Monday, November 26, 2012

Evelyn Gilbert

International financial scandals


  1. Petraeus was Obama's Rommel: his meteoric career was largely the product of political P.R. Webster Tarpley has a dossier of the ranking officers who were fired, demoted, or transferred in the "Night of the Long Knives" that followed Obama's triumph in the presidential selection:
    On the subject of the Munich Massacre, Dave Emory has exposed the German "Neo"-Nazi and Bundesrepublik elements that assisted the mysterious "Black September" organization in the 1972 Olympics attacks that killed 11 Israelis, 5 Palestinians, and one German policeman: "When the Black Sep­tem­ber ter­ror­ists left the Olympic site in heli­copters in order to fly to the air­port to meet their plane, there were 5 terrorists. When the stand-off and shoot­ings hap­pened at the air­port, there were sud­denly 8 ter­ror­ists."--

    1. Emory believes everything is attributable to Borman's group. Here I think he is mistaken. Why would Borman want to kill Israelis? According to Emory and others Borman's group and the Israelis cooperated on a number of things [Odessa, for example], is this an example of cooperation or betrayal?

      Two Mossad defectors[?], Viktor Ostrosky and Ari Ben Menasi [hope I have the names right], have identified a number of terrorist attacks attributed to Arabs as the handiwork of the Mossad. Munich, Archille Lauro and others. Killing Israeli athletes was a great propaganda boost for Israel, not Palestinians. Moreover, we now know that the person in the Red Brigade who provided the weapons was working for Langley. The latter says that it had to let the operation go ahead or they would have blown their mole's cover, I say it was a Western intel' operation from the get-go.

      I distrust Emory immensely. He has pointed the finger at just abt everybody with whom he has workede [Judge, Constantine, Nip Tuck...], and mostly all he does is read stuff that has already been published and spins it away from the ruling class and onto the Borman bogeyman, putting the cart before the horse. He doesn't seem to understand that fascism was just one of capital's marketing campaigns, not an organic movement of power-hungry anti-semites.

      A great example of this is former[?] intel' agent John Loftus' book "The Secret War Against the Jews." It is chock full of inanities! Loftus spins everything in favor of Jews and insists that the US government's policies have been harmful to Jewish interests. There are so many obscenities in this book I don't know where to begin--there are lies on every page. Just to pick one among the millions, Loftus insists that hitler's Jewish intelligence organization, the Max group, was secretly working for the Soviets. This of course exonerates the Zionists from their cooperation with the Nazis as, according to him [and him alone] they werent really working for but against the Nazis. The evidence against Loftus' novel theory is copious indeed, too much so to go into here. But in support of his claim Loftus said that the Max network in 1944 had convinced Hitler and his generals that the Red Army was on the verge of collapse and that it was this false info that led Hitler to attack at Kursk.

      This is just insane! There is no way that anybody could believe in '44 thyat the Red army was in shambles, they had just won several important battles and were advancing all along the front. They had the Germans on the run before '44, anyone who uust looks at a timeline will know Loftus is full of shit, yet Emory just gushes over Loftus and this book. Emory has interviewed Loftus on his show and never challenges Loftus' outrageous claims.

      Either Emory is the greatest fool who ever lived or a liar, I'm guessing the latter.

    2. Dave, thanks for holding my feet to the fire. Dave Emory's faith in John Loftus is puzzling to me too: Loftus is currently promoting John Bolton(!) on his website at I was listening to one of Emory's archived programs today, and he was repeating the same disinfo that the Red Brigades' operations were a case of "the fascist Right and revolutionary Left having a marriage of interests". I agree with you: the Red Brigades was a Western intel op from the get-go, and you can see that in the BBC Timewatch documentary on Operation Gladio

      In Emory's defense, his interviews with Loftus were almost a decade ago; and maybe he didn't read Loftus's The Secret War Against the Jews. There is so much information that Emory has made available in one place, though, and that dovetails nicely with that of other sources I've encountered over the years and that seems to have great explanatory power in view of current history, that I would have to question whether providing this would be something that would serve the interests of any of the global powers at all, including the State of Israel. Emory believes that the Zionist state takes its marching orders from the Nazi underground. Although Emory thinks that the Nazi homeland is still in Germany, he insists that the original architects of German Nazism were mostly American and British, and that the architectural firm, as it were, is still firmly planted in the US. It was certainly the case that Bormann, as unchallenged financial czar of the Reich, moved a lot of Nazi funds and financial talent abroad. If you're a capitalist and the system that sustains you is approaching a state of imminent collapse, wouldn't you have welcomed thousands of people with experience running an actual corporatist state and a fascist Gestapo - especially if they also offered a share in the plunder? And wouldn't those same thousands find their power and influence growing as the value of their expertise grew with the deepening of the quagmire?

  2. part 1

    For what it is worth, this comment is dedicated to Anya Politkovskaya and Andrei Litvinenko and those who died in the series of 9/11-type attacks engineered by Bloody Vladimir Putin, or, like the aforesaid, died investigating and revealing the crimes of one of the worst terrorists in history.

    I only listened to the first thirty minutes or so of this broadcast as it was all I could stand.

    The guest states that there is no question that Jews were killed because they were Jews. But that is precisely what is in dispute. She is entitled to her opinion, but not to state it as fact. Many, many Jews in Nazi-occupied territory were never rounded up and sent to camps [a tiny percentage of French Jews were sent to camps] and were still in place when Germany surrendered. Just about all of these were Zionists. By contrast, Leftists, not limited to but including Jews were sent to the camps and didn't survive. If you look at this racially one has to account for the great number of Jews who survived [not to mention those whom thre Nazis helped to migrate]. However if you look at this politically then everything, every twist and turn in Nazi policy, makes perfect sense. I do not believe Jews were killed because they were Jews

    re John L. mean Bibi Netanyahu, may I present a lesson in geo-politics: The US has beenh and remains Israel's protector, without our help, she wouldn't survive a day. The enormous aid we provide that fascist, racist state rankles some folks here in the US. Consequently, when it is expedient, a false conflagration is staged. Netanyahu criticizes Obama in the hope of helping him win reelection. Every prezzie since Israel's founding, has given it everything it has needed and more, OBAMA IS NO EXCEPTION. His Mideast policy has BEEN THE SAME AS HIS PREDECESSORS. The point of the mock flare-up is to make stupid people in the US think that Obama is resisting Israel's aggression when, as is obvious to anybody with any intelligence, that is obviously not the case.

  3. part 2

    Moreover, this open-mic routine has been employed by Obama on at least two occasions in the past. [Please read:]. IT IS A RUSE! Get it now? He and former[?] American intelligence officer Netanyahu are just pretending; it is not sincere, it's just political theater. They are co-conspirators, not enemies--they just play them on TV for the benefit of the hypercredulous.

    Speaking of political theater, this brings us to Bloody Vladimir. War criminal Putin rattles his sabre when it is politically expedient, but he never seems to draw it, does he? Putin provided logistical support for the war crime in Afghanistan; he could have used his veto at the UN to block the war crimes in Iraq and Libya, but conveniently decided to abstain instead, thus securing lucrative contracts in each case. Putin came to power on the back of a series of lethal terrorist attacks which he cynically, and following the lead of his partner in war crimes, George Bush, falsely attributed to Islamic fundamentalists. As a result of one of his false-flag attacks [a Lockerbie-style plane bombing], he dismissed all the governors of the Guberniyas [the approximates of American states] and took on the authority to name them himself, citing, of course, national security. There is more, much, much, much more.

    Putin's ostentatious but intentionally ineffectual display of solidarity with Gazans is not motivated by concern for those people, sociopaths like him do not have such impulses. It was done for effect, to perpetuate the absurd delusion that he is at loggerheads with Washington. Putin could have stopped the attacks, but that would have risked war with his partners in the US, he has no desire to imperil his revenue streams. As he betrayed Libya and Iraq after similar shows of force, he will also betray Iran when the time comes. As before, once he is assured that the new regime there will continue to buy Russian military gear and that he will get a share of the rest of the loot he will once again "reluctantly" step aside amidst a torrent of insincere invective. Tjhat's who Bloody Vladimir is, and that's what he wants.

    1. I don't know about the lucrative contracts Putin got in Iraq and Libya, but I'll tell you what a 90-year-old Russian-speaking Ukranian friend of mine (who happens also to be an anarchist) said about the Beslan terror attack. Why did the captured Chechniyan terrorists insist on speaking Russian in their interviews and couldn't answer questions put to them in the Chechniyan language? A lot of people in Russia believed that the government was behind the apartment bombings, as well. It's a bourgeois government, after all; so what can you expect? Civic responsibility?

  4. Who is this group?

    EG:"we don't know"

    This the crux of the problem. There must be a common thread among the puppet masters.

    How could anyone studying this full time not know or be willing to discuss ANY clues?

    This can only make one suspicious.