Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.

Today's Food for Thought

A Blast From The Past–Literally

Ironic article selection by The New York Times featured a multi-page story on the Chinese purchase of a Freeport McMoRan cobalt mine in the Congo. Presenting ideological framing of the purchase as part of China's grab of minerals that are key to the development of "Green" technologies, the article comprises a synopsized, slanted Cold War recapitulation of U.S. mineral development in the Congo, with particular emphasis on the reign of Joseph Mobutu.The article has historical resonance on this 58th anniversary of JFK's assassination in several respects; we present information from FTR#'s 1054, 1055 and 1056.1) Freeport Sulphur (part of the company involved with the Congo) was one of the institutions in which Clay Shaw and David Ferrie's maneuvering permitted Jim Garrison to connect them with the milieu of the JFK assassination. 2) Freeport also benefitted enormously from JFK's assassination. The events of 11/22/1963 reversed JFK's policy of engagement with Indonesia's Sukarno. The bloody 1965 coup--highlighted in FTR#1212--permitted Freeport to benefit enormously by developing Indonesia's mineral resources. 3) Kennedy's killing dramatically altered U.S. policy vis a vis what was the Belgian Congo at the time. Following the assassination, the U.S. threw its weight behind the forces promoting Joseph Mobutu and Moise Tshombe in the Congo. Ironically, Tshombe characterized the unrest in the Congo as "Chinese inspired." WFMU-FM is podcasting For The Record–You can subscribe to the podcast HERE. Read more »

News & Supplemental

For The Record

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


MP3: FTR #1189

Lat­est Pro­gram Pro­duced Is: FTR#1215: The Oswald Insti­tute of Virol­o­gy, Part 13: Douthat Ago­nistes and the North­woods Virus

You can sub­scribe to the com­ments made on pro­grams and posts–an excel­lent source of infor­ma­tion in, and of, itself HERE.

Mr. Emory’s entire life’s work is avail­able on a 32GB flash dri­ve, avail­able for a con­tri­bu­tion of $65.00 or more (to KFJC). Click Here to obtain Dav­e’s 40+ years’ work, com­plete through Fall of 2020 (through FTR #1156).

WFMU-FM is pod­cast­ing For The Record–You can sub­scribe to the pod­cast HERE.

“A nation of sheep will beget a gov­ern­ment of wolves.”–Edward R. Mur­row

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


30+ years on the Radio

Dave Emory's weekly For The Record program examines the interconnecting historical processes, people and institutions which shape the complex geopolitical landscape.



Ask your local station to carry the show.

Latest ‘For The Record’ Posts

FTR#1215 The Oswald Institute of Virology, Part 13: Douthat Agonistes and the Northwoods Virus
Nov 19 This program supplements our long series on "The Oswald Institute of Virology." A pair of stories in The Wall Street Journal yield understanding of our media landscape... Read more »
FTR#1214 The Narco-Fascism of Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang, Part 21
Nov 16 This program concludes the series. Introducing the expansion of American experience with Chiang and his Kuomintang fascists into U.S. Cold War policy in Asia, we present... Read more »
FTR#1213 The Narco-Fascism of Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang, Part 20
Nov 16 This program undertakes a speculative look at the life and family history of Barack Obama, analyzed in the context of the American Deep State. It was... Read more »
FTR#1212 The Narco-Fascism of Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang, Part 19
Nov 9 Introducing the expansion of American experience with Chiang and his Kuomintang fascists into U.S. Cold War policy in Asia, we present Sterling Seagrave’s rumination about... Read more »
FTR#1211 The Narco-Fascism of Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang, Part 18
Nov 2 Introducing the expansion of American experience with Chiang and his Kuomintang fascists into U.S. Cold War policy in Asia, we present Sterling Seagrave’s rumination about... Read more »

Pterrafractyl's Nest

Cyber Attribution, the Mega-Hacks of 2021, and the Existential Threat of Blind Faith in Bad-Faith Move over COVID. 2021 is turning out to be another year of the digital virus. One massive hacking story after another. Unrelated stories in many cases, we are told. In particular: 1. The SolarWinds mega-hack announced in December of 2020, blamed on Russia, blamed on Cozy Bear 2. The Microsoft Exchange mega-hack disclosed in March 2021, blamed on China. 3. The revelations about NSO Group's oversight (or lack thereof) of its powerful spyware sold to governments around the world. 4. The emerging story of Candiru, one of NSO Group's fellow "commercial surveillance vendors", selling toolkits overflowing with zero-day exploits, specializing in targeting Microsoft products. But how unrelated are these stories? That's the big question we're going to explore in this post. A question punctuated by another meta-story we've looked at many times before: the meta-story of a cyberattribution paradigm seemingly designed to allow private companies and governments to concoct an attribution scenario for whatever guilty party they want to finger. As long as there was some sort of 'clue' found by investigators - like piece of Cyrillic or Mandarin text or malware previously attributed to a group - these clues were strung together in a "pattern recognition" manner to arrive at a conclusion about the identity of the perpetrators. Attribution conclusions often arrived at with incredible levels of confidence. Recall how the Japanese cybersecurity firm TrendMicro attributed a 2017 US Senate email phishing campaign to 'Pawn Storm'/Fancy Bear with 100 percent certainty, and they made this highly certain attribution based heavily on how similar the hack was to the 2017 hacks of Emmanuel Macron's emails via a phishing campaign that TrendMicro attributed at the time with 99 percent certainty to Pawn Storm/Fancy Bear and yet the ANSSI, the French government’s cybersecurity agency, was leaving open the possibility that the hack they could be the work of “other high-level” hackers trying to pin the blame on "Pawn Storm" (another name for "Fancy Bear"). TrendMicro was making 99 percent certain attributions that the French government said could be any range of actors. That was the state of affairs for cyberattributions in 2017 and nothing has changed in the years since. Highly certain attributions continued to be piled on top of highly certain attributions - almost always pointing towards Russian, Iran, China, or North Korea - built on a foundation of what appear to be largely guesswork. Often highly motivated guesswork (i.e. lies). Read more »


MussoliniUncle Sam and Il Duce American Support for Mussolini and the Mythology of the Corporate State Read more »