The Impeachment Psy-Op: Vichy France (the Democrats) Versus Nazi Germany (The GOP)

The pic­ture at right embod­ies every­thing that is going in Ukraine, and has gone on since the Maid­an coup. THIS is what the impeach­ment pro­ceed­ings are all about–restoring mil­i­tary aid to this ulti­mate, obscene man­i­fes­ta­tion of the Inter­mar­i­um Con­ti­nu­ity (detailed in a four pro­gram For The Record series)– while con­vinc­ing Amer­i­cans that Rus­sia is a mil­i­tary threat that must be dealt with.

FTR #1098, FTR #1099, FTR #1100 and FTR #1101– Fascism: 2019 World Tour, Part 8 (The Intermarium Concept), Fascism: 2019 World Tour, Part 9 (Intermarium Redux: “Will the National Socialist Revolution Begin in Ukraine?”), Fascism: 2019 World Tour, Part 10–The Intermarium Continuity, Fascism: 2019 World Tour, Part 11–The Intermarium Continuity, Part 2 (Reflections on The Pivot Point)

In these pro­grams, we con­tin­ue dis­cus­sion of the Azov milieu and its “Inter­mar­i­um” out­reach, in the con­text of Ukraine as a “piv­ot point” cen­tral to con­trol of the World Island or Earth Island. The evo­lu­tion of the Inter­mar­i­um con­cept is fun­da­men­tal to analy­sis of this phe­nom­e­non.

 Ukraine’s sig­nif­i­cance as a glob­al epi­cen­ter of bur­geon­ing fas­cism extends to the region’s online, ide­o­log­i­cal and icon­ic man­i­fes­ta­tion. Two recent Cana­di­an teens–Kam McLeod and Bry­er Schmegelsky–who appar­ent­ly killed three peo­ple in cold blood were influ­enced by Nazi cul­ture and Azov Bat­tal­ion man­i­fes­ta­tion in par­tic­u­lar. ” . . . . A Steam user con­firmed to The Globe and Mail that he talked to Mr. Schmegel­sky reg­u­lar­ly online. He recalled Mr. McLeod join­ing their chats as well. The user, whom The Globe is not iden­ti­fy­ing, pro­vid­ed pho­tos sent by an account believed to be owned by Mr. Schmegel­sky, show­ing him in mil­i­tary fatigues, bran­dish­ing what appears to be an air­soft rifle – which fires plas­tic pel­lets. Anoth­er pho­to shows a swasti­ka arm­band, and yet anoth­er fea­tures Mr. Schmegel­sky in a gas mask. The pho­tos were report­ed­ly sent in the fall of 2018, but the user said he stopped play­ing online games with Mr. Schmegel­sky ear­li­er this year after he con­tin­ued to praise Hitler’s Ger­many. One account con­nect­ed to the teens uses the logo of the Azov Bat­tal­ion, a far-right Ukrain­ian mili­tia that has been accused of har­bour­ing sym­pa­thies to neo-Nazis. . . .”

Dis­cussing Zbig­niew Brzezin­ski’s doc­trine of con­trol­ling Eura­sia by con­trol­ling the “piv­ot point” of Ukraine. Fun­da­men­tal to this analy­sis is the con­cept of the Earth Island or World Island as it is some­times known.

Brzezin­s­ki, in turn, draws on the geopo­lit­i­cal the­o­ries of Sir Hal­ford Mackinder, and, lat­er con­tem­po­rary Inter­mar­i­um adov­cates such as Alexan­dros Petersen.

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

Most of the three pro­grams high­light­ing the evo­lu­tion and appli­ca­tion of the Inter­mar­i­um con­cept con­sist of read­ing and analy­sis of a long aca­d­e­m­ic paper by Mar­lene Laru­elle and Ellen Rivera. Of para­mount sig­nif­i­cance in this dis­cus­sion is the piv­otal role of Ukrain­ian fas­cist orga­ni­za­tions in the Inter­mar­i­um and close­ly con­nect­ed Promethean net­works, from the post World War I peri­od, through the time between the World Wars, through the Cold War and up to and includ­ing the Maid­an coup.

Mil­i­tary, eco­nom­ic and polit­i­cal net­work­ing has employed the Inter­mar­i­um idea, with what the paper terms the “ide­o­log­i­cal under­pin­nings” stem­ming from the evo­lu­tion of the Ukrain­ian fas­cist milieu in the twen­ti­eth and twen­ty-first cen­turies. Some of the most impor­tant U.S. think tanks and asso­ci­at­ed mil­i­tary indi­vid­u­als and insti­tu­tions embody this con­ti­nu­ity: ” . . . . The con­ti­nu­ity of insti­tu­tion­al and indi­vid­ual tra­jec­to­ries from Sec­ond World War col­lab­o­ra­tionists to Cold War-era anti-com­mu­nist orga­ni­za­tions to con­tem­po­rary con­ser­v­a­tive U.S. think tanks is sig­nif­i­cant for the ide­o­log­i­cal under­pin­nings of today’s Inter­mar­i­um revival. . . .”

Pro­gram High­lights Include: Review of the incor­po­ra­tion of the Gehlen “Org” into the U.S. and West­ern intel­li­gence appa­ra­tus; the key pres­ence of the OUN/B and oth­er East­ern Euro­pean fas­cist groups into the Gehlen out­fit; approval giv­en to Gehlen for his deal with the Amer­i­cans by Admi­ral Doenitz (who suc­ceed­ed Hitler) and Gen­er­al Franz Halder (Gehlen’s “for­mer” chief of staff); the incor­po­ra­tion of the OUN/B/Gehlen/ABN milieu into the Repub­li­can Par­ty via the Cru­sade For Free­dom; the key roles in the CFF played by Richard Nixon, Ronald Rea­gan, William Casey and George H.W. Bush; Allen Dulles and William Dono­van’s wartime col­lu­sion with Nazi Ger­many to craft the Chris­t­ian West enti­ty; the for­ma­tion of the Black Eagle Trust by John J. McCloy, Robert Lovett and Robert B. Ander­son (this assured the con­ti­nu­ity of both Japan­ese fas­cism and Ger­man Nazism in the post­war peri­od).

The Crusade For Freedom and the Assassination of President Kennedy

We have spo­ken for years about The Cru­sade For Free­dom, a covert oper­a­tion with both for­eign and domes­tic venues. Abroad, the CFF was a vehi­cle for financ­ing the use of East­ern Euro­pean Third Reich alum­ni as “fas­cist free­dom fight­ers” in para­mil­i­tary oper­a­tions in the Sovi­et Union and East­ern Europe. Domes­ti­cal­ly, the CFF spawned a Nazi branch of the Repub­li­can Par­ty, with roots in the Third Reich and the Rein­hard Gehlen spy orga­ni­za­tion. Many of CFF’s mem­bers fig­ure in the milieu of the JFK assas­si­na­tion:
” . . . . Mem­bers of the Texas Cru­sade for Free­dom would become a who’s who of Tex­ans con­nect­ed to the events sur­round­ing the assas­si­na­tion of John F. Kennedy. In addi­tion to Neil Mal­lon, mem­bers includ­ed [Paul] Raig­orod­sky, Lewis W. Mac­Naughton, Everette De Goly­er, and Dal­las may­or Ear­le Cabell, broth­er of Charles Cabell, who was Allen Dulles’s deputy CIA direc­tor [fired by JFK for his con­duct in the Bay of Pigs oper­a­tion along with Dulles him­self]. Anoth­er mem­ber was D. Harold Byrd, who owned the build­ing in down­town Dal­las that would become known as the Texas School Book Depos­i­to­ry. Anoth­er mem­ber was E.M. “Ted” Dealey, pub­lish­er of “The Dal­las Morn­ing News,” who was a harsh crit­ic of Kennedy. . . .”

GOP Immigration Policy: ” . . . The Immigration Laws Were Changed to Admit . . . Members of the SS . . . . Nixon Himself Oversaw the . . . Program. . . .”

With Trump hav­ing re-focused atten­tion on GOP immi­gra­tion pol­i­cy with his recent com­ments about Haiti and Nor­way, we review the Cru­sade For Free­dom, an ille­gal domes­tic and for­eign covert oper­a­tion exe­cut­ed by the elite of the post-World War II Repub­li­can Par­ty: Allen Dulles, Richard Nixon, Ronald Rea­gan, William Casey and George H.W. Bush. The pro­gram pro­vid­ed for the legal entry of Nazi SS into the coun­try. ” . . . . There is a very high cor­re­la­tion between CIA domes­tic sub­si­dies to Fas­cist ‘free­dom fight­ers’ dur­ing the 1950’s and the lead­er­ship of the Repub­li­can Party’s eth­nic cam­paign groups. The motive for the under-the-table financ­ing was clear: Nixon used Nazis to off­set the Jew­ish vote for the Democ­rats. . . . In 1952, Nixon had formed an Eth­nic Divi­sion with­in the Repub­li­can Nation­al Com­mit­tee. Dis­placed fas­cists, hop­ing to be returned to pow­er by an Eisen­how­er-Nixon ‘lib­er­a­tion’ pol­i­cy signed on with the com­mit­tee. In 1953, when Repub­li­cans were in office, the immi­gra­tion laws were changed to admit Nazis, even mem­bers of the SS. They flood­ed into the coun­try. Nixon him­self over­saw the new immi­gra­tion pro­gram. . . .” All of the con­tents of this web­site as of 12/19/2014–Dave Emory’s 37+ years of research and broadcasting–as well as hours of video­taped lec­tures are avail­able on a 32GB flash dri­ve. Dave offers his pro­grams and arti­cles for free–your sup­port is very much appre­ci­at­ed. All of the con­tents of this web­site as of 12/19/2014–Dave Emory’s 37+ years of research and broadcasting–as well as hours of video­taped lec­tures are avail­able on a 32GB flash dri­ve. Dave offers his pro­grams and arti­cles for free–your sup­port is very much appre­ci­at­ed.

Gehlen Org Role in 1953 East Berlin Uprising?

An episode of the ear­ly Cold War (I) was an upris­ing in East Berlin in 1953. At least part of the revolt may have been spurred by Nazi (and CIA) spy­mas­ter Rein­hard Gehlen, about whom we have spo­ken and writ­ten so often. “Some of the provo­ca­teurs cap­tured by the Com­mu­nist author­i­ties were too well equipped with blue­prints for sab­o­tage to have man­aged the busi­ness alone,” the intel­li­gence his­to­ri­an Andrew Tul­ly has writ­ten. “Riot­ers had in their pock­ets plans for blow­ing up rail­road bridges and rail­way ter­mi­nals, and detailed floor plans of gov­ern­men­tal build­ings. They had forged food stamps and fake bank drafts to be used to spread con­fu­sion in the food-rationing sys­tem and to dis­rupt East Ger­man bank cred­its. It seemed indis­putable that they were get­ting their espi­onage pay checks from the CIA’s top Ger­man spy . . . Rein­hard Gehlen.” . . . . All of the con­tents of this web­site as of 12/19/2014–Dave Emory’s 37+ years of research and broadcasting–as well as hours of video­taped lec­tures are avail­able on a 32GB flash dri­ve. Dave offers his pro­grams and arti­cles for free–your sup­port is very much appre­ci­at­ed.

FTR #943 The Gehlen Gang, the High-Profile Hacks and the New Cold War

With a new Cold War gain­ing momen­tum and charges of Russ­ian inter­fer­ence in the U.S. elec­tion, this pro­gram takes stock of infor­ma­tion point­ing in the oth­er direc­tion. After review­ing pre­vi­ous dis­cus­sion of why the DNC, John Podes­ta and NSA “hacks” do not with­stand scruti­ny, the broad­cast sets forth infor­ma­tion indi­cat­ing that Ukrain­ian fas­cists and relat­ed ele­ments may well be the authors of a “cyber false-flag” oper­a­tion.

Not only is the so-called “evi­dence” char­ac­ter­is­tic of a rel­a­tive­ly clum­sy false-flag operation–albeit one con­duct­ed on the internet–but the so-called “experts,” link to the milieu of the Rein­hard Gehlen “Org.”

The joint CIA/FBI/NSA declas­si­fied ver­sion of the Intel­li­gence Report on Russ­ian hack­ing came out. There is no sub­stan­tive detail in the report:“ . . . . To sum­ma­rize, the report says that the CIA, FBI, and Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Agency believe that Russ­ian hackers—directed ulti­mate­ly by Vladimir Putin—hacked email accounts belong­ing to the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Nation­al Com­mit­tee and to Clin­ton cam­paign chair­man John Podes­ta and then passed the mate­r­i­al they obtained on to Wik­iLeaks through a third par­ty. This was done, the report asserts, because the Rus­sians believed that Don­ald Trump would be friend­lier to their country’s inter­ests, as pres­i­dent, than Hillary Clin­ton. And … that’s about it. Not count­ing intro pages or appen­dices, the report is five pages long and does not include any descrip­tion of the actu­al evi­dence that Russ­ian actors were respon­si­ble for the DNC/Podesta hacks (an asser­tion that’s sup­port­ed by pub­licly avail­able evi­dence ana­lyzed by third par­ties) or the asser­tion that Putin ulti­mate­ly direct­ed the release of hacked mate­r­i­al in order to help elect Don­ald Trump (an asser­tion that’s hard­er to ver­i­fy inde­pen­dent­ly). . . . .”

The Bit­ly tech­nol­o­gy used in the hacks enabled the entire world to see what was going on! This strong­ly indi­cates a cyber-false flag oper­a­tion: ” . . . . Using Bit­ly allowed ‘third par­ties to see their entire cam­paign includ­ing all their tar­gets— some­thing you’d want to keep secret,’ Tom Finney, a researcher at Secure­Works, told Moth­er­board. It was one of Fan­cy Bear’s ‘gravest mis­takes,’ as Thomas Rid, a pro­fes­sor at King’s Col­lege who has close­ly stud­ied the case, put it in a new piece pub­lished on Thurs­day in Esquire, as it gave researchers unprece­dent­ed vis­i­bil­i­ty into the activ­i­ties of Fan­cy Bear, link­ing dif­fer­ent parts of its larg­er cam­paign togeth­er. . . .”

It should be not­ed that while this report is signed off on by the CIA, NSA, and FBI, the FBI nev­er exam­ined the DNC’s hacked serv­er. Instead, accord­ing to the DNC, the job was out­sourced to Crowd­Strike! Nei­ther the FBI, nor any oth­er U.S. gov­ern­ment enti­ty has run an inde­pen­dent foren­sic analy­sis on the sys­tem! ” . . . Six months after the FBI first said it was inves­ti­gat­ing the hack of the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Nation­al Committee’s com­put­er net­work, the bureau has still not request­ed access to the hacked servers, a DNC spokesman said. No US gov­ern­ment enti­ty has run an inde­pen­dent foren­sic analy­sis on the sys­tem, one US intel­li­gence offi­cial told Buz­zFeed News. . . .The FBI has instead relied on com­put­er foren­sics from a third-par­ty tech secu­ri­ty com­pa­ny, Crowd­Strike, which first deter­mined in May of last year that the DNC’s servers had been infil­trat­ed by Rus­sia-linked hack­ers, the U.S. intel­li­gence offi­cial told Buz­zFeed News. . .‘Crowd­Strike is pret­ty good. There’s no rea­son to believe that any­thing that they have con­clud­ed is not accu­rate,’ the intel­li­gence offi­cial said, adding they were con­fi­dent Rus­sia was behind the wide­spread hacks. . . It’s unclear why the FBI didn’t request access to the DNC servers, and whether it’s com­mon prac­tice when the bureau inves­ti­gates the cyber­at­tacks against pri­vate enti­ties by state actors, like when the Sony Cor­po­ra­tion was hacked by North Korea in 2014. Buz­zFeed News spoke to three cyber­se­cu­ri­ty com­pa­nies who have worked on major breach­es in the last 15 months, who said that it was “par for the course” for the FBI to do their own foren­sic research into the hacks. None want­ed to com­ment on the record on anoth­er cyber­se­cu­ri­ty company’s work, or the work being done by a nation­al secu­ri­ty agency. . . .”

The FBI claims that the DNC denied them access to the servers! Right! Note the promi­nence of Crowd­Strike in this imbroglio. More about them below. ” . . . . The FBI struck back at the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Nation­al Com­mit­tee on Thurs­day, accus­ing it of deny­ing fed­er­al inves­ti­ga­tors access to its com­put­er sys­tems and ham­string­ing its inves­ti­ga­tion into the infil­tra­tion of DNC servers by Rus­sia-backed hack­ers. ‘The FBI repeat­ed­ly stressed to DNC offi­cials the neces­si­ty of obtain­ing direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the ini­tial com­pro­mise had been mit­i­gat­ed. This left the FBI no choice but to rely upon a third par­ty for infor­ma­tion,’ a senior law enforce­ment offi­cial told Buz­zFeed News in a state­ment. ‘These actions caused sig­nif­i­cant delays and inhib­it­ed the FBI from address­ing the intru­sion ear­li­er.’ . . . The war­ring state­ments are the lat­est twists in an extra­or­di­nary stand­off between the Democ­rats and fed­er­al inves­ti­ga­tors that reached a fever pitch over the bureau’s probe into Demo­c­ra­t­ic nom­i­nee Hillary Clinton’s pri­vate email serv­er. . . . The FBI announced it was inves­ti­gat­ing the hack of the DNC’s servers in July, after a third-par­ty com­put­er secu­ri­ty firm, Crowd­strike, said it had evi­dence of Krem­lin-backed hack­ers infil­trat­ing its sys­tem. . . .”

The DNC respond­ed to the FBI’s counter-asser­tion by reassert­ing that it’s giv­ing the FBI full access to what­ev­er it request­ed. If there’s a prob­lem with the FBI get­ting access to that serv­er, it’s a prob­lem between the FBI and Crowd­strike: ” . . . The FBI had pre­vi­ous­ly told law­mak­ers on the Hill that the DNC had not allowed fed­er­al inves­ti­ga­tors to access their servers. After Buz­zFeed News report­ed on Wednes­day that the DNC claimed FBI agents had nev­er asked for the servers, con­gres­sion­al offi­cials pres­sured the FBI for answers. A senior law enforce­ment offi­cial issued a pub­lic state­ment on the mat­ter Thurs­day night. ‘Some­one is lying their ass off,’ a US intel­li­gence offi­cial said of the war­ring state­ments. But offi­cials with the DNC still assert they’ve ‘coop­er­at­ed with the FBI 150%.They’ve had access to any­thing they want. Any­thing that they desire. Any­thing they’ve asked, we’ve coop­er­at­ed,’ the DNC offi­cial said. ‘If any­body con­tra­dicts that it’s between Crowd­strike and the FBI.’ . . .With­out direct access to the com­put­er net­work, anoth­er US intel­li­gence offi­cial told Buz­zFeed, fed­er­al inves­ti­ga­tors had been forced to rely on the find­ings of the pri­vate cyber­se­cu­ri­ty firm Crowd­strike for com­put­er foren­sics. From May through August of 2016, the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Nation­al Com­mit­tee paid Crowd­strike $267,807 dol­lars for main­te­nance, data ser­vices and con­sult­ing, among oth­er things, accord­ing to fed­er­al records. . . .”

An impor­tant arti­cle under­scores that many tech experts dis­agree with the gov­ern­men­t’s so-called analy­sis: ” . . . . Yet despite the scores of breath­less media pieces that assert that Russia’s inter­fer­ence in the elec­tion is ‘case closed,‘might some skep­ti­cism be in order? Some cyber experts say ‘yes.’ . . . Cyber-secu­ri­ty experts have also weighed in. The secu­ri­ty edi­tor at Ars Tech­ni­ca observed that ‘Instead of pro­vid­ing smok­ing guns that the Russ­ian gov­ern­ment was behind spe­cif­ic hacks,’ the gov­ern­ment report ‘large­ly restates pre­vi­ous pri­vate sec­tor claims with­out pro­vid­ing any sup­port for their valid­i­ty.’ Robert M. Lee of the cyber-secu­ri­ty com­pa­ny Dra­gos not­ed that the report ‘reads like a poor­ly done ven­dor intel­li­gence report string­ing togeth­er var­i­ous aspects of attri­bu­tion with­out evi­dence.’ Cyber­se­cu­ri­ty con­sul­tant Jef­frey Carr not­ed that the report ‘mere­ly list­ed every threat group ever report­ed on by a com­mer­cial cyber­se­cu­ri­ty com­pa­ny that is sus­pect­ed of being Russ­ian-made and lumped them under the head­ing of Russ­ian Intel­li­gence Ser­vices (RIS) with­out pro­vid­ing any sup­port­ing evi­dence that such a con­nec­tion exists.’ . . .”

CrowdStrike–at the epi­cen­ter of the sup­posed Russ­ian hack­ing con­tro­ver­sy is note­wor­thy. Its co-founder and chief tech­nol­o­gy offi­cer, Dmit­ry Alper­ovitch is a senior fel­low at the Atlantic Coun­cil, financed by ele­ments that are at the foun­da­tion of fan­ning the flames of the New Cold War: “In this respect, it is worth not­ing that one of the com­mer­cial cyber­se­cu­ri­ty com­pa­nies the gov­ern­ment has relied on is Crowd­strike, which was one of the com­pa­nies ini­tial­ly brought in by the DNC to inves­ti­gate the alleged hacks. . . . Dmitri Alper­ovitch is also a senior fel­low at the Atlantic Coun­cil. . . . The con­nec­tion between [Crowd­strike co-founder and chief tech­nol­o­gy offi­cer Dmitri] Alper­ovitch and the Atlantic Coun­cil has gone large­ly unre­marked upon, but it is rel­e­vant giv­en that the Atlantic Council—which is is fund­ed in part by the US State Depart­ment, NATO, the gov­ern­ments of Latvia and Lithua­nia, the Ukrain­ian World Con­gress, and the Ukrain­ian oli­garch Vic­tor Pinchuk—has been among the loud­est voic­es call­ing for a new Cold War with Rus­sia. As I point­ed out in the pages of The Nation in Novem­ber, the Atlantic Coun­cil has spent the past sev­er­al years pro­duc­ing some of the most vir­u­lent spec­i­mens of the new Cold War pro­pa­gan­da. . . . ”

There was an update back in Decem­ber from the Ger­man gov­ern­ment regard­ing its assess­ment of the 2015 Bundgestag hacks (attrib­uted to “Fan­cy Bear” and “Cozy Bear,” as men­tioned in the San­dro Gay­ck­en post above) that it attrib­uted to APT28 and Rus­sia: while it asserts the hacks did indeed take place, the leaked doc­u­ments were lat­er deter­mined to be an insid­er leak (via Google trans­late). “ . . . . Accord­ing to the report, fed­er­al secu­ri­ty author­i­ties are con­vinced that not hack­ers had stolen the 2420 doc­u­ments pub­lished by the Inter­net plat­form Wik­ileaks in ear­ly Decem­ber. There was cer­tain­ly no evi­dence that the mate­r­i­al had been stolen in the cyber attack on the Bun­destag in 2015, it was called into secu­ri­ty crises. . . . ”

Anoth­er arti­cle details at length the skep­ti­cism and out­right scorn many cyber­se­cu­ri­ty experts feel con­cern­ing the report. ” . . . . Did the Russ­ian gov­ern­ment hack the DNC and feed doc­u­ments to Wik­iLeaks? There are real­ly two ques­tions here: who hacked the DNC, and who released the DNC doc­u­ments? These are not nec­es­sar­i­ly the same. An ear­li­er intru­sion into Ger­man par­lia­ment servers was blamed on the Rus­sians, yet the release of doc­u­ments to Wik­iLeaks is thought to have orig­i­nat­ed from an insid­er. [35] Had the Rus­sians hacked into the DNC, it may have been to gath­er intel­li­gence, while anoth­er actor released the doc­u­ments. But it is far from cer­tain that Russ­ian intel­li­gence ser­vices had any­thing to do with the intru­sions. Julian Assange says that he did not receive the DNC doc­u­ments from a nation-state. It has been point­ed out that Rus­sia could have used a third par­ty to pass along the mate­r­i­al. Fair enough, but for­mer UK diplo­mat Craig Mur­ray asserts: ‘I know who the source is… It’s from a Wash­ing­ton insid­er. It’s not from Rus­sia.’ [We won­der if it might have been Tul­si Gabbard–D.E.] [36] . . . .”

Exem­pli­fy­ing some of the points of dis­sen­sion in the above-linked sto­ry: ” . . . . Cyber­se­cu­ri­ty ana­lyst Robert Gra­ham was par­tic­u­lar­ly blis­ter­ing in his assess­ment of the government’s report, char­ac­ter­iz­ing it as “full of garbage.” The report fails to tie the indi­ca­tors of com­pro­mise to the Russ­ian gov­ern­ment. ‘It con­tains sig­na­tures of virus­es that are pub­licly avail­able, used by hack­ers around the world, not just Rus­sia. It con­tains a long list of IP address­es from per­fect­ly nor­mal ser­vices, like Tor, Google, Drop­box, Yahoo, and so forth. Yes, hack­ers use Yahoo for phish­ing and mal­ad­ver­tis­ing. It doesn’t mean every access of Yahoo is an ‘indi­ca­tor of com­pro­mise’.’ Gra­ham com­pared the list of IP address­es against those accessed by his web brows­er, and found two match­es. ‘No,’ he con­tin­ues. ‘This doesn’t mean I’ve been hacked. It means I just had a nor­mal inter­ac­tion with Yahoo. It means the Griz­zly Steppe IoCs are garbage. . . .”

The source code used in the attacks traces back to Ukraine! ” . . . . In con­junc­tion with the report, the FBI and Depart­ment of Home­land Secu­ri­ty pro­vid­ed a list of IP address­es it iden­ti­fied with Russ­ian intel­li­gence ser­vices. [22] Word­fence ana­lyzed the IP address­es as well as a PHP mal­ware script pro­vid­ed by the Depart­ment of Home­land Secu­ri­ty. In ana­lyz­ing the source code, Word­fence dis­cov­ered that the soft­ware used was P.A.S., ver­sion 3.1.0. It then found that the web­site that man­u­fac­tures the mal­ware had a site coun­try code indi­cat­ing that it is Ukrain­ian. [Note this!–D.E.] The cur­rent ver­sion of the P.A.S. soft­ware is 4.1.1, which is much new­er than that used in the DNC hack, and the lat­est ver­sion has changed ‘quite sub­stan­tial­ly.’ Word­fence notes that not only is the soft­ware ‘com­mon­ly avail­able,’ but also that it would be rea­son­able to expect ‘Russ­ian intel­li­gence oper­a­tives to devel­op their own tools or at least use cur­rent mali­cious tools from out­side sources.’ To put it plain­ly, Word­fence con­cludes that the mal­ware sam­ple ‘has no appar­ent rela­tion­ship with Russ­ian intel­li­gence.’ . . .”

The pro­gram con­cludes with a fright­en­ing piece of leg­is­la­tion signed into law by Barack Oba­ma in Decem­ber. It is an omi­nous por­tent of the use of gov­ern­ment and mil­i­tary pow­er to sup­press dis­sent­ing views as being “Russ­ian” pro­pa­gan­da tools! “. . . . The new law is remark­able for a num­ber of rea­sons, not the least because it merges a new McCarthy­ism about pur­port­ed dis­sem­i­na­tion of Russ­ian ‘pro­pa­gan­da’ on the Inter­net with a new Orwellian­ism by cre­at­ing a kind of Min­istry of Truth – or Glob­al Engage­ment Cen­ter – to pro­tect the Amer­i­can peo­ple from ‘for­eign pro­pa­gan­da and dis­in­for­ma­tion.’ . . . As part of the effort to detect and defeat these unwant­ed nar­ra­tives, the law autho­rizes the Cen­ter to: ‘Facil­i­tate the use of a wide range of tech­nolo­gies and tech­niques by shar­ing exper­tise among Fed­er­al depart­ments and agen­cies, seek­ing exper­tise from exter­nal sources, and imple­ment­ing best prac­tices.’ (This sec­tion is an appar­ent ref­er­ence to pro­pos­als that Google, Face­book and oth­er tech­nol­o­gy com­pa­nies find ways to block or brand cer­tain Inter­net sites as pur­vey­ors of ‘Russ­ian pro­pa­gan­da’ or ‘fake news.’) . . .”

Pro­gram High­lights Include: review of infor­ma­tion from pre­vi­ous pro­grams link­ing the dis­in­for­ma­tion about the high-pro­file hacks to the milieu of Ukrain­ian fas­cism; review of Alexan­dra Chalu­pa’s role in dis­sem­i­nat­ing the “Rus­sia did it” meme; review of “Eddie the Friend­ly Spook” Snow­den’s role in the dis­in­for­ma­tion about the high-pro­file hacks; the imple­men­ta­tion of a fright­en­ing new law autho­riz­ing the Pen­ta­gon and oth­er gov­ern­ment agen­cies to act to counter any infor­ma­tion seen as “Russ­ian pro­pa­gan­da.”

FTR # 914 and FTR #915; Interviews with Gerrard Williams (#‘s 1 and 2), Co-Author of “Grey Wolf: The Escape of Adolf Hitler”

FTR #‘s 914 and 915 fea­ture for­mer BBC and Reuters jour­nal­ist Ger­rard Williams, devel­op­ing mate­r­i­al he pre­sent­ed in his book (co-authored with mil­i­tary his­to­ri­an Simon Dun­stan) “Grey Wolf: The Escape of Adolf Hitler.”

An appar­ent deal between Sul­li­van & Cromwell attor­ney turned spy Allen Dulles and Mar­tin Bor­mann lies at the core of the Hitler escape, code-named “Aktion Feuer­land” (Oper­a­tion Land of Fire). In exchange for spar­ing the art loot­ed by the Reich and grant­i­ng the West­ern Allies access to Nazi mil­i­tary tech­nol­o­gy, Hitler’s escape along with those of Eva Braun, Mar­tin Bor­mann and Gestapo chief Hein­rich Muller were arranged. In addi­tion, the SS and Gestapo-staffed Rein­hard Gehlen spy out­fit was also one of the “car­rots” made avail­able to the West in this deal.

The poten­tial “sticks” were the full acti­va­tion of the Nazi Were­wolf gueril­las to make life mis­er­able for occu­pa­tion forces, the destruc­tion of the creme of West­ern art and a dis­in­for­ma­tion gam­bit pre­sent­ing a Nazi oper­a­tion to use U‑boat launched V‑1 mis­siles filled with nerve gas against New York. (The lat­ter drew U.S. Navy anti-sub­ma­rine forces away from the planned south­ern Atlantic route for Hitler’s U‑boat escape.)

Because Allen Dulles faced pros­e­cu­tion for his oper­a­tions on behalf of Third Reich indus­tri­al con­cerns, Dulles joined forces with Bor­mann. Using the exten­sive Nazi pres­ence in Argenti­na, Bor­mann and Muller suc­cess­ful­ly spir­it­ed Hitler and Eva Braun out of Ger­many.

Much of FTR #915 deals with the re-estab­lish­ment of Nazis in pow­er in the “new” Fed­er­al Repub­lic and the role of Mar­tin Bor­mann direct­ing that gov­ern­ment from afar. The role of the Nazis and the Gehlen spy out­fit in par­tic­u­lar in the Cold War is a pri­ma­ry focus of FTR #915.

Pro­gram High­lights Include: the foun­da­tion­al role of the German/American cor­po­rate links in the real­iza­tion of “Aktion Feuer­land;” the role of Eva Per­on (“Evi­ta”) as a Nazi spy pri­or to, and dur­ing, World War II; Evi­ta’s role as a func­tionary of the post­war Bor­mann cap­i­tal net­work; the revenge tak­en by Muller on mem­bers of Juan and Eva Per­on’s con­tin­gent for extort­ing mon­ey from the Bor­mann net­work; famed espi­onage nov­el­ist Ian Flem­ing’s role as a British com­man­do secur­ing both art and Nazi mil­i­tary tech­nol­o­gy as the Nazi armies retreat­ed; main­stream press accounts of Hitler’s escape and post­war activ­i­ties; the con­tin­ued redac­tion and with­hold­ing of doc­u­ments about Hitler’s post­war pres­ence; death threats direct­ed against some of the authors’ sources; review of the Vat­i­can-linked “Rat­lines” in the escape of Nazi lumi­nar­ies; details of the fak­ing of the death of Mar­tin Bor­mann; the use of dou­bles for Hitler and Eva Braun in Aktion Feuer­land; pres­sure from right-wing Ger­man sources on the authors, attempt­ing to sup­press the inves­ti­ga­tion; the fak­ing of the “DNA test” on Bor­man­n’s “corpse”; the role of Nazis in man­ag­ing the Cold War.

Jaroslav Stetsko’s Personal Secretary Serves as the Azov Battalion’s Spokesman

The spokesman–and apologist–for the Nazi Azov Bat­tal­ion in Ukraine is Roman Zvarych. Zvarych was the per­son­al sec­re­tary to Jaroslav Stetsko–the head of the World War II Nazi col­lab­o­ra­tionist OUN/B gov­ern­ment. Azov is now receiv­ing U.S. gov­ern­ment fund­ing. All of the con­tents of this web­site as of 12/19/2014–Dave Emory’s 35+ years of research and broadcasting–as well as hours of video­taped lec­tures are avail­able on a 32GB flash dri­ve. Dave offers his pro­grams and arti­cles for free–your sup­port is very much appre­ci­at­ed.

FTR #902 The Underground Reich, and the Deep Politics of the CIA “Privacy Advocates”: Update on the Adventures of Eddie the Friendly Spook

The mafia began as a resis­tance move­ment focused against Norse (Viking) and Sara­cen (Turkish/Muslim) invaders in 12th and 13 cen­tu­ry Sici­ly. It might seem incred­i­ble to the casu­al observ­er that an orga­ni­za­tion that began so long ago could have devel­oped and spread to the size, grav­i­tas and scope of oper­a­tions that it has. We also appre­ci­ate that when Mr. Emory uses the term “Under­ground Reich,” it might seem odd or incred­i­ble to many. Bring­ing up to date “L’Af­faire Snow­den,” we under­score the deep pol­i­tics under­ly­ing the CIA’s broad­cast psy­cho­log­i­cal war­fare fronts and their evo­lu­tion into the milieu involv­ing and sur­round­ing Eddie the Friend­ly Spook. Much of the mate­r­i­al in this pro­gram is reviewed from pre­vi­ous broad­casts, pre­sent­ed here to pro­vide depth and under­stand­ing to how what has been pre­sent­ed as a “pro­gres­sive,” “enlight­ened” phe­nom­e­non could be its oppo­site. “Team Snow­den” man­i­fests fas­cism and the Under­ground Reich at every turn. A major ele­ment of analy­sis is the devel­op­ment of the CIA’s focal point net­works in the 1950’s, result­ing in the for­ma­tion of a CIA-con­trolled “gov­ern­ment-with­in-the-gov­ern­ment.” Is “Team Snow­den” evolved from the focal point net­works? Next the broad­cast reviews the for­ma­tion of the Broad­cast Board of Gov­er­nors, an umbrel­la orga­ni­za­tion enfold­ing the CIA’s radio pro­pa­gan­da and psy­cho­log­i­cal fronts formed dur­ing the Cold War. “Team Snow­den” is inex­tri­ca­bly linked with the BBG–Snowden him­self worked for CIA when he decid­ed to infil­trate NSA and leak its secrets. In that con­text, we note that the Gehlen orga­ni­za­tion was at the foun­da­tion of the for­ma­tion of the propaganda/psychological war­fare fronts under the direc­tion of the BBG. Much of the pro­gram under­scores the Gehlen Org’s links to the Under­ground Reich, in order to rein­force lis­ten­ers’ under­stand­ing of how this net­work dat­ing to World War II could project its influ­ence through the decades and into our con­tem­po­rary his­tor­i­cal peri­od. ” . . . A net­work of for­mer Nazi intel­li­gence agents, the major­i­ty of whom were mem­bers of the SS, began work­ing out of offices at Camp King side by side with army intel­li­gence offi­cers. . . . The Gehlen Orga­ni­za­tion was a mur­der­ous bunch, “free-wheel­ing” and out of con­trol. . . The army became fed up with the Gehlen Orga­ni­za­tion, but there was no way out. Its oper­a­tives were pro­fes­sion­al dou­ble-crossers and liars–many were also alleged war criminals–and now they had the army over a bar­rel. . . .” Dis­cus­sion con­cludes with “First Look” media czar Pierre Omid­yar’s selec­tion of Robert Liet­zke to be an Omid­yar fel­low (Liet­zke was one of Edward Snow­den’s supe­ri­ors when he was employed at Booz Allen Hamil­ton.) Pro­gram High­lights Include: Review of the Cru­sade For Freedom–the covert oper­a­tion that pre­cip­i­tat­ed the for­ma­tion of the Nazi wing of the GOP; the CFF’s use of Radio Lib­er­ty as a front for employ­ing fas­cists and laun­der­ing funds; the con­ti­nu­ity in the Nazi chain of com­mand from the Third Reich to the Gehlen orga­ni­za­tion when it went to work for the U.S.; the Gehlen orga­ni­za­tion’s strong links to the Bor­mann cap­i­tal net­work; the strong over­lap of the Thyssen indus­tri­al fam­i­ly, its busi­ness part­ners in the Bush fam­i­ly, Allen Dulles’ CIA and the Bor­mann net­work; the Gehlen group’s ini­tial re-incar­na­tion as the eyes and ears of Army intel­li­gence.

FTR #894 Physicians, Heal Thyselves: Hypocrisy and the Trump Campaign

From the Repub­li­can Par­ty to Euro­pean polit­i­cal and intel­lec­tu­al elites to “The New York Times,” every­one is “shocked, shocked” at the fascis­tic nature of the Trump can­di­da­cy. They should­n’t be–his can­di­da­cy is the direct out­growth of pow­er­ful forces that have been at work in this coun­try for decades. After high­light­ing two op-ed pieces from the “Times,” accu­rate­ly not­ing the vir­u­lent fas­cism at the root of the Trump phe­nom­e­non, the broad­cast notes that nei­ther Europe, where fas­cism is on the march once again, nor the Amer­i­can so-called “pro­gres­sive sec­tor,” which has embraced the “Eddie the Friend­ly Spook,” Glenn Green­wald and Julian Assange are in a posi­tion to com­plain. Snow­den, Green­wald, Assange et al embody PRECISELY the same forces per­co­lat­ing at the sur­face of the Trump waters. Much of the broad­cast con­sists of excerpts of an impor­tant new book: “The Dev­il’s Chess­board: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of Amer­i­ca’s Secret Gov­ern­ment” by David Tal­bot. In that wor­thy vol­ume, Tal­bot chron­i­cles the role of the Dulles broth­ers and Sul­li­van and Cromwell in the cap­i­tal­iza­tion of Hitler’s Ger­many and the cov­er-up of the Nazi flight cap­i­tal pro­gram, Dulles’s long col­lab­o­ra­tion with Nazi Gen­er­al Rein­hard Gehlen, Gehlen’s pur­suit (with Dulles) of the Cold War as a con­tin­u­a­tion of Hitler’s war against the U.S.S.R., the Dulles/Gehlen col­lab­o­ra­tion in the for­ma­tion of the fas­cist net­works known as “Stay Behind/Gladio.” The pro­gram con­cludes with review of the Cru­sade For Free­dom, a Dulles project which cul­mi­nat­ed in the for­ma­tion of a Nazi branch of the GOP. Pro­gram High­lights Include: the gen­e­sis of the Bor­mann net­work and its appar­ent col­lab­o­ra­tion with the Dulles net­works; Prescott Bush, Sr.‘s role as the Sen­ate’s liai­son with Dulles’s CIA; the roles of Richard Nixon, Ronald Rea­gan, William Casey and George H.W. Bush with the Cru­sade For Free­dom; “The New York Times” and its own incor­po­ra­tion of Third Reich alum­ni as part of its col­lab­o­ra­tion with CIA.