LEST WE FORGET: The Reason Why NATO Demolished Libya Ten Years Ago

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.


Help us break the corporate media monopoly before it kills us all. The global oligarchy depends on its disinformation machine to maintain its power. Now the malicious fog of Western propaganda has created an ocean of confusion in which even independent minds can drown. Please push back against this colossal apparatus of deception. Consider a donation today!


by Manlio Dinucci



(Credit: George Burchett)


ABOVE: US Secretary of State (2009-13) Hillary Clinton commenting on the brutal murder of Libya's Colonel Muammar Gaddafi by French special forces in a TV interviewGaddafi had contributed 50 million dollars to then French President Nicolas Sarkozy's re-election campaign. Sarkozy was recently sentenced to jail for corruptionKillary giggles on... -- PIB

—The Editor
—The Editor

Global Research

Remembering NATO's murder of Libya

Ten years ago, on March 19, 2011, US / NATO forces began the air-naval bombing of Libya. The war was directed by the United States, first through the Africa Command, then through NATO under US command. In seven months, the US / NATO air force carried out 30,000 missions, 10,000 were attack missions, with over 40,000 bombs and missiles. Italy – with Parliament multipartisan consent (Democratic Party in the front row) – participated in the war with seven air bases (Trapani, Pantelleria (Sicily), Gioia del Colle, Amendola (Puglia) Decimomannu (Sardenia), Aviano (Veneto), and with Tornado fighter-bombers, Eurofighters and others, as well as the Garibaldi aircraft carrier and other warships. Even before the air- naval offensive, tribal sectors, and Islamic groups hostile to the government had been financed and armed in Libya, and special forces, particularly Qatari, had infiltrated to ignite armed clashes inside the country.

NATO enabled "rebels"—an assortment of mercenaries and fanatics, well supplied, and protected by NATO's Air Force.


It is no coincidence that NATO’s war for the demolition of the Libyan State began less than two months after the African Union Summit, on January 31, 2011, which started the creation of the African Monetary Fund to be realized within the year. This is proven by emails from the Obama administration’s Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, brought to light later by WikiLeaks: United States and France wanted to eliminate Gaddafi before he used Libya’s gold reserves to create a pan-African currency, alternative to the dollar and the CFA franc (currency imposed by France on its 14 former colonies). This is proven by the fact that, before the bombers went into action in 2011, the banks went into action: they seized the 150 billion dollars invested abroad by the Libyan State, most of which disappeared. In the great robbery, Goldman Sachs, the most powerful US investment bank of which Mario Draghi had been vice president, stood out.


Heavy smoke rises from Sirte city after NATO bombing of the positions of Gaddafi loyalists during heavy fighting with anti-Gaddafi forces, as they push forward towards the centre of Sirte October 7, 2011. (REUTERS)


Today, the revenues from energy exports in Libya are being captured by power groups and multinationals in a chaotic situation of armed clashes. The living standard of the majority of the population has collapsed. African immigrants, accused of being “Gaddafi’s mercenaries,” were even imprisoned in zoo cages, tortured, and murdered. Libya has become the main transit route of a chaotic migratory flow to Europe in the hands of human traffickers that has caused many more victims than the 2011 war. In Tawergha the Misrata Islamic militias supported by NATO (those who assassinated Gaddafi in October 2011) carried out a true ethnic cleansing, forcing almost 50,000 Libyan citizens to flee without being able to return. The Italian Parliament, who was also responsible for all this, on March 18, 2011, committed the Government to “take every initiative (ie Italy’s entry into the war against Libya) to ensure the protection of the populations in the region.”

This article was originally published in Italian on Il Manifesto.

Manlio Dinucci is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.



Addendum

This dispatch, signed by Frances Thomas, was published back in 2011, by, among others, scoopmedia, and stopwarcrimes, during the NATO assault on Libya. It was largely ignored by the mainsream media, too busy trumpeting the "need" to topple Gaddafi. The title says it all. 
—The Editor
—The Editor


UN silent despite no grounds for NATO war on Libya

Posted on 11 October 2011

By Frances Thomas, 10 October 2011, Source: scoop.co.nz

NATO supported rebels during action near Tripoli.

(This article was first removed from the source site and reappeared slightly edited a day after its first publication.)

The situation in Sirte is dire. Six weeks under siege after months of aerial attacks. Children and old people dead of hunger and thirst. Water supply hit. Hospitals without medical supplies to treat the ill and injured, and then bombed by NATO. The dead lying in the streets. Constant ‘targeted’ nightly aerial bombardment by NATO air forces. Constant ‘fire at will’ daytime attacks from ill-disciplined NTC rebels using tanks, rockets, mortars and howitzers.

In their missile-launcher-laden graffiti-decorated pick-up trucks, the rebels drive into the city edges in the morn and back out by dark, hailed as ‘freedom-fighters’ by their embedded foreign press, they more resemble armed gangs. Some are Libyan, dissatisfied with policies of their current government. A few have returned after a generation abroad with historical tribal differences to settle. Others are LIFG veterans wanting to set up a strict Islamic fundamentalism. Qatari forces, UK SAS and CIA are known to have been on the ground in Libya. The battle-hardened are Al Qaeda and mercenaries on the pay-roll of interested parties, who follow where wars lead them, so long as they are paid well to kill, and have licence to loot and rape.

How did this modern-day barbarianism ever come to be?

The specific phrases in UNSC resolution #1973, which NATO nations say permit them to conduct and support this military action in Libya, are “no-fly zone”, “all necessary measures” and “to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack.”

That’s it. Just a few words. Innocuous enough until NATO got their hands on them and twisted them beyond recognition.

A National Transitional Council fighter fires a mortar against Moammar Kadhafi troops in the town of Sirte on October 8, 2011, as forces from Libya's interim regime scored a strategic goal in their push to capture Sirte, seizing a highway that opens the way to a final assault on a key base of troops loyal to Moammar Kadhafi. (ARIS MESSINIS/AFP/Getty Images)

With Orwellian duplicity, air strikes replace ‘no-fly’, war becomes a ‘necessary measure’, and killing civilians constitutes their ‘protection’. Seven months later, 25,194 NATO air sorties later, including 9,363 strike sorties, and more than 50,000 human beings are dead,  civilian infrastructure is destroyed, and a sovereign nation is in crisis.

The distortion of those few words’ intended meaning was almost certainly a factor in the veto by Russia and China of the recent resolution against Syria. NATO’s actions in Libya are clearly seen to violate UNSC resolution #1973, and some member states are wary.

Oh, and the evidence that Libyan people needed protecting from imminent danger of their own government firing on them?

Remembering that this pre-emptive NATO action was to “stop Gaddafi from launching a massacre of his own people.”

No evidence was ever produced.

On 1 March, two weeks after the accusations, when asked if he had seen any evidence that Gaddafi intended to fire on citizens, then US Sec of Defense Robert Gates said, “We’ve seen the press reports but we have no confirmation.” And US Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen added, “That’s right. We’ve seen no confirmation whatsoever.”

So NATO attacked Libya on the basis of a press report.

Gates had some sense of what was right because he also stated that “the UN Security Council resolution provides no authorisation for the use of armed force.” Gates would be gone by June, replaced by ex-CIA director Leon Panetta.

On 31 March, as NATO strikes in support of the rebels began, more questions were asked of Gates and Mullen by the US Senate Armed Services Committee. “Was al Qaeda involved in Libya?” Mullen answered, “We haven’t seen anything, other than aspirational, from al Qaeda leadership.” Gates said that Gaddafi was “trying to ‘gen’ up the narrative that the opposition is in fact led by al Qaeda.”

When asked “Do either one of you believe that the Libyan people would stand for an al Qaeda-led Libya?” “Absolutely no evidence to support that,” said Gates, and Mullen, “No, I don’t.”

NATO-supplied anti-Gadaffi rebels retreat in Sirte after taking some casualties.

Gates, in explanation, added that “the real power in Libya is in the hands of these tribes, and even Gaddafi realises that, and I just don’t understand how it would be possible for these tribes to want to cede any of that authority to some outside crowd like al Qaeda.” 
Interesting. Here we have US Sec of Defense Gates supporting what Gaddafi, rather than merely ‘realising’, has always strongly stated. Which is that in Libya the real power is in the hands of the Libyan people, in the hands of the tribes.

This fact conflicts with the ‘Gaddafi as dictator’ storyline. It seems the journalists from US, UK, France, and Qatar, who were in Tripoli until August, had read the Obama/Clinton script, rather than US Senate committee transcript. All year the foreign press have chosen to ignore the fact that the tribal peoples of Libya – what did Gates say? – “hold the real power in Libya,” and instead used any means to bolster their ‘Gaddafi as dictator’ narrative, and have thus distorted the news that has beamed into our living rooms since February. News that has formed the opinion of millions, deprived them of the truth, and so delayed the groundswell of dissent against NATO’s war on Libya.

Protests against the bombing were (as usual) ignored by the mainstream media.

And about al Qaeda. Gaddafi had said from the beginning that the rebels were al Qaeda led. Gates and Mullen dismissed that in March, though in vague terms.

It’s become apparent in recent months that Gaddafi was telling the truth again. More camera-shy than the youthful rebels, the al Qaeda contingent is nevertheless a huge presence. They are led by Abdel Hakim Belhadj, an al Qaeda affiliate and Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) leader who had “close relationships” and trained with al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The LIFG is still included on both UK and US lists of terrorist organisations. Belhadj is now the NTC’s new official chief military commander.

Rehabilitated in the western press and approved by NATO though Belhadj may be, Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen got one more thing right. The Libyan people don’t want a bar of anyone associated with al Qaeda leading them in any capacity. Nor do they trust Belhadj’s LIFG background. Libya is 97 per cent Islamic, and though other religions are allowed to practise freely (though not proselytize), one group not tolerated by law in Libya is militant Islamic fundamentalism.

For months now buried in the official records, Gates and Mullen’s take on Libya is, well, just not politically correct. Despite the evidence of ‘mission creep’, NATO leaders seem determined to bet against a future Nuremberg-style war crime action against them, and continue to pound the city of Sirte by night, to ‘break the ground’ for their daytime sniper-fodder ‘relief team.’

During a two day so-called truce in early October the Red Cross tried to enter Sirte to provide humanitarian aid. On the first day they managed to visit a hospital on the southern outskirts, bringing in a few needed supplies, but the hospital came under NTC rebel attack, and they were not able to inspect the whole building let alone get into the city proper and visit other areas.

On the second day the Red Cross tried to take two large aid trucks into the city. But the rebels began firing and so the Red Cross backed up quickly and abandoned their attempt. Preventing access for aid, another war crime.

Forever announcing their ‘final’ assault on Sirte, the NTC rebels have not yet quite managed to achieve it. NATO is now firing missiles from helicopters onto the city. They continue their murderous siege of 135,000 people, maybe more people because many from other towns months ago sought harbour in Sirte, maybe fewer because many have died or fled. Whatever the number, the people of Sirte are defending themselves and their city against NATO’s military might.

The United Nations community is being tested. On whether the international member nations have the moral courage to stand up to the powerful NATO nations, point out the illegality of the war on Libya, and insist that their ambassadors take that message to the UN. Meanwhile Gaddafi is proven right yet again, when he observed years ago that the UN did not provide fair treatment for its smaller and less powerful member nations. On this matter, I’d rather he could be proved wrong.


[premium_newsticker id="211406"]


The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post



All image captions, pull quotes, appendices, etc. by the editors not the authors. 
YOU ARE FREE TO REPRODUCE THIS ARTICLE PROVIDED YOU GIVE PROPER CREDIT TO THE GREANVILLE POST
VIA A BACK LIVE LINK. 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

black-horizontal

 

black-horizontal




France Joins America’s South China Sea Adventurism

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.


Help us break the corporate media monopoly before it kills us all. The global oligarchy depends on its disinformation machine to maintain its power. Now the malicious fog of Western propaganda has created an ocean of confusion in which even independent minds can drown. Please push back against this colossal apparatus of deception. Consider a donation today!


by Joseph Thomas



Washington continues to infect the Western powers with its mad nuclear war disease, and the fools comply.

New Eastern Outlook
France has recently sent one of its nuclear attack submarines over 10,000 kilometers to the South China Sea for a “patrol.” It is the latest indicator of how strained the underlying credibility is of US foreign policy regarding the South China Sea and its growing conflict with Beijing.


While Washington frames its involvement in the region as “championing” for claimants in the South China Sea, it is recruiting allies further and further flung from its actual waters and appears to merely be using the confrontation to undermine Beijing, not support other nations in the region.

France24 in an article titled, “France wades into the South China Sea with a nuclear attack submarine,” would claim:


The week in France kicked off with a Twitter thread by Defence Minister Florence Parly revealing that French nuclear attack submarine SNA Emeraude was among two navy ships that recently conducted a patrol through the South China Sea.

“This extraordinary patrol has just completed a passage in the South China Sea. A striking proof of our French Navy’s capacity to deploy far away and for a long time together with our Australian, American and Japanese strategic partners,” she tweeted along with a picture of the two vessels at sea.


The mention of Australia, America and Japan is clearly a reference to American efforts to create a united front against China in the Indo-Pacific region. The omission of India, one of the supposed “Quad Alliance” members, should not go unnoticed. Even though it is mentioned elsewhere in the article, it is done as an afterthought.

France is the second European nation to sign up for Washington’s Indo-Pacific strategy, following the UK which has pledged to send a carrier strike group to the region later this year.

The UK Defence Journal in an article titled, “British Carrier Strike Group heading to Pacific this year,” would note that the UK’s latest aircraft carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth, would also become involved in the South China Sea dispute along with what the journal reported as:


NATO’s most sophisticated destroyers — the Royal Navy’s Type 45s HMS Diamond and HMS Defender and US Navy Arleigh Burke-class USS The Sullivans as well as frigates HMS Northumberland and HMS Kent from the UK.

It wouldn’t take much imagination to predict the reactions in the West if China, Russia and Iran created a “strike group” and sailed it thousands of miles around the globe to menace the shores of Western nations, yet the provocative and revealing nature of Washington’s policies and the participation of nations in its Indo-Pacific strategy being drawn from further and further away from the actual region is treated as entirely normal, even necessary by the Western media.

The inclusion of the French and British in Washington’s Indo-Pacific strategy is necessary because the actual nations in the region, specifically                                                           in Southeast Asia, have little interest in provoking China or turning relatively common maritime disputes into a regional or international crisis.

The US, by attempting to do just that, is actually endangering peace, prosperity and stability in the region, despite posing as the underwriter of all three and on behalf of the very nations refusing to join its provocative naval exercises. Nations in the actual region refuse to join US military activities there specifically because they are seen as counterproductive and a needless, even dangerous escalation.

Creating Conflict, Not Resolving It 

The US, Australia, France and the UK have contributed to the most destructive conflicts of the 21st century including the 2001 invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, the 2011-onward wars in Libya, Syria and Yemen, and numerous regime change campaigns around the globe.

France in particular also has its military deployed across the continent of Africa, including in several of its former colonies.

The notion that France, alongside its other partners in carrying out military aggression worldwide, is becoming involved in the Indo-Pacific to confront aggression and expansionism rather than to participate in it itself, is dubious at best.

The France24 article would also note that:


In this increasingly tense maritime geopolitical context, France wants to restate that it has its own interests to look out for in the region. In 2019, the French defence ministry released a policy report, “France and Security in the Indo-Pacific” recalling that around 1.5 million French nationals live between Djibouti in the Horn of Africa and the overseas territory of French Polynesia. This means that Paris views its Indo-Pacific zone as stretching from the Gulf of Aden to beyond Australia.


In other words, Paris’ mission to the Indo-Pacific is a continuation of its colonial injustices in the region in past centuries, pursuing everything and openly for itself and its own sense of hegemony, that it, London and Washington are accusing Beijing of.

The West’s failing fortunes across Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia will not benefit from their collective economies and armed forces being stretched further still to confront an Asian nation in Asia, and one that is poised to surpass them all economically and militarily in short order.

For Beijing’s part, it has successfully reached this point through careful and patient planning, strategy and diplomacy. It will be very unlikely that Beijing will find itself drawn into a conflict with the West and will instead continue building ties within the region, particularly with Southeast Asia, creating its own regional order, and one built on economic cooperation rather than military confrontation, a process already well under way and why Washington feels the need to recruit Western European nations for its “Indo-Pacific” strategy in the first place.

Joseph Thomas is chief editor of Thailand-based geopolitical journal The New Atlas 

* * *


[premium_newsticker id="211406"]


The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post



All image captions, pull quotes, appendices, etc. by the editors not the authors. 
YOU ARE FREE TO REPRODUCE THIS ARTICLE PROVIDED YOU GIVE PROPER CREDIT TO THE GREANVILLE POST
VIA A BACK LIVE LINK. 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

black-horizontal

 

black-horizontal




Tokyo gives coast guard authorization to fire on foreign vessels

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.


Help us break the corporate media monopoly before it kills us all. The global oligarchy depends on its disinformation machine to maintain its power. Now the malicious fog of Western propaganda has created an ocean of confusion in which even independent minds can drown. Please push back against this colossal apparatus of deception. Consider a donation today!


Ben McGrath



Like Master, like vassal: egged on by the Americans, Tokyo is now increasingly deploying repugnant imperialist policies against China

In a decision that will only further escalate tensions in the Indo-Pacific region, members of Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) announced Thursday that the government had confirmed a “reinterpretation” of a law to allow Japan’s coast guard to fire upon foreign vessels attempting to land on disputed islands, namely the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands. The move is aimed at China as Tokyo, Washington, and their allies in the region increase their efforts to militarily and economically subordinate Beijing to their interests.

Japan Coast Guard vessel Yashima (Source: Wikimedia)


The meeting between government officials and the LDP members was held by the party’s National Defense Division. Previously, Japan’s coast guard was authorized to fire on foreign vessels only in self-defense, as attacking another country’s ships is in violation of Article 9 of the constitution, which explicitly bars Japan from waging war or using other forms of military aggression. This change significantly increases the chances of an armed clash with China over the disputed territories in the East China Sea.

Tokyo’s immediate justification for the change is China’s own new law allowing its coast guard to use their weaponry against vessels in territories it claims. Beijing’s legislation took effect on February 1, but was drawn up towards the end of 2020, after four years of increasingly belligerent provocations by the Trump administration in Washington.

Trump, backed by the Democrats and Republicans, repeatedly antagonized China by calling into question the status of Taiwan, which Beijing considers a renegade province. The US supplied Taipei with large amounts of weaponry and increased official state visits to the island. Beijing has stated that any recognition of or attempt by Taipei to declare independence would trigger a Chinese military response.

Japan claims that last year Chinese ships sailed into the waters around the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands approximately twice per month and with the passage of the Beijing’s law, twice per week. Tokyo also claimed that Beijing sent more than 1,100 ships over the course of 333 days, both record highs, in 2020 into the so-called contiguous zone near the islands. 

Parroting Washington’s line, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga said on Thursday, “I firmly believe that it is a free and open order based on the rule of law, not force or coercion, that will bring peace and prosperity to the region and the world.”

Tokyo and Washington have both deliberately inflamed what were once minor regional territorial disputes in order to put pressure on China. This included Japan’s “nationalization” of the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands in 2012.

The Biden administration in the US is deepening its confrontational approach to China. During a press conference last Tuesday, Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby stated, “We hold with the international community about the Senkakus and the sovereignty of the Senkakus, and we support Japan obviously in that sovereignty.” This is a shift from Washington’s previous public position to not take a side in the territorial dispute.

When Biden took office in January, his administration quickly assured Tokyo that the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands fell under the US-Japan security treaty, meaning Washington would support Japan in a military clash with China over the uninhabited islands. This position was first put forward in 2014 under the Obama administration, in which Biden served as vice president.

There is also deepening military cooperation between Tokyo and Washington. Last year Japan increased the number of Self-Defense Forces’ (SDF) missions providing protection to US ships on military exercises in the Indo-Pacific region to 25—up from 14 in 2019. This included spy missions during which US naval vessels collected intelligence on ballistic missiles and other military activities of countries that almost certainly included China. Tokyo did not disclose where the operations took place just that they “contributed to the defense of Japan.”

Japan’s 2014 constitutional “reinterpretation” under former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and related military legislation passed the following year have allowed Japan to engage in so-called “collective self-defense,” or to conduct military operations overseas in the aid of an ally, primarily the US. Were the US to stage a provocation against China, for example, during one of these joint missions, Japan’s SDF would be given the green light to join the attack.

Such US provocations against China include so-called “freedom of navigation” operations in and around Chinese controlled islands, where the US sends naval ships into these waters claimed by Beijing. At the same time, however, Washington and Tokyo both denounce China for sailing in or flying over international waters near Japanese controlled islands, or those with ties like Taiwan.

Tokyo hopes to use claims of “Chinese aggression” against Taiwan to also further its own imperialist interests. Masahisa Sato, who leads the LDP’s Foreign Affairs Division, announced in early February the creation of a “Taiwan project team” to explore how to deepen relations with Taipei. Following in Washington’s footsteps, LDP lawmakers called for a law similar to Washington’s Taiwan Relations Act. Under the 1979 act, Washington does not officially recognize Taiwan, but continues to provide the island with military support.

Since 1979, the US has given de facto support to the “one China” policy, which states that Beijing is the legitimate government and that Taiwan is a part of China. However, Washington stated in August that it was making significant changes to its Taiwan policy and the meaning of “one China.” A similar law in Tokyo would almost certainly further challenge Beijing’s claims to Taiwan—a former Japanese colony.

Sato stated that Tokyo would consider increased diplomatic contact between lawmakers from Japan and Taiwan. LDP members have suggested “2+2” dialogues between the Japanese foreign and defense ministers with their counterparts in Taipei, undoubtedly encouraged to do so by Washington’s own push to increase official diplomatic relations with Taiwan.

Sato also stated, “We want to bolster our diplomatic prowess through a two-pronged approach, using our human rights and Taiwan project teams.” Like Washington and imperialist countries, Tokyo is seeking to exploit unproven claims of “genocide” in China’s Xinjiang region as well as Beijing’s crackdown on Hong Kong, to justify ramping up military tensions against China. 


[premium_newsticker id="211406"]


The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post



All image captions, pull quotes, appendices, etc. by the editors not the authors. 
YOU ARE FREE TO REPRODUCE THIS ARTICLE PROVIDED YOU GIVE PROPER CREDIT TO THE GREANVILLE POST
VIA A BACK LIVE LINK. 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

black-horizontal

 

black-horizontal




The CIA & The Media: 50 facts The World Should Know

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.


Help us break the corporate media monopoly before it kills us all. The global oligarchy depends on its disinformation machine to maintain its power. Now the malicious fog of Western propaganda has created an ocean of confusion in which even independent minds can drown. Please push back against this colossal apparatus of deception. Consider a donation today!


FROM OUR ARCHIVES
By 
collective-evolution.com
First published 4 years ago on January 8, 2017 


The tight collaboration and fealty between the CIA and numerous owners of the "free press" is just a question of class solidarity. Upper class individuals and cliques have always banded together to protect their privileged positions. As to the CIA's extravagant funding, let's just say the fox was put in charge of the chicken coop. It was preordained that the capitalist ruling class—at the helm of the American state, and totally in control of the gigantic national treasury of the United States and the rules governing its use—would brook no spending limits in the pursuit of its own self-preservation. That's the beauty of being ruling class: you can make the hoi polloi pay for their own oppression.
—The Editor
—The Editor
 

 
James F. Tracy is a PhD from the University of Iowa. A former professor of communications at Boca Raton, Florida Atlantic University. He is one of many critical thinkers within the world of academia, and as result of presenting the following information that might spark some cognitive dissonance, he has been singled out due to his activism efforts. For example, he was fired from his tenured professorship at Florida Atlantic University for questioning official narratives of terror events. Now, his Blog has been taken down by WordPress with no clear explanation. You can listen to what he has to say on the matterhere.



You can support the James Tracy Legal Defense Fund, and find out about what is going on with him at the moment HERE. He made national headlines, as many academics who are not afraid to stand up for truth do, in an attempt to ridicule them. 
He is well researched, and now reports on several different matters of escalating importance. Below is an article he wrote in August of 2015, and is relevant today given all of the “fake news” campaigns that have been directed against alternative media.

Since the end of World War Two the Central Intelligence Agency has been a major force in US and foreign news media, exerting considerable influence over what the public sees, hears and reads on a regular basis. CIA publicists and journalists alike will assert they have few, if any, relationships, yet the seldom acknowledged history of their intimate collaboration indicates a far different story–indeed, one that media historians are reluctant to examine.

When seriously practiced, the journalistic profession involves gathering information concerning individuals, locales, events, and issues. In theory such information informs people about their world, thereby strengthening “democracy.” This is exactly the reason why news organizations and individual journalists are tapped as assets by intelligence agencies and, as the experiences of German journalist Udo Ulfkotte (entry 47 below) suggest, this practice is at least as widespread today as it was at the height of the Cold War.

Consider the coverups of election fraud in 2000 and 2004, the events of September 11, 2001, the invasions Afghanistan and Iraq, the destabilization of Syria, and the creation of “ISIS.” These are among the most significant events in recent world history, and yet they are also those much of the American public is wholly ignorant of. In an era where information and communication technologies are ubiquitous, prompting many to harbor the illusion of being well-informed, one must ask why this condition persists.

Further, why do prominent US journalists routinely fail to question other deep events that shape America’s tragic history over the past half century, such as the political assassinations of the 1960s, or the central role played by the CIA major role in international drug trafficking?

Popular and academic commentators have suggested various reasons for the almost universal failure of mainstream journalism in these areas, including newsroom sociology, advertising pressure, monopoly ownership, news organizations’ heavy reliance on “official” sources, and journalists’ simple quest for career advancement. There is also, no doubt, the influence of professional public relations maneuvers. Yet such a broad conspiracy of silence suggests another province of deception examined far too infrequently—specifically the CIA and similar intelligence agencies’ continued involvement in the news media to mold thought and opinion in ways scarcely imagined by the lay public.

The following historical and contemporary facts–by no means exhaustive–provides a glimpse of how the power such entities possess to influence if not determine popular memory and what respectable institutions deem to be the historical record.

1. The CIA’s Operation MOCKINGBIRD is a long-recognised keystone among researchers pointing to the Agency’s clear interest in and relationship to major US news media. MOCKINGBIRD grew out of the CIA’s forerunner, the Office for Strategic Services (OSS, 1942-47), which during World War Two had established a network of journalists and psychological warfare experts operating primarily in the European theatre.

2. Many of the relationships forged under OSS auspices were carried over into the postwar era through a State Department-run organization called the Office of Policy Coordination (OPC) overseen by OSS staffer Frank Wisner.

3. The OPC “became the fastest-growing unit within the nascent CIA,” historian Lisa Pease observes, “rising in personnel from 302 in 1949 to 2,812 in 1952, along with 3,142 overseas contract personnel. In the same period, the budget rose from $4.7 million to $82 million.” Lisa Pease, “The Media and the Assassination,” in James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, The Assassinations: Probe Magazine on JFK, MLK, RFK and Malcolm X, Port Townsend, WA, 2003, 300.

4. Like many career CIA officers, eventual CIA Director/Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) Richard Helms was recruited out of the press corps by his own supervisor at the United Press International’s Berlin Bureau to join in the OSS’s fledgling “black propaganda” program. “‘[Y]ou’re a natural,” Helms’ boss remarked. Richard Helms, A Look Over My Shoulder: A Life in the Central Intelligence Agency, New York: Random House, 2003, 30-31.

5. Wisner tapped Marshall Plan funds to pay for his division’s early exploits, money his branch referred to as “candy.” “We couldn’t spend it all,” CIA agent Gilbert Greenway recalls. “I remember once meeting with Wisner and the comptroller. My God, I said, how can we spend that? There were no limits, and nobody had to account for it. It was amazing.” Frances Stonor Saunders, The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters, New York: The New Press, 2000, 105.

6. When the OPC was merged with the Office of Special Operations in 1948 to create the CIA, OPC’s media assets were likewise absorbed.

7. Wisner maintained the top secret “Propaganda Assets Inventory,” better known as “Wisner’s Wurlitzer”—a virtual rolodex of over 800 news and information entities prepared to play whatever tune Wisner chose. “The network included journalists, columnists, book publishers, editors, entire organizations such as Radio Free Europe, and stringers across multiple news organizations.” Pease, “The Media and the Assassination,” 300.

8. A few years after Wisner’s operation was up-and-running he “’owned’ respected members of the New York Times, Newsweek, CBS, and other communication vehicles, plus stringers, four to six hundred in all, according to a CIA analyst. Each one was a separate ‘operation,’” investigative journalist Deborah Davis notes, “requiring a code name, a field supervisor, and a field office, at an annual cost of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars—there has never been an accurate accounting.” Deborah Davis, Katharine the Great: Katharine Graham and the Washington Post, Second Edition, Bethesda MD: National Press Inc, 1987, 139.

9. Psychological operations in the form of journalism were perceived as necessary to influence and direct mass opinion, as well as elite perspectives. “[T]he President of the United States, the Secretary of State, Congressmen and even the Director of the CIA himself will read, believe, and be impressed by a report from Cy Sulzberger, Arnaud de Borchgrave, or Stewart Alsop when they don’t even bother to read a CIA report on the same subject,” noted CIA agent Miles Copeland. Cited in Pease, “The Media and the Assassination,” 301.

10. By the mid-to-late 1950s, Darrell Garwood points out, the Agency sought to limit criticism directed against covert activity and bypass congressional oversight or potential judicial interference by “infiltrat[ing] the groves of academia, the missionary corps, the editorial boards of influential journal and book publishers, and any other quarters where public attitudes could be effectively influenced.” Darrell Garwood, Under Cover: Thirty-Five Years of CIA Deception, New York: Grove Press, 1985, 250.

11. The CIA frequently intercedes in editorial decision-making. For example, when the Agency proceeded to wage an overthrow of the Arbenz regime in Guatemala in 1954, Allen and John Foster Dulles, President Eisenhower’s Secretary of State and CIA Director respectively, called upon New York Timespublisher Arthur Hays Sulzberger to reassign reporter Sydney Gruson from Guatemala to Mexico City. Sulzberger thus placed Gruson in Mexico City with the rationale that some repercussions from the revolution might be felt in Mexico. Pease, “The Media and the Assassination,” 302.

 

12. Since the early 1950s the CIA “has secretly bankrolled numerous foreign press services, periodicals and newspapers—both English and foreign language—which provided excellent cover for CIA operatives,” Carl Bernstein reported in 1977. “One such publication was the Rome Daily American, forty percent of which was owned by the CIA until the 1970s.” Carl Bernstein, “The CIA and the Media,” Rolling Stone, October 20, 1977.

13. The CIA exercised informal liaisons with news media executives, in contrast to its relationships with salaried reporters and stringers, “who were much more subject to direction from the Agency” according to Bernstein. “A few executives—Arthur Hays Sulzberger of the New York Times among them—signed secrecy agreements. But such formal understandings were rare: relationships between Agency officials and media executives were usually social—’The P and Q Street axis in Georgetown,’ said one source. ‘You don’t tell William Paley to sign a piece of paper saying he won’t fink.’” Director of CBS William Paley’s personal “friendship with CIA Director Dulles is now known to have been one of the most influential and significant in the communications industry,” author Debora Davis explains. “He provided cover for CIA agents, supplied out-takes of news film, permitted the debriefing of reporters, and in many ways set the standard for the cooperation between the CIA and major broadcast companies which lasted until the mid-1970s.” Deborah Davis, Katharine the Great: Katharine Graham and the Washington Post, Second Edition, Bethesda MD: National Press Inc, 1987, 175.

14. “The Agency’s relationship with the Times was by far its most valuable among newspapers, according to CIA officials,” Bernstein points out in his key 1977 article. “From 1950 to 1966, about ten CIA employees were provided Times cover under arrangements approved by the newspaper’s late publisher, Arthur Hays Sulzberger. The cover arrangements were part of a general Times policy—set by Sulzberger—to provide assistance to the CIA whenever possible.” In addition, Sulzberger was a close friend of CIA Director Allen Dulles. “’At that level of contact it was the mighty talking to the mighty,’ said a high‑level CIA official who was present at some of the discussions. ‘There was an agreement in principle that, yes indeed, we would help each other. The question of cover came up on several occasions. It was agreed that the actual arrangements would be handled by subordinates…. The mighty didn’t want to know the specifics; they wanted plausible deniability.’” Bernstein, “The CIA and the Media.”

15. CBS’s Paley worked reciprocally with the CIA, allowing the Agency to utilize network resources and personnel. “It was a form of assistance that a number of wealthy persons are now generally known to have rendered the CIA through their private interests,” veteran broadcast journalist Daniel Schorr wrote in 1977. “It suggested to me, however, that a relationship of confidence and trust had existed between him and the agency.” Schorr points to “clues indicating that CBS had been infiltrated.” For example, “A news editor remembered the CIA officer who used to come to the radio control room in New York in the early morning, and, with the permission of persons unknown, listened to CBS correspondents around the world recording their ‘spots’ for the ‘World News Roundup’ and discussing events with the editor on duty. Sam Jaffe claimed that when he applied in 1955 for a job with CBS, a CIA officer told him that he would be hired–which he subsequently was. He was told that he would be sent to Moscow–which he subsequently was; he was assigned in 1960 to cover the trial of U-2 pilot Francis Gary Powers. [Richard] Salant told me,” Schorr continues, “that when he first became president of CBS News in 1961, a CIA case officer called saying he wanted to continue the ‘long standing relationship known to Paley and [CBS president Frank] Stanton, but Salant was told by Stanton there was no obligation that he knew of” (276). Schorr, Daniel. Clearing the Air, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1977, 277, 276.

16. National Enquirer publisher Gene Pope Jr. worked briefly on the CIA’s Italy desk in the early 1950s and maintained close ties with the Agency thereafter. Pope refrained from publishing dozens of stories with “details of CIA kidnappings and murders, enough stuff for a year’s worth of headlines” in order to “collect chits, IOUs,” Pope’s son writes. “He figured he’d never know when he might need them, and those IOUs would come in handy when he got to 20 million circulation. When that happened, he’d have the voice to be almost his own branch of government and would need the cover.” Paul David Pope, The Deeds of My Fathers: How My Grandfather and Father Built New York and Created the Tabloid World of Today, New York: Phillip Turner/Rowman & Littlefield, 2010, 309,

17. One explosive story Pope’s National Enquirer‘s refrained from publishing in the late 1970s centered on excerpts from a long-sought after diary of President Kennedy’s lover, Mary Pinchot Meyer, who was murdered on October 12, 1964. “The reporters who wrote the story were even able to place James Jesus Angleton, the CIA’s head of counterintelligence operations, at the scene.” Another potential story drew on “documents proving that [Howard] Hughes and the CIA had been connected for years and that the CIA was giving Hughes money to secretly fund, with campaign donations, twenty-seven congressmen and senators who sat on sub-committees critical to the agency. There are also fifty-three international companies named and sourced as CIA fronts .. and even a list of reporters for mainstream media organizations who were playing ball with the agency.” Pope, The Deeds of My Fathers, 309.

18. Angleton, who oversaw the Agency counterintelligence branch for 25 years, “ran a completely independent group entirely separate cadre of journalist‑operatives who performed sensitive and frequently dangerous assignments; little is known about this group for the simple reason that Angleton deliberately kept only the vaguest of files.” Bernstein, “The CIA and the Media.”

19. The CIA conducted a “formal training program” during the 1950s for the sole purpose of instructing its agents to function as newsmen. “Intelligence officers were ‘taught to make noises like reporters,’ explained a high CIA official, and were then placed in major news organizations with help from management. These were the guys who went through the ranks and were told ‘You’re going to he a journalist,’” the CIA official said.” The Agency’s preference, however, was to engage journalists who were already established in the industry. Bernstein, “The CIA and the Media.”

20. Newspaper columnists and broadcast journalists with household names have been known to maintain close ties with the Agency. “There are perhaps a dozen well known columnists and broadcast commentators whose relationships with the CIA go far beyond those normally maintained between reporters and their sources,” Bernstein maintains. “They are referred to at the Agency as ‘known assets’ and can be counted on to perform a variety of undercover tasks; they are considered receptive to the Agency’s point of view on various subjects.” Bernstein, “The CIA and the Media.”

21. Frank Wisner, Allen Dulles, and Washington Post publisher Phillip Graham were close associates, and the Post developed into one of the most influential news organs in the United States due to its ties with the CIA. The Postmanagers’ “individual relations with intelligence had in fact been the reason the Post Company had grown as fast as it did after the war,” Davis (172) observes. “[T]heir secrets were its corporate secrets, beginning with MOCKINGBIRD. Phillip Graham’s commitment to intelligence had given his friends Frank Wisner an interest in helping to make the Washington Post the dominant news vehicle in Washington, which they had done by assisting with its two most crucial acquisitions, the Times-Herald and WTOP radio and television stations.” Davis, Katharine the Great: Katharine Graham and the Washington Post, 172.

22. In the wake of World War One the Woodrow Wilson administration placed journalist and author Walter Lippmann in charge of recruiting agents for the Inquiry, a first-of-its-kind ultra-secret civilian intelligence organization whose role involved ascertaining information to prepare Wilson for the peace negotiations, as well as identify foreign natural resources for Wall Street speculators and oil companies. The activities of this organization served as a prototype for the function eventually performed by the CIA, namely “planning, collecting, digesting, and editing the raw data,” notes historian Servando Gonzalez. “This roughly corresponds to the CIA’s intelligence cycle: planning and direction, collection, processing, production and analysis, and dissemination.” Most Inquiry members would later become members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Lippmann would go on to become the Washington Post’s best known columnists. Servando Gonzalez, Psychological Warfare and the New World Order: The Secret War Against the American People, Oakland, CA: Spooks Books, 2010, 50.

23. The two most prominent US newsweeklies, Time and Newsweek, kept close ties with the CIA. “Agency files contain written agreements with former foreign correspondents and stringers for both the weekly newsmagazines,” according to Carl Bernstein. “Allen Dulles often interceded with his good friend, the late Henry Luce, founder of Time and Life magazines, who readily allowed certain members of his staff to work for the Agency and agreed to provide jobs and credentials for other CIA operatives who lacked journalistic experience.”  Bernstein, “The CIA and the Media.”

24. In his autobiography former CIA officer E. Howard Hunt quotes Bernstein’s “The CIA and the Media” article at length. “I know nothing to contradict this report,” Hunt declares, suggesting the investigative journalist of Watergate fame didn’t go far enough. “Bernstein further identified some of the country’s top media executives as being valuable assets to the agency … But the list of organizations that cooperated with the agency was a veritable ‘Who’s Who’ of the media industry, including ABC, NBC, the Associated Press, UPI, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps-Howard, Newsweek magazine, and others.” E. Howard Hunt, American Spy: My Secret History in the CIA, Watergate, and Beyond, Hoboken NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2007, 150.

25. When the first major exposé of the CIA emerged in 1964 with the publication of The Invisible Government by journalists David Wise and Thomas B. Ross, the CIA considered purchasing the entire printing to keep the book from the public, yet in the end judged against it. “To an extent that is only beginning to be perceived, this shadow government is shaping the lives of 190,000,000 Americans” authors Wise and Ross write in the book’s preamble. “Major decisions involving peace and war are taking place out of public view. An informed citizen might come to suspect that the foreign policy of the United States often works publicly in one direction and secretly through the Invisible Government in just the opposite direction.”Lisa Pease, “When the CIA’s Empire Struck Back,” Consortiumnews.com, February 6, 2014.

26. Agency infiltration of the news media shaped public perception of deep events and undergirded the official explanations of such events. For example, the Warren Commission’s report on President John F. Kennedy’s assassination was met with almost unanimous approval by US media outlets. “I have never seen an official report greeted with such universal praise as that accorded the Warren Commission’s findings when they were made public on September 24, 1964,” recalls investigative reporter Fred Cook. “All the major television networks devoted special programs and analyses to the report; the next day the newspapers ran long columns detailing its findings, accompanied by special news analyses and editorials. The verdict was unanimous. The report answered all questions, left no room for doubt. Lee Harvey Oswald, alone and unaided, had assassinated the president of the United States.” Fred J. Cook, Maverick: Fifty Years of Investigative Reporting, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1984, 276.

27. In late 1966 the New York Times began an inquiry on the numerous questions surrounding President Kennedy’s assassination that were not satisfactorily dealt with by the Warren Commission. “It was never completed,” author Jerry Policoff observes, “nor would the New York Times ever again question the findings of the Warren Commission.” When the story was being developed the lead reporter at the Times‘ Houston bureau “said that he and others came up with ‘a lot of unanswered questions’ that the Times didn’t bother to pursue. ‘I’d be off on a good lead and then somebody’d call me off and send me out to California on another story or something. We never really detached anyone for this. We weren’t really serious.’” Jerry Policoff, “The Media and the Murder of John Kennedy,” in Peter Dale Scott, Paul L. Hoch and Russell Stetler, eds., The Assassinations: Dallas and Beyond, New York: Vintage, 1976, 265.

28. When New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison embarked on an investigation of the JFK assassination in 1966 centering on Lee Harvey Oswald’s presence in New Orleans in the months leading up to November, 22, 1963, “he was cross-whipped with two hurricane blasts, one from Washington and one from New York,” historian James DiEugenio explains. The first, of course, was from the government, specifically the Central Intelligence Agency, the FBI, and to a lesser extent, the White House. The blast from New York was from the major mainstream media e.g. Time-Life and NBC. Those two communication giants were instrumental in making Garrison into a lightening rod for ridicule and criticism. This orchestrated campaign … was successful in diverting attention from what Garrison was uncovering by creating controversy about the DA himself.”  DiEugenio, Preface, in William Davy, Let Justice Be Done: New Light on the Jim Garrison Investigation, Reston VA: Jordan Publishing, 1999.

29. The CIA and other US intelligence agencies used the news media to sabotage Garrison’s 1966-69 independent investigation of the Kennedy assassination. Garrison presided over the only law enforcement agency with subpoena power to seriously delve into the intricate details surrounding JFK’s murder. One of Garrison’s key witnesses, Gordon Novel, fled New Orleans to avoid testifying before the Grand Jury assembled by Garrison. According to DiEugenio, CIA Director Allen “Dulles and the Agency would begin to connect the fugitive from New Orleans with over a dozen CIA friendly journalists who—in a blatant attempt to destroy Garrison’s reputation—would proceed to write up the most outrageous stories imaginable about the DA.” James DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed: JFK, Cuba, and The Garrison Case, Second Edition, New York: SkyHorse Publishing, 2012, 235.

30. CIA officer Victor Marchetti recounted to author William Davy that in 1967 while attending staff meetings as an assistant to then-CIA Director Richard Helms, “Helms expressed great concerns over [former OSS officer, CIA operative and primary suspect in Jim Garrison’s investigation Clay] Shaw’s predicament, asking his staff, ‘Are we giving them all the help we can down there?’” William Davy, Let Justice Be Done: New Light on the Jim Garrison Investigation, Reston VA: Jordan Publishing, 1999.

31. The pejorative dimensions of the term “conspiracy theory” were introduced into the Western lexicon by CIA “media assets,” as evidenced in the design laid out by Document 1035-960 Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report, an Agency communiqué issued in early 1967 to Agency bureaus throughout the world at a time when attorney Mark Lane’s Rush to Judgment was atop bestseller lists and New Orleans DA Garrison’s investigation of the Kennedy assassination began to gain traction.

32. Time had close relations with the CIA stemming from the friendship of the magazine’s publisher Henry Luce and Eisenhower CIA chief Allen Dulles. When former newsman Richard Helms was appointed DCI in 1966 he “began to cultivate the press,” prompting journalists toward conclusions that placed the Agency in a positive light. As Time Washington correspondent Hugh Sidney recollects, “‘[w]ith [John] McCone and [Richard] Helms, we had a set-up when the magazine was doing something on the CIA, we went to them and put it before them … We were never misled.’ Similarly, when Newsweek decided in the fall of 1971 to do a cover story on Richard Helms and ‘The New Espionage,’ the magazine, according to a Newsweek staffer, went directly to the agency for much of the information. And the article … generally reflected the line that Helms was trying so hard to sell: that since the latter 1960s … the focus of attention and prestige within CIA’ had switched from the Clandestine Services to the analysis of intelligence, and that ‘the vast majority of recruits are bound for’ the Intelligence Directorate.” Victor Marchetti and John D. Marks, The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1974, 362-363.

33. In 1970 Jim Garrison wrote and published the semi-autobiographical A Heritage of Stone, a work that examines how the New Orleans DA “discovered that the CIA operated within the borders of the United States, and how it took the CIA six months to reply to the Warren Commission’s question of whether Oswald and [Jack] Ruby had been with the Agency,” Garrison biographer and Temple University humanities professor Joan Mellen observes. “In response to A Heritage of Stone, the CIA rounded up its media assets” and the book was panned by reviewers writing for the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, the Chicago Sun Times, and Life magazine. “John Leonard’s New York Times review went through a metamorphosis,” Mellen explains. “The original last paragraph challenged the Warren Report: ‘Something stinks about this whole affair,’ Leonard wrote. ‘Why were Kennedy’s neck organs not examined at Bethesda for evidence of a frontal shot? Why was his body whisked away to Washington before the legally required Texas inquest? Why?’ This paragraph evaporated in later editions of the Times. A third of a column gone, the review then ended: ‘Frankly I prefer to believe that the Warren Commission did a poor job, rather than a dishonest one. I like to think that Garrison invents monsters to explain incompetence.’” Joan Mellen, A Farewell to Justice: Jim Garrison, JFK’s Assassination, and the Case That Should Have Changed History, Washington DC: Potomac Books, 2005, 323, 324.

34. CIA Deputy Director for Plans Cord Meyer Jr. appealed to Harper & Row president emeritus Cass Canfield Sr. over the book publisher’s pending release of Alfred McCoy’s The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia, based on the author’s fieldwork and Yale PhD dissertation wherein he examined the CIA’s explicit role in the opium trade. “Claiming my book was a threat to national security,” McCoy recalls, “the CIA official had asked Harper & Row to suppress it. To his credit, Mr. Canfield had refused. But he had agreed to review the manuscript prior to publication.” Alfred W. McCoy, The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, Chicago Review Press, 2003, xx.

35. Publication of The Secret Team, a book by US Air Force Colonel and Pentagon-CIA liaison L. Fletcher Prouty recounting the author’s firsthand knowledge of CIA black operations and espionage, was met with a wide scale censorship campaign in 1972. “The campaign to kill the book was nationwide and world-wide,” Prouty notes. “It was removed from the Library of Congress and from college libraries as letters I received attested all too frequently … I was a writer whose book had been cancelled by a major publisher [Prentice Hall] and a major paperback publisher [Ballantine Books] under the persuasive hand of the CIA.” L. Fletcher Prouty, The Secret Team: The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World, New York: SkyHorse Publishing, 2008, xii, xv.

36. During the Pike Committee hearings in 1975 Congressman Otis Pike asked DCI William Colby, “Do you have any people paid by the CIA who are working for television networks?” Colby responded, “This, I think, gets into the kind of details, Mr. Chairman, that I’d like to get into in executive session.” Once the chamber was cleared Colby admitted that in 1975 specifically “the CIA was using ‘media cover’ for eleven agents, many fewer than in the heyday of the cloak-and-pencil operations, but no amount of questioning would persuade him to talk about the publishers and network chieftains who had cooperated at the top.” Schorr, Clearing the Air, 275.

37. “There is quite an incredible spread of relationships,” former CIA intelligence officer William Bader informed a US Senate Intelligence Committee investigating the CIA’s infiltration of the nation’s journalistic outlets. “You don’t need to manipulate Time magazine, for example, because there are Agency people at the management level.” Bernstein, “The CIA and the Media.”

38. In 1985 film historian and professor Joseph McBride came across a November 29, 1963 memorandum from J. Edgar Hoover, titled, “Assassination of President John F. Kennedy,” wherein the FBI director stated that his agency provided two individuals with briefings, one of whom was “Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency.” ” When McBride queried the CIA with the memo a “PR man was tersely formal and opaque: ‘I can neither confirm nor deny.’ It was the standard response the agency gave when it dealt with its sources and methods,” journalist Russ Baker notes. When McBride published a story in The Nation, “The Man Who Wasn’t There, ‘George Bush,’ C.I.A. Operative,” the CIA came forward with a statement that the George Bush referenced in the FBI record “apparently” referenced a George William Bush, who filled a perfunctory night shift position at CIA headquarters that “would have been the appropriate place to receive such a report.” McBride tracked down George William Bush to confirm he was only employed briefly as a “probationary civil servant” who had “never received interagency briefings.” Shortly thereafter The Nation ran a second story by McBride wherein “the author provided evidence that the Central Intelligence Agency had foisted a lie on the American people … As with McBride’s previous story, this disclosure was greeted with the equivalent of a collective media yawn.” Since the episode researchers have found documents linking George H. W. Bush to the CIA as early as 1953. Russ Baker,Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America’s Invisible Government, and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years, New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2009, 7-12.

39. Operation Gladio, the well-documented collaboration between Western spy agencies, including the CIA, and NATO involving coordinated terrorist shootings and bombings of civilian targets throughout Europe from the late 1960s through the 1980s, has been effectively expunged from major mainstream news outlets. A LexisNexis Academic search conducted in 2012 for “Operation Gladio” retrieved 31 articles in English language news media—most appearing in British newspapers. Only four articles discussing Gladio ever appeared in US publications—three in the New York Times and one brief mention in the Tampa Bay Times. With the exception of a 2009 BBC documentary, no network or cable news broadcast has ever referenced the state-sponsored terror operation. Almost all of the articles referencing Gladio appeared in 1990 when Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti publicly admitted Italy’s participation in the process. The New York Times downplayed any US involvement, misleadingly designating Gladio “an Italian creation” in a story buried on page A16. In reality, former CIA director William Colby revealed in his memoirs that covert paramilitaries were a significant agency undertaking set up after World War II, including “the smallest possible coterie of the most reliable people, in Washington [and] NATO.” James F. Tracy, “False Flag Terror and Conspiracies of Silence,” Global Research, August 10, 2012.

40. Days before the April 19, 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City DCI William Colby confided to his friend, Nebraska State Senator John DeCamp his personal concerns over the Militia and Patriot movement within the United States, then surging in popularity due to the use of the alternative media of that era–books, periodicals, cassette tapes, and radio broadcasts. “I watched as the Anti-War movement rendered it impossible for this country to conduct or win the Vietnam War,” Colby remarked. “I tell you, dear friend, that the Militia and Patriot movement in which, as an attorney, you have become one of the centerpieces, is far more significant and far more dangerous for American than the Anti-War movement ever was, if it is not intelligently dealt with. And I really mean this.” David Hoffman, The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Politics of Terror, Venice CA: Feral House, 1998, 367.

41. Shortly after the appearance of journalist Gary Webb’s “Dark Alliance” series in the San Jose Mercury News chronicling the Agency’s involvement in drug trafficking, the CIA’s public affairs division embarked on a campaign to counter what it termed “a genuine public relations crisis for the Agency.” Webb was merely reporting to a large audience what had already been well documented by scholars such as Alfred McCoy and Peter Dale Scott, and the 1989 Kerry Committee Report on Iran-Contra—that the CIA had long been involved in the illegal transnational drug trade. Such findings were upheld in 1999 in a study by the CIA inspector general. Nevertheless, beginning shortly after Webb’s series ran, “CIA media spokesmen would remind reporters seeking comment that this series represented no real news,” a CIA internal organ noted, “in that similar charges were made in the 1980s and were investigated by the Congress and were found to be without substance. Reporters were encouraged to read the “Dark Alliance’ series closely and with a critical eye to what allegations could actually be backed with evidence.” http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/DOC_0001372115.pdf

42. On December 10, 2004 investigative journalist Gary Webb died of two .38 caliber gunshot wounds to the head. The coroner ruled the death a suicide. “Gary Webb was MURDERED,” concluded FBI senior special agent Ted Gunderson in 2005. “He (Webb) resisted the first shot [to the head that exited via jaw] so he was shot again with the second shot going into the head [brain].” Gunderson regards the theory that Webb could have managed to shoot himself twice as “impossible!” Charlene Fassa, “Gary Webb: More Pieces in the Suicided Puzzle,” Rense.com, December 11, 2005.

43. The most revered journalists who receive “exclusive” information and access to the corridors of power are typically the most subservient to officialdom and often have intelligence ties. Those granted such access understand that they must likewise uphold government-sanctioned narratives. For example, the New York Times’ Tom Wicker reported on November 22, 1963 that President John F. Kennedy “was hit by a bullet in the throat, just below the Adam’s apple.” Yet his account went to press before the official story of a single assassin shooting from the rear became established. Wicker was chastised through “lost access, complaints to editors and publishers, social penalties, leaks to competitors, a variety of responses no one wants.” Barrie Zwicker, Towers of Deception: The Media Coverup of 9/11, Gabrioloa Island, BC: New Society Publishers, 2006, 169-170.

44. The CIA actively promotes a desirable public image of its history and function by advising the production of Hollywood vehicles, such as Argo and Zero Dark Thirty. The Agency retains “entertainment industry liaison officers” on its staff that “plant positive images about itself (in other words, propaganda) through our most popular forms of entertainment,” Tom Hayden explains in the LA Review of Books. “So natural has the CIA–entertainment connection become that few question its legal or moral ramifications. This is a government agency like no other; the truth of its operations is not subject to public examination. When the CIA’s hidden persuaders influence a Hollywood movie, it is using a popular medium to spin as favorable an image of itself as possible, or at least, prevent an unfavorable one from taking hold.” Tom Hayden, “Review of The CIA in Hollywood: How the Agency Shapes Film and Television by Tricia Jenkins,” LA Review of Books, February 24, 2013,

45. Former CIA case officer Robert David Steele states that CIA manipulation of news media is “worse” in the 2010s than in the late 1970s when Bernstein wrote “The CIA and the Media.” “The sad thing is that the CIA is very able to manipulate [the media] and it has financial arrangements with media, with Congress, with all others. But the other half of that coin is that the media is lazy.” James Tracy interview with Robert David Steele, August 2, 2014,

46. A well-known fact is that broadcast journalist Anderson Cooper interned for the CIA while attending Yale as an undergraduate in the late 1980s. According to Wikipedia Cooper’s great uncle, William Henry Vanderbilt III, was an Executive Officer of the Special Operations Branch of the OSS under the spy organization’s founder William “Wild Bill” Donovan. While Wikipedia is an often dubious source, Vanderbilt’s OSS involvement would be in keeping with the OSS/CIA reputation of taking on highly affluent personnel for overseas derring-do. William Henry Vanderbilt III, Wikipedia.

47. Veteran German journalist Udo Ulfkotte, author of the 2014 book Gekaufte Journalisten (Bought Journalists) revealed how under the threat of job termination he was routinely compelled to publish articles written by intelligence agents using his byline. “I ended up publishing articles under my own name written by agents of the CIA and other intelligence services, especially the German secret service,” Ulfkotte explained in a recent interview with Russia Today. “German Journo: European Media Writing Pro-US Stories Under CIA Pressure,” RT, October 18, 2014.

48. In 1999 the CIA established In-Q-Tel, a venture capital firm seeking to “identify and invest in companies developing cutting-edge information technologies that serve United States national security interests.” The firm has exercised financial relationships with internet platforms Americans use on a routine basis, including Google and Facebook. “If you want to keep up with Silicon Valley, you need to become part of Silicon Valley,” says Jim Rickards, an adviser to the U.S. intelligence community familiar with In-Q-Tel’s activities. “The best way to do that is have a budget because when you have a checkbook, everyone comes to you.” At one point IQT “catered largely to the needs of the CIA.” Today, however, “the firm supports many of the 17 agencies within the U.S. intelligence community, including the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate.” Matt Egan, “In-Q-Tel: A Glimpse Inside the CIA’s Venture Capital Arm,” FoxBusiness.com, June 14, 2013.

49. At a 2012 conference held by In-Q-Tel CIA Director David Patraeus declared that the rapidly-developing “internet of things” and “smart home” will provide the CIA with the ability to spy on any US citizen should they become a “person of interest’ to the spy community,” Wired magazine reports. “‘Transformational’ is an overused word, but I do believe it properly applies to these technologies,’ Patraeus enthused, ‘particularly to their effect on clandestine tradecraft’ … ‘Items of interest will be located, identified, monitored, and remotely controlled through technologies such as radio-frequency identification, sensor networks, tiny embedded servers, and energy harvesters — all connected to the next-generation internet using abundant, low-cost, and high-power computing,” Patraeus said, “the latter now going to cloud computing, in many areas greater and greater supercomputing, and, ultimately, heading to quantum computing.” Spencer Ackerman, “CIA Chief: We’ll Spy on You Through Your Dishwasher,” Wired, March 15, 2012.

50. In the summer of 2014 a $600 million computing cloud developed by Amazon Web Services for the CIA began servicing all 17 federal agencies comprising the intelligence community. “If the technology plays out as officials envision,” The Atlantic reports, “it will usher in a new era of cooperation and coordination, allowing agencies to share information and services much more easily and avoid the kind of intelligence gaps that preceded the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.” “The Details About the CIA’s Deal With Amazon,” The Atlantic, July 17, 2014.

Original source of this article is Memory Hole


[premium_newsticker id="211406"]


The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post



All image captions, pull quotes, appendices, etc. by the editors not the authors. 
YOU ARE FREE TO REPRODUCE THIS ARTICLE PROVIDED YOU GIVE PROPER CREDIT TO THE GREANVILLE POST
VIA A BACK LIVE LINK. 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

black-horizontal

 

black-horizontal




NAVALNY, BELLINGCAT & THE FIFTH COLUMN IN THE FSB

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.


Help us break the corporate media monopoly before it kills us all. The global oligarchy depends on its disinformation machine to maintain its power. Now the malicious fog of Western propaganda has created an ocean of confusion in which even independent minds can drown. Please push back against this colossal apparatus of deception. Consider a donation today!


A Dispatch from the Stalkerzone
PUSHING BACK AGAINST WESTERN DISINFORMATION



NAVALNY, BELLINGCAT & THE FIFTH COLUMN IN THE FSB

Navalny And Others Like Him Are Not Politicians Or Fighters. They Are Puppets. We Armed Ourselves With Evidence And Made The First Attempt To Understand Whose Hands Control These “Dolls”. By The Way, Some Of These Arms Are Covered With The Sleeves Of The Uniforms Of The Russian Federal Security Service. So Who Is Behind The “Investigations” That Were Supposed To “Shake Russia”? Whose Agents Were Navalny And His Associates? The Answers Are In Our Investigation.

Tsargrad continues a series of investigations into Aleksey Navalny. This time we will talk about his colleagues – journalists of the scandalous website of anti-Russian “revelations” Bellingcat, as well as about close ties with The Insider. From the documents we found, we learned that influential and experienced agents, professionals of conducting hybrid war against Russia, now stood up for Navalny. However, today’s story casts a big shadow in the past, where there was a place for “werewolves in uniform”, and hackers, and big money from overseas.

We were not surprised to see not only the “exposé” of the Bulgarian journalist Christo Grozev on Navalny, but also them together, calling, probably, a fake FSB employee. The one who confused Omsk and Tomsk, and also confessed to the strange interest of the Russian security forces in the underwear of the opposition leader. After all, Novichok was allegedly also applied to it. So who are Grozev and his team? Who sponsors the Bellingcat investigators and what does Aleksey Navalny have to do with it? About everything in order.

Buckets Of Dirt

Over the past two months, several information plantings about the case with the “poisoning” of Navalny have appeared online at the same time. The most resonant is the joint “investigation” of The Insider, Bellingcat and CNN with the participation of Der Spiegel. 
The Leader And Main Coordinator Was Christo Grozev, As We Are Kindly Told On The Bellingcat Website.

Grozev is well known in the west for his Bellingcat work. In fact, this British organisation was created [in Orwellian fashion] as a website for exposing the “propaganda of Russia”. Initially, Bellingcat employees did an investigation from which it follows that allegedly Russia was responsible for the downing of the Malaysian Boeing in Donbass.

Grozev in 2014, through all his resources, exposed Russia as an “aggressor” who attacked Ukraine. He published a large number of fakes about the presence of Russian military personnel there in characteristic camouflage, about the movement of equipment and soldiers. Even later, Grozev did not let up and did not hestitate to spread rumours that Russia was going to attack Ukraine soon with large forces. In 2020, on his Twitter, for example, he published, without a reference to sources, a certain video about the passage of a column of military equipment in the Rostov region. According to Grozev, this then indicated that Russia was preparing for an attack.

In 2016, Grozev organised a campaign to accuse Moscow of “attempting a coup in Montenegro”. It is noteworthy that this lie was not believed, first of all, by the residents of the republic themselves. They believed that Grozev was paid by then-Prime Minister Milo Đukanović to “warm up” his approval rating before the election.

Then there were the Bellingcat “investigations” into the poisoning of the Skripals, where the use of Novichok was allegedly confirmed. It said that the suspects worked for the GRU, and so on.

After that, Grozev actively promoted the position of the American Democrats through his resources, claiming that Donald Trump, who came to power in the US at that time, was also a protege of Moscow and almost personally of Vladimir Putin.

In a word, Grozev everywhere, at every step, defamed Russia as much as he could. He was engaged in this systematically, and one can not deny its scope. After all, at the instigation of Grozev, this propaganda was actively spread by the western press, after which this information poisoned the minds of Americans and Europeans. Let’s look at Christo Grozev in more detail. 

The Story Of A Propagandist

Christo Grozev was born in 1969 in Plovdiv and since his teens was interested in two things – radio and democracy. Not surprisingly, he went to study at the American University in Bulgaria (AUBG), one of the key forges of “democratic” cadres in the Balkans. There is no doubt about the ideological education of students, because 80% of the teaching staff of the university was represented by Americans.

The most interesting thing is the financing of this university. The first sponsor was the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). The university’s website says that USAID funds the university through the Office of American Schools and Hospitals Abroad (ASHA). The grants amounted to more than $11 million.
ASHA, in turn, is an integral part of USAID, and this information can be easily found on the organisation’s website.
The second sponsor is the George Soros Open Society Foundation, which has allocated at least $36 million to the university. Christo Grozev, after reading an article about himself in Tsargrad back in 2017, was ironic about being called an “agent of Soros”. But it’s hard to deny the facts about the funding he received from Soros, even when he was studying at a university he sponsored.

The third sponsor is no less interesting. This is the America for Bulgaria Foundation (ABF), which has allocated at least $22 million to the American University to pay scholarships and support students (information from the university’s website). The ABF’s own website says that it was founded in 1991 by the US Congress and USAID.

In 2012, the anniversary issue of the official journal of the university “AUBG Today” was published, dedicated to the 20th anniversary of the university. The cover features a photo with George Soros, the special envoy of US President George H. W. Bush, Elaine Chao and the first President of independent Bulgaria, Zhelyu Zhelev. In short, it is difficult to imagine something more American in Bulgaria than this university. In such a place, Christo Grozev, who denies his ties with the money of the US and Soros, was educated.

Christo Grozev founded Bulgaria’s first private radio station, Radio Aura, on the university’s campus in 1993. In 1995, he graduated from the university, but did not go to the US (as almost all graduates want), and went to work in the media holding company Metromedia International, where the employer of a capable young graduate was the American billionaire John Kluge.

READ:  Loyalist Confusion

Kluge is known all over the world as a tycoon who bought up media assets in different countries. However, a number of no-no sources reported him as a high-ranking American intelligence officer. As the journalist Oleg Lurie told us, Kluge was responsible for the US intelligence agencies during World War II for the export of German prisoners of war, including even Wernher von Braun, who were valuable to the Americans. The goal was to create for Washington the maximum superiority over the USSR in the nuclear race. At the same time, a number of sources report that the division led by Kluge P.O. Box 1142 (District of Columbia) is famous for its sadistic torture of prisoners.

John Kluge died in 2010, but we managed to find an interesting document – a transcript of a fragment of a recording of a US Congress meeting, which contains an appeal to honour the memory of the deceased secret US intelligence officer John Kluge. Here is the most interesting quote from the document:
By the way, the western media persistently hide Kluge’s affiliation with American intelligence. They try not to trumpet about it. According to Forbes, until 1991, Kluge was considered the richest man in the US, his fortune exceeded $5 billion. A year before his death, he was ranked 35th in the Forbes ranking. The Times of London, for example, tells us that Kluge, also known as “Mr. Midas”, is simply a billionaire who founded America’s first independent media empire. But we can imagine how “independent” a career US intelligence officer could actually be.
Thus, we can say that Christo Grozev immediately after university chose a career as a propagandist and entered into a closer relationship with the American intelligence agencies, starting to work for Kluge. Moreover, Grozev, on the personal orders of his boss, went to open a network of propaganda radio stations in Russia.

One of Metromedia’s projects in Russia was, for example, “Eldoradio” (Radio Katyusha CJSC), which was opened in 1996. According to the register of radio stations for that period, the general director of “Eldoradio” was Grozev himself. An extract from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities for this radio station can be obtained even today, but after the change of owners in 2003, the CJSC turned into a joint-stock company and was re-registered with the assignment of a new tax code.
The newspaper Delovoy Peterburg also wrote about Grozev as a general director, noting the success of the radio station. Of course, because the station had no problems with financing.


Our colleagues from the investigative publication FLB found an indication of Grozev as the “first person” in “Radio Katyusha” CJSC.

In addition to “Eldoradio”, Grozev also launched “Channel Melody” in St. Petersburg and “Radio Nika” in Sochi. In the 2000s, Kluge noticed Grozev’s zeal and made him a top manager of the entire eastern European wing of Metromedia. This division of the corporation was engaged in broadcasting in Russia, the Baltic states, Finland, Bulgaria, and Hungary. In total, Grozev managed 26 radio stations in nine countries.

However, the network of “democratic” propaganda mouthpieces in our country eventually collapsed. As Grozev himself later stated, Vladimir Putin allegedly personally destroyed Metromedia’s business in Russia. In 1999, Viktor Ivanov, who had served in the KGB Department of the USSR for Leningrad and the Leningrad Region since 1977, became interested in the activities of Metromedia. In 1994, deputy mayor of St. Petersburg, Putin appointed Ivanov head of the administrative bodies of the City Hall. In 1996, Anatoly Sobchak lost the mayoral election, Ivanov left politics and headed “Teleplus” CJSC, which was owned by one of Metromedia’s daughters. Apparently, it was there that Ivanov saw the whole “spy”background of Kluge and Grozev’s activities in Russia.

In January 2000, Vladimir Putin became acting president of Russia and appointed Ivanov as deputy head of the Presidential Administration for personnel, and as Grozev states, then his radio stations were subjected to “a decisive attack from the Putin team”. A number of sources report that the radio stations of Grozev had non-transparent accounting, and Metromedia itself evaded paying taxes. For example, in 2004, the Georgian authorities accused the son-in-law of the former President of Georgia Eduard Shevardnadze, Giya Dzhohtaberidze, who was the founder and co-owner of the mobile phone company “Magticom”, part of Metromedia, of corruption.

After the collapse of Metromedia shares in the late 2000s, the company started to sell off its assets in the CIS. Grozev also said that he considers Vladimir Putin his personal enemy, as he allegedly “squeezed” his business. Then the Bulgarian propagandist, apparently, decided to start “taking revenge on Putin” in a big way.

Grozev then goes to a new sponsor – the heir to the royal throne of Austria, Karl Habsburg-Lorraine, and later becomes a personal financial adviser to Habsburg. Grozev persuades him to invest in the creation of a “democratic” radio station in Ukraine.

The entire “office” was then unexpectedly “handed over” on his Facebook by Oleg Khavich – the former head of the information bloc of the Ministry of Culture of Ukraine. In 2016, he posted a photo of himself standing next to Karl Habsburg and Christo Grozev. Khavich called the latter a “financial adviser” to Habsburg. Supporters of Austria-Hungary in the comments could not restrain themselves and exulted: “Galicia is waiting for the return of its emperor!”

What a wonderful company, you might say. Thank you to Mr. Khavich for this photo, with which we were able to confirm the close connection between Grozev and Habsburg. After all, in 2014, Metromedia bought in Ukraine “Gala Radio”, which in 2015 received the pretentious name “EU Radio”. Grozev assumed that the station would become the mouthpiece of European “democracy”. By the way, the radio completely abandoned Russian music, so as not to promote the “aggressor country”.

The Metromedia empire eventually collapsed around the world, and its last assets were sold off in Georgia. But Grozev did not care, because then he went to work at Bellingcat, where he again fell down before the overseas feeding trough.

Bellingcat, FSB, The Insider, Hackers, Intelligence Agencies And Big Money

Let’s move on to the most interesting part of our investigation. As many may recall, in early 2017, there was a loud scandal in the FSB: the head of the 2nd department of the Central Information Security Department of the FSB Sergey Mikhailov and his deputy Dmitry Dokuchaev were arrested.

On February 26th, 2019, the Moscow District Military Court sentenced Sergey Mikhailov and associated Kaspersky Lab employee Ruslan Stoyanov to 22 and 14 years in prison, respectively, finding them guilty under Article 275 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “State Treason”.

As was established by the investigation, in 2011 Mikhailov took advantage of the fact that he was head of FSB Central Information Security Department and became a real digital mafia, or more simply, the leader of a cyber-criminal group. It was Mikhailov who “protected” the infamous Ukrainian hackers from “Anonymous International”. This group was also called “Shaltay Boltay”. Important: the investigation proved Mikhailov’s guilt and his receipt of money from the US intelligence agencies.

“Shaltay Boltay” since 2014 settled in Kiev, boldly opposed Russia and started to do powerful leaks of information so that the west could use them to accuse Moscow of aggression. By the way, it was “Shaltay Boltay” who launched the myth of “Russian hackers” at the same time. But where was this anti-Russian hysteria picked up from?

It was The Insider. Yes, yes, the same one who, in conjunction with Christo Grozev, conducted the latest investigations on Navalny, and then the publication published the plums of “Shaltay“. For example, about the fake hacking of Vladislav Surkov’s mail, whose letters allegedly prove Russia’s “aggression” against Ukraine. 

Thus, we stretch a logical thread: the money of the CIA and the State Department – Sergey Mikhailov – “Shaltay Boltay” – The Insider. Of course, Christo Grozev did not pass by these plums and joyfully picked up all such messages discrediting Russia. The chain thus extends to both Bellingcat and Grozev.

All the links in this chain have one thing in common – communication with the US intelligence agencies and receiving money from them through the State Department structures, as well as all sorts of “democratic” organisations sponsored by Soros. This is confirmed by a number of sources. Firstly, in the west, there are also unbiased media [actually alternative independent media]. The website Mint Press News in October 2018 published an article about the dirty financing of Bellingcat. Here is a quote from the publication’s article:

“For instance, Bellingcat regularly works with the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), which – according to the late journalist Robert Parry – ‘engages in ‘investigative journalism’ that usually goes after governments that have fallen into disfavor with the United States and then are singled out for accusations of corruption.’ OCCRP is notably funded by USAID and the controversial George Soros-funded Open Society Foundations.”

The editor-in-chief of The Insider, Roman Dobrokhotov, confirmed in January 2021 in the film of Aleksey Pivovarov’s YouTube channel “Editorial” that his publication also received money from OCCRP. Here is a video fragment where Dobrokhotov speaks about this quite openly.

Now let’s see where the money comes from for OCCRP itself? This is indeed again the Open Society Foundation of George Soros, this is again USAID and even the US State Department itself. This is stated in the appropriate section of the OCCRP website.

And now let’s give the floor to Christo Grozev himself, who is trying to assure us that he paid for the investigation of Navalny out of his own pocket. Grozev admitted that the information in the “investigation” was “gray”, and Bellingcat is allegedly so transparent that it does not pay for such “leaks”. Here is a snippet of the video from the right minute.

[An Anglo-American Imperialist Disinformation Machine]

Grozev stammered and even clutched his head when he said that the Bellingcat grant-givers are state structures. He immediately corrected himself, saying that the money in the organisation is allegedly coming from some private companies. But we now know where the money came from.

But that’s not all. We managed to find documents confirming that the British MI6 and the London Institute for Statecraft are also involved in financing Bellingcat employees. We are talking about an organisation called Integrity Initiative.

Integrity Initiative is the largest anti-Russian information and lobbying company in history, with central Anglo-Saxon support and a huge aggregate budget. Among other things, its activities are aimed at interfering in the internal affairs of other countries. The members of the organisation are politicians, scientists, officials, teachers, military personnel, activists, bloggers and journalists. Such, for example, as Grozev, Dobrokhotov and Navalny.

In 2018, Anonymous hackers broke into the servers of this organisation and posted some of the internal documents. Among them are a list of the organisation’s members by cluster in different countries, a list of operations, fees, requests for seminars, a manual on how to correctly lie about “Russian propaganda”, how to interpret the “Skripal case” and the MH-17 disaster. At the end of 2018, Tsargrad, as part of a special project, considered the activities of this British network of agents of influence in Europe. Now the documents of the Integrity Initiative can be found on the website fdik.org.

The documents also found something that indicates the connection of Bellingcat with Integrity Initiative. Namely, requests for payment of royalties to Christo Grozev’s closest assistant, Bellingcat author Dan Kaszeta, for his articles on toxic warfare agents and “nerve agents” (first document, second and third). It was Kaszeta who authored the investigation into the use of sarin in Syria.

Kaszeta is also the author of the Bellingcat investigation into the poisoning of Bulgarian businessman Emelyan Gebrev. In it, the journalist establishes the connection of this incident with the poisoning of the Skripals in Salisbury. Finally, in the documents of the Integrity Initiative, there is a summary description of a number of members of the organisation, which says about Kaszeta:

“Director of Strongpoint Security, a UK-based security and defence consultancy. Subject matter expert in chemical, biological, and radiological/nuclear (CBRN) defence, as well as traditional physical and operational security issues. US-UK dual national, of partial Lithuanian descent. Served as a Chemical Corps officer in the US Army, CBRN and Disaster Preparedness Advisor at the White House Military Office, and as a specialist in the US Secret Service before relocating to the UK in 2008. Published author in his field. Considerable experience and connections in Baltic States. Russian linguist (moderate spoken and written).”

Is this an independent whistleblower? And this friend of Christo Grozev is not connected with American intelligence and does not receive money from it? And what, are his “investigations”about chemical attacks in Syria or the “Skripal case” reliable? It is likely that those like Kaszeta, on request, simply legalise the position of Washington and London in the information field in order to strengthen western propaganda. And they make good money from it.

Thus, The Following Facts Are Obvious To Us:

            • Christo Grozev works in close connection with Roman Dobrokhotov and The Insider, they have common funding and perform dirty information work in accordance with the desire of their clients.

        The Main Character Enters The Stage

        And what about Aleksey Navalny? He also participates in this, because Grozev is his great friend. In December, Navalny published a video in which he, sitting next to Grozev, pretended to be an assistant to Nikolay Patrushev and called allegedly an employee of the FSB Institute of Criminology Konstantin Kudryavtsev. But we have every reason to consider this video a theatrical production.

        It is already known that the stated time of this call does not coincide with the real one. Recall, as was stated by Navalny himself, his “prank” occurred at 7 a.m. Moscow time (5 a.m. local time), but the footage with Christo Grozev’s emotional reaction to what Navalny’s interlocutor said shows a different time on the wall clock – 4.15 or 16.15. The frame also includes the window through which Grozev looks. Outside the window – twilight.

        In the city of Ibach, where Navalny and Grozev were then located, sunset was at 16.35, and dawn and dusk were at 7.35. This suggests that the recording was conducted in the late afternoon, and not early in the morning, as Navalny said.

        They are also trying to convince us that a certain Mr. Ustinov, unknown to anyone, who Navalny introduced himself to, will be able to talk to an FSB officer just like that, by calling on a regular phone. And this employee will tell everything to a person he hears for the first time? This is absurd. Finally, the direct (and naive) question of the interlocutor at the end of the conversation is also alarming – is there anything wrong with the fact that the conversation was held on a regular phone.

        However, the analysis of the staged nature of the call hides the main thing from us. This is the first time we really see Grozev and Navalny together. We have received irrefutable visual evidence of their joint work. Here is how the head of the International Eurasian Movement, Aleksandr Dugin, reacted to this in an interview with us:

        “When Navalny showed up with Grozev, no other evidence of his ties to the CIA and receiving money from Soros is no longer needed. Christo Grozev is worse than the CIA, worse than MI6. He represents the spearhead of the world government.”

        What Does This Mean?

        The scope of a single investigation does not allow us to consider all the episodes of Christo Grozev’s biography and reveal all his connections with western intelligence agencies. Rather, it is a job for the investigation. However, even from the analysis of open and accessible sources, it is clear in what a tight knot the entire “sect” of anti-Russian propagandists has intertwined.

        It is Grozev, a man who has received USAID and Soros money since his student days, who is now reaching out to Navalny. There is no point in proving this, because they filmed themselves next to each other. Of course, Roman Dobrokhotov and The Insider not only published investigations into the “poisoning” of Navalny, but also continue to disperse their information attack. And we know their sources of funding very well. As well as the likely clients of these “investigations”.

        However, most importantly, through The Insider, which worked together with the traitor of the Motherland Sergey Mikhailov, Dobrokhotov is connected with Bellingcat and Christo Grozev. And he, as we now clearly see, is with Navalny. It is here that the connection between the leader of the non-systemic protest in Russia and the FSB officers who stained their uniforms is revealed. They couldn’t help but support or even guide the likes of him. As is said, draw your own conclusions.

        Egor Kucher


        [premium_newsticker id="211406"]


        The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post



        All image captions, pull quotes, appendices, etc. by the editors not the authors. 
        YOU ARE FREE TO REPRODUCE THIS ARTICLE PROVIDED YOU GIVE PROPER CREDIT TO THE GREANVILLE POST
        VIA A BACK LIVE LINK. 
        This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

        black-horizontal

         

        black-horizontal