bots” in this unsavory activity: ” . . . . A review of disbursements reveals that of the $2,026,298 spent to date, over $600,000 for “strategic consulting” services was directed to Brand New Congress LLC — a business entity controlled by Chakrabarti. Another $1 million in contributions has been directed to ex-Bernie staffers or their firms. This includes $222,000 to Middle Seat Consulting LLC, run by Brand New Congress co-Founder Zack Exley, and about $800,000 in salaries and payroll costs. Because those LLCs have not disclosed financial reports, the public has no way of knowing what that money was used for. . . .”
8.–Brand New Congress also benefiting the Bernie Bots: ” . . . . A review of Brand New Congress PAC filings demonstrate a similar movement of fundraising donations into the pockets of ex-Bernie “consultants”. Of the $477,688 raised, no independent expenditures to candidates were made, yet $261,000 was paid to Brand New Congress LLC and over $100,000 was disbursed as salaries or payroll costs. . . .”

Program Highlights Include:

1.–Review of key points of the fascist activities of “Team Bose.”
2.–Review of Narendra Modi’s fushion of Hindutva fascism with Team Bose.
3.–An overview of Cenk Uygur’s curious resume.
9.–A constellation of highly questionable activities in connection with AOC’s defeat of 10-term Congressman Joe Crowley, such as the role of the “Blue America” PAC, UK English copy: ” . . . . The meme-heavy social media pages for the PAC’s various websites pushed out vitriolic blog and social media posts during the primary, using budget graphics with British-English copy to promote hashtags like #AbolishICE #Berniewouldhavewon and #MobBossCrowley. . . .”

Program Highlights Include:

Review of key points of the fascist activities of “Team Bose.”
Review of Narendra Modi’s fushion of Hindutva fascism with Team Bose.
An overview of Cenk Uygur’s curious resume.

FTR #1081 Surveillance Valley, Part 7: Yasha Levine Gets the Jim Garrison/Gary Webb Treatment

Posted by Dave Emory ⋅ July 30, 2019 ⋅ One comment

We emphasize the treatment afforded Yasha Levine. As might be expected, Levine received the Jim Garrison/Gary Webb treatment. The retribution directed at Yasha Levine epitomizes why Mr. Emory refers to the so-called progressive sector as “so-called.”

” . . . . The threats and attacks had begun sometime overnight while I slept. By morning, they had reached a vicious and murderous pitch. There were calls for my death—by fire, by suffocation, by having my throat slit by razor blades. People I had never met called me a rapist, and alleged that I took delight in beating women and forcing people to have sex with me. I was accused of homophobia. Anonymous people filed bogus claims with my editor. Allegations that I was a CIA agent poured in, as did claims that I worked with British intelligence. The fact that I had been born in the Soviet Union didn’t do me any favors; naturally, I was accused of being an FSB spy and of working for Russia’s successor to the KGB. I was informed that my name was added to a dark net assassination list—a site where people could place anonymous bids for my murder. The roaming eye of the Internet hate machine had suddenly fixed on me. . . .”

In addition to online bullying, slander and veiled and direct threats, the so-called “privacy activists” joined in pillorying Yasha Levine: ” . . . . Micah Lee, the former EFF technologist who helped Edward Snowden communicate securely with journalists and who now works at The Intercept, attacked me as a conspiracy theorist and accused me and my colleagues at Pando of being sexist bullies, he claimed that my reporting was motivated not by a desire to get at the truth but by a malicious impulse to harass a female Tor developer. Although Lee conceded that my information about Tor’s government funding was correct, he counter intuitively argued that it didn’t matter. . . .

” . . . . Journalists, experts, and technologists from groups like the ACLU, the EFF, Freedom of the Press Foundation and The Intercept and employees of the Tor Project joined in to attack my reporting. Unlike Lee, most did not attempt to engage my reporting but employed a range of familiar PR smear tactics—tactics you usually see used by corporate flacks, not principled privacy activists. They took to social media, telling anyone who showed interest in my articles that they should ignore them instead. Then, when that didn’t work, they tried to discredit my reporting with ridicule, misdirection, and crude insults. . . .

” . . . . A respected ACLU privacy expert, who now works as a congressional staffer, called me “a conspiracy theorist who sees black helicopters everywhere” and compared my reporting about Tor to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. As someone who escaped state-sponsored anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union, I found the comparison extremely offensive, especially coming from the ACLU. The Protocols were an anti-Semitic forgery disseminated by the Russian Tsar’s secret police that unleashed waves of deadly pogroms against Jews across the Russian Empire in the early twentieth century. Tor employees put forth a torrent of childish insults, calling me a ‘dumb Stalinist state-felcher’ and a ‘fucktard’s fucktard.’ They accused me of being funded by spies to undermine faith in cryptography. One of them claimed that I was a rapist, and hurled homophobic insults about the various ways in which I had supposedly performed sexual favors for a male colleague.

“In the way that these Internet hazing sessions, go, the campaign evolved and spread. Strange people began threatening me and my colleagues on social media. Some accused me of having blood on my hands and of racking up an “activist body count”–that people were actually dying because of my reporting undermined trust in Tor.The attacks widened to include regular readers and social media users, anyone who had the nerve to ask questions about Tor’s funding sources. An employee of the Tor Project went so far as to dox an anonymous Twitter user, exposing his real identity and contacting his employer in the hopes of getting him fired from his job as a junior pharmacist.

It was bizarre. I watched all this unfold in real time but had no idea how to respond. Even more disconcerting was that the attacks soon expanded to include libelous stories placed in reputable media outlets. The Guardian published a story by a freelancer accusing me of running an online sexual harassment and bullying campaign. The Los Angeles Review of Books, generally a good journal of arts and culture, ran an essay by a freelancer alleging that my reporting was funded by the CIA. Paul Carr, my editor at Pando, lodged official complaints and demanded to know how these reporters came to their conclusions. Both publications ultimately retracted their statements and printed corrections. An editor at the Guardian apologized and described the article as a ‘fuck up.’ But the online attacks continued. . . .”

Program Highlights Include:

1.–The role of Eddie Snowden in misattributing the Shadow Brokers non-hack to Russia.
2.–Snowden’s foreshadowing of the alleged Russian “hack” of the Macron campaign”: ” . . . . ‘That could have significant foreign policy consequences,’ Snowden wrote on Twitter. ‘Particularly if any of those operations targeted US allies. Particularly if any of those operations targeted elections.’ . . .”
3.–James Bamford’s analysis of WikiLeaker/Tor promoter/BBG associate Jacob Apelbaum as the most likely source of the Shadow Brokers non-hack.
The ludicrous nature of the “Russia-did it” hypothesis concerning the Macron hacks: ” . . . . The hacked documents in the ‘Macron hack’ not only contained Cyrillic text in the metadata, but also contained the name of the last person to modify the documents. That name, ‘Roshka Georgiy Petrovichan’, is an employee at Evrika, a large IT company that does work for the Russian government, including the FSB (Russian intelligence.) Also found in the metadata is the email of the person who uploaded the files to ‘archive.org’, and that email address, frankmacher1@gmx.de, is registered with a German free webmail provider used previously in 2016 phishing attacks against the CDU in Germany that have been attributed to APT28. It would appear that the ‘Russian hackers’ not only left clues suggesting it was Russian hackers behind the hack, but they decided to name names this time–their own names. . . .”
4.–Neo-Nazi and Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras associate Andrew Auerenheimer’s role in modifying the documents in the Macron hack: ” . . . . Shortly after an anonymous user of the 4chan.org discussion forum posted fake documents purporting to show Mr. Macron had set up an undisclosed shell company in the Caribbean, the user directed people to visit nouveaumartel.com for updates on the French election. That website, according to research by web-security provider Virtualroad.org, is registered by ‘Weevlos,’ a known online alias of Andrew Auernheimer, an American hacker who gained notoriety three years ago when a U.S. appeals court vacated his conviction for computer fraud. The site also is hosted by a server in Latvia that hosts the Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi news site that identifies its administrator as ‘Weev,’ another online alias of Mr. Aeurnheimer, Virtualroad.org says. ‘We strongly believe that the fake offshore documents were created by someone with control of the Daily Stormer server,’ said Tord Lundström, a computer forensics investigator at Virtualroad.org. . . .”
5.–French cybersecurity chief Guillaume Poupard negated the assertion that Russia hacked the Macron campaign: ” . . . . The head of the French government’s cyber security agency, which investigated leaks from President Emmanuel Macron’s election campaign, says they found no trace of a notorious Russian hacking group behind the attack. . . . ”

FTR #1080 Surveillance Valley, Part 6: Double Agents, Part 2 (Foxes Guarding the Online Privacy Henhouse, Part 3)

Posted by Dave Emory ⋅ July 23, 2019 ⋅ 3 comments

In this program, we resume discussion and analysis of the consummately important recent book Surveillance Valley: The Secret Military History of the Internet by Yasha Levine. In the previous program, we noted, among other points of analysis, the decisive role of Eddie “The Friendly Spook” Snowden in promoting the intelligence-agency crafted Tor network.

In addition to Tor, the Open Technology Fund (read “CIA”) helped finance the Signal app for mobile phones. It, too, is fundamentally compromised. ” . . . . . . . . The Tor project remained the best-known privacy app funded by the Open Technology Fund, but it was quickly joined by another: Signal, an encrypted mobile phone messaging app for the iPhone and Android. . . .”

Not surprisingly, the CIA’s Eddie “The Friendly Spook” Snowden was a big promoter of Signal, as well as Tor: ” . . . . People at the ACLU claimed that Signal made federal agents weep. The Electronic Frontier Foundation added Signal alongside Tor to its Surveillance Self-Defense guide. Fight for the Future, a Silicon Valley-funded privacy activist organization, described Signal and Tor as ‘NSA-proof’ and urged people to use them. Edward Snowden was the combo’s biggest and most famous booster and repeatedly took to Twitter to tell his three million followers that he used Signal and Tor every day, and that they should do the same to protect themselves from government surveillance. ‘Use Tor, Use Signal,’ he tweeted out.

“With endorsements like these, Signal quickly became the go-to app for political activists around the world. Egypt, Russia, Syria, and even the United States—millions downloaded Signal, and it became the communication app of choice for those who hoped to avoid police surveillance. Feminist collectives, anti-President Donald Trump protesters, communists, anarchists, radical animal rights organizations, Black Lives Matter activists—all flocked to Signal. Many were heeding Snowden’s advice: ‘Organize. Compartmentalize to limit compromise. Encrypt everything, from calls to texts (use Signal as a first step.)’ . . . .”

Yasha Levine sums up the fundamental contradictions inherent in this dynamic: ” . . . . If you stepped back to survey the scene, the entire landscape of this new Internet Freedom privacy movement looked absurd. Cold War-era organizations spun off from the CIA now funding the global movement against government surveillance? Google and Facebook, companies that ran private surveillance networks and worked hand in hand with the NSA, deploying government-funded privacy tech to protect their users from government surveillance? Privacy activists working with Silicon Valley and the US government to fight government surveillance—and with the support of Edward Snowden himself? . . . .”

Following Snowden’s promotion of OTF’s Tor and Signal technologies, OTF was at a zenith: ” . . . . After Edward Snowden, OTF was triumphant. It didn’t mention the leaker by name in its promotional materials, but it profited from the crypto culture he promoted and benefited from his direct endorsement of the crypto tools it financed. It boasted that its partnership with both Silicon Valley and respected privacy activists meant that hundreds of millions of people could use the privacy tools the US government had brought to market. And OTF promised that this was just a start: ‘By leveraging social network effects, we expect to expand to a billion regular users taking advantage of OTF-supported tools and Internet Freedom technologies by 2015. . . .’

As eventually became clear, the Tor network was easily breached. It is a safe bet that the fascists grouped around the Pirate Bay site (on which WikiLeaks held forth), had breached Tor’s “secrecy,” in addition to the obvious fact that intelligence services could penetrate it at will.

With this in mind, John Young’s rumination about WikiLeaks sound more and more substantive.

In all probability, WikiLeaks was a huge data mining operation both by the very intelligence agencies who were ostensibly targeted by WikiLeaks, and the Fascist International network around Carl Lundstrom, Daniel Friberg, David Duke et al.

In FTR #‘s 756 and 831 we noted Snowden’s fascist views and connections. Levine merely characterizes him as a “right-wing libertarian,” but there is MUCH MORE TO IT THAN THAT!

Snowden downplayed the fundamental role of the Big Tech firms in aiding and abetting government surveillance, in addition to their own massive surveillance and resultant data mining. ” . . . . There, while living under state protection at an undisclosed location in Moscow, he swept Silicon Valley’s role in Internet surveillance under the rug. Asked about it by Washington Post reporter Barton Gellman, who had first reported on the NSA’s PRISM program, Snowden shrugged off the danger posed by companies like Google and Facebook. The reason? Because private companies do not have the power to arrest, jail, or kill people. ‘Twitter doesn’t put warheads on foreheads,’ he joked. . . .”

Embodying his “corporatist” and Technocratic Fascist point of view, Snowden championed the Big Tech firms as bulwarks against government Internet surveillance, despite the only-too-obvious fact (reinforced by the documents he leaked) that Big Tech is–and always has been–in bed with, and actively collaborating with, the very government intelligence agencies conducting that surveillance: ” . . . . The only islands of safety were the private data centers controlled by private companies—Google, Apple, Facebook. These were the cyber-fortresses and walled cities that offered sanctuary to the masses. In this chaotic landscape, computer engineers and cryptographers played the role of selfless galloping knights and wizard-warriors whose job was to protect the weak folk of the Internet: the young, the old and infirm, families. It was their duty to ride out, weapons aloft, and convey people and their precious data safely from fortress to fortress, not letting any of the information fall into the hands of government spies. He called on them to start a people’s privacy war, rallying them to go forth and liberate the Internet, to reclaim it from the governments of the world. . . .”

The nauseating head of Facebook–Mark Zuckerberg–has decried the intelligence community’s use of the Internet for data mining. In FTR #1077, we highlighted the Cambridge Analytica affair, and Facebook’s full cooperation with that project at every turn.

Other Big Tech firms had similar reactions. “. . . . . ‘We hadn’t even heard of PRISM before yesterday,’ Mark Zuckerberg wrote in a Facebook post. He blamed the government and positioned Facebook as a victim. “I’ve called President Obama to express my frustration over the damage the government is creating for all of our future. Unfortunately, it seems like it will take a very long time for true full reform.’ Apple, Microsoft, Google, and Yahoo! All reacted in much the same way, denying the allegations and painting themselves as the victims of government overreach. ‘It’s tremendously disappointing that the government sort of secretly did all this stuff and didn’t tell us. We can’t have a democracy if we’re having to protect you and our users from the government,’ Larry Page told Charlie Rose in an interview on CBS. . . . .”

We present the conclusion of the main part of the book, with Levine’s summation of the inextricable nature and symbiosis between the Internet, the tech firms and the so-called “privacy community.”

The key points of discussion and analysis of Levine’s book (as a whole) include:

1.–The Internet is a weapon, developed for counter-insurgency purposes.
2.–Big Tech firms network with the very intelligence services they publicly decry.
3.–Big Tech firms that data mine their customers on a nearly unimaginable scale do so as a direct, operational extension of the very surveillance function upon which the Internet is predicated.
4.–The technologies touted by the so-called “Privacy Activists” such as Edward Snowden and Jacob Applebaum were developed by the very intelligence services they are supposed to deflect.
5.–The technologies touted by the so-called “Privacy Activists” such as Edward Snowden and Jacob Applebaum–such as the Tor Internet function and the Signal mobile phone app– are readily accessible to the very intelligence services they are supposed to deflect.
6.–The organizations that promote the alleged virtues of Snowden, Applebaum, Tor, Signal et al are linked to the very intelligence services they would have us believe they oppose.
7.–Big Tech firms embrace “Internet Freedom” as a distraction from their own willful and all-embracing data mining and their ongoing conscious collaboration with the very intelligence services they publicly decry.

NB: Mr. Levine does not go into the fascistic character of Snowden, Assange, Greenwald et al. Some of those shows: Greenwald–FTR #888, Snowden–FTR #‘s 756, 831, Assange and WikiLeaks–FTR #‘s 732, 745, 755, 917.

“. . . . Then there was the fact that Signal ran on Amazon’s servers, which meant that all its data were available to a partner in the NSA’s PRISM surveillance program. Equally problematic, Signal needed Apple and Google to install and run the app on people’s mobile phones. Both companies were, and as far as we know still are, partners in PRISM as well. ‘Google usually has root access to the phone, there’s the issue of integrity,’ writes Sander Venema, a respected developer and secure—technology trainer, in a blog post explaining why he no longer recommends people use Signal for encrypted chat. ‘Google is still cooperating with the NSA and other intelligence agencies. PRISM is also still a thing. I’m pretty sure that Google could serve a specially modified update or version of Signal to specific target for surveillance, and they would be none the wiser that they installed malware on their phones.’ . . .

. . . . So, although the app encrypted the content of people’s messages, it also marked them with a flashing red sign: ‘Follow Me, I Have Something to Hide.’ (Indeed, activists protesting at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia in 2016 told me that they were bewildered by the fact that police seemed to know and anticipate their every move despite their having used Signal to organize. . . .”

” . . . . For many Internet companies, including Google and Facebook, surveillance is the business model. It is the base on which their corporate and economic power rests. Disentangle surveillance and profit, and these companies would collapse. Limit data collection, an the companies would see investors flee and their stock prices plummet. [Italics are mine–D.E.]

“Silicon Valley fears a political solution to privacy. Internet Freedom and crypto offer an acceptable alternative. Tools like Signal and Tor provide a false solution to the privacy problem, focusing people’s attention on government surveillance and distracting them from the private spying carried out by the Internet companies they use every day. All the while, crypto tools give people a [false] sense that they’re doing something to protect themselves, a feeling of personal empowerment and control. And all those crypto radicals? Well, they just enhance the illusion, heightening the impression of risk and danger. With Signal or Tor installed, using an iPhone or Android suddenly becomes edgy and radical. So instead of pushing for political and democratic solutions to surveillance, we outsource our privacy politics to crypto apps–software made by the very same powerful entities that these apps are supposed to protect us from. . . .”

“FascisBook” Update

Peter Thiel’s “Curative” Influence

Thiel and Bannon: “Yellow Peril” in Silicon Valley

FTR #1134 Bio-Psy-Op Apocalypse Now, Part 9: Covid-19 Updates

FTR #1132 Bio-Psy-Op Apocalypse Now, Part 8: Remdesivir Uber Alles

FTR #1126 Bio-Psy-Op Apocalypse Now, Part 2: The Democracy-Killing Virus

FTR #1083 AOC and The Immigrant “Psy-Op”: More about Socialists for Trump and Hitler (“The Assistance”)

FTR #1082 Funky Resumes: Update on Socialists for Trump and Hitler (“The Assistance”)

FTR #1081 Surveillance Valley, Part 7: Yasha Levine Gets the Jim Garrison/Gary Webb Treatment

FTR #1080 Surveillance Valley, Part 6: Double Agents, Part 2 (Foxes Guarding the Online Privacy Henhouse, Part 3)

FROM THE LECTURE SERIES

Recent Comments