.
ER Editor: This piece by Kit Klarenberg put us in mind of deceased former journalist at the Frankfurter Algemeine – Udo Ulfkotte, who wrote a book amounting to a confession as to how the CIA would dictate the day’s reporting at the newspaper. We recall trying to obtain this book in English with a great degree of difficulty. Ulfkotte knew he would die prematurely because of a health condition, but his precipitous death curiously led to restrictions on the publication of his book that he was no longer around to contest.
Europe’s Courageous Journalism Voice Has Passed Away — Paul Craig Roberts
********
Occupied Nation: How the CIA Created Modern Germany
KIT KLARENBERG
.
The Economist frames Scholz’s collapsed fortunes, and the prospects of his party’s imminent extinction as a serious force within German politics, as a microcosm of Berlin’s declining economic and political clout more widely. It notes that the nation’s finances have gone “limp” during his tenure, with business-sector confidence collapsing, and record inflation destroying citizens’ incomes and savings. Other sources have detailed the country’s “deindustrialization,” Politico coining the nickname, “Rust Belt on the Rhine.”
In keeping with those meditations on Germany’s ever-worsening woes, The Economist’s bleak diagnosis made no mention of how Western sanctions imposed on Russia in February 2022 created Berlin’s crisis. Scholz was a prominent cheerleader for the Biden administration’s push to “make the Ruble rubble.” Now that effort has so spectacularly backfired that it can no longer be ignored or spun otherwise; Newsweek admits “any realistic war game could have easily predicted” the sanctions would not only fail, but boomerang on the sanctioners.
Those few analysts who predicted the invasion of Ukraine well in advance universally failed to anticipate Berlin would support and facilitate any U.S. counterattack, particularly in the financial sphere. They believed Germany possessed the requisite autonomy and sense not to commit willful economic suicide in service of Empire. After all, the country’s stability, prosperity and power were heavily dependent on cheap, readily accessible Russian energy. Voluntarily ending that supply would be inescapably disastrous.
For this failure, they can be forgiven. Berlin, particularly in the wake of reunification, has successfully presented itself to the world as sovereign, led by sensible people acting in the best interests of their nation, and Europe. In truth, ever since 1945, Germany has been a heavily occupied nation, drowning under the weight of U.S. military installations, and its politics, society and culture aggressively shaped and influenced by the CIA.
This unacknowledged reality is amply spelled out in Agency whistleblower Philip Agee’s 1978 tell-all book, Dirty Work: The CIA in Western Europe. Comprehending who is truly in charge in Berlin, and what interests Germany’s elected representatives are actually serving, is fundamental to understanding why Scholz, et al., so eagerly embraced the self-destructive sanctions. And why the facts of Nord Stream 2’s criminal destruction can never emerge.
“Enormous Presence”
Following World War II, the United States emerged as the world’s undisputed military and economic superpower. As Agee wrote, the overriding aim of U.S. foreign policy thereafter was to “guarantee the coherence of the Western world” under its exclusive leadership. CIA activities were accordingly “directed toward achieving this goal.” In service of the Empire’s global domination project, “left opposition movements had to be discredited and destroyed” everywhere. (ER: As we recall, the average leftists of the time were largely against economic injustice and war. It’s easy to see how the oligarchs wouldn’t want that agenda to be promoted.)
After West Germany was forged from the respective occupation zones of Britain, France and the U.S., the fledgling country became a particularly “crucial area” in this regard, serving as “one of the most important operational areas for far-reaching CIA programs” in Europe and elsewhere. Domestic Agency operations in West Germany were explicitly concerned with ensuring the country was “pro-American,” and structured according to U.S. “commercial interests.”
In the process, the CIA covertly supported the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and SPD, and trade unions. (ER: i.e. both ‘sides’ of the political fence, as well as that organization supposed to represent the workers) The Agency “wanted the influence of the two major political parties to be strong enough to shut out and hold down any left opposition,” Agee explained. The SPD had a radical, Marxist tradition. It was the only party in the Reichstag to vote against the 1933 Enabling Act, which laid the foundations for Germany’s total Nazification, and led to its proscription.
Newly reinstituted following the war, the SPD maintained its revolutionary roots until 1959. Then, under the Godesberg Program, it abandoned any commitment to challenging capitalism in a serious way. It stretches credibility to suggest the CIA was not expressly responsible for neutering the party’s radical tendencies.
In any event, effective control of West German democracy ensured that Washington’s “enormous presence” there–which included hundreds of thousands of troops and almost 300 separate military and intelligence installations—was not challenged by those in power, irrespective of the party to which they belonged, despite a majority of the population consistently opposing U.S. military occupation.
This presence in turn granted the CIA “a number of different covers to work behind,” according to Agee. The majority of its operatives were embedded within the U.S. military, posing as mere soldiers. The Agency’s biggest station was an army base in Frankfurt, although it also boasted units in West Berlin and Munich. U.S. operatives were “highly qualified technicians who tap telephones, open mail, keep people under surveillance, and encode and decode intelligence transmissions,” working “all over the country.”
Dedicated divisions were charged with “making contact with organizations and people within the political establishment,” such as the SPD and its elected representatives. All the intelligence collected was “used to infiltrate and manipulate” the same organizations. The CIA, moreover, collaborated “very closely” with West German security services in many domestic spying efforts, the country’s assorted intelligence agencies conducting operations at the Agency’s direct behest, “often [to] protect CIA activities from any legal consequences.”
“Discredit and Destroy”
Intimate bedfellows as they were, there were nonetheless “difficulties” in the CIA’s relationship with its West German counterparts, per Agee. The Agency never fully trusted their protégés, and felt a pronounced need to “keep an eye” on them. Still, this lack of faith was no barrier to the CIA partnering with the BND, West Germany’s foreign intelligence service, to secretly purchase Swiss encryption firm Crypto AG in 1970. Perhaps this was done to “protect CIA activities from any legal consequences.”
Crypto AG produced high-tech machines through which foreign governments could transmit sensitive high-level communications around the world, safe from prying eyes. Or so they thought. In reality, the clandestine owners of Crypto AG, and by extension the NSA and GCHQ, could easily decipher any messages sent via the firm’s devices, as they themselves crafted the encryption codes. The connivance operated in total secrecy for decades thereafter, only being exposed in February 2020.
ER: See this we published from late February 2020 —
The CIA’s Complicity in Recent Global Atrocities Revealed – the Crypto AG Scandal & Swiss ‘Neutrality’
The full extent of the information collected via Crypto AG—along with key national competitor Omnisec AG, which the CIA also owned—and the nefarious purposes to which it was put is unknown. It would be entirely unsurprising though if the harvested data helped inform CIA operations to “discredit and destroy” left-wing opposition in West Germany and beyond, efforts that no doubt continue to this day.
The Cold War may be over, but Germany remains heavily occupied. It hosts the largest number of U.S. troops of any European country, despite an overwhelming majority of the population supporting their partial or total withdrawal in the years following the Berlin Wall’s collapse. In July 2020, then-President Donald Trump announced the withdrawal of 12,000 soldiers of the 38,600-strong contingent still there.
While intended to punish Germany for greenlighting the now-destroyed Nord Stream 2, polls indicated most Germans were only too happy to say “auf wiedersehen.” In all, 47% were in favor of them leaving, while a quarter called for the permanent closure of all U.S. bases on their soil. Yet, just two weeks after entering the White House, Joe Biden reversed his predecessor’s policy, returning 500 soldiers who had departed.
ER: A reminder that ‘Joe Biden’ is a guy in a mask and that Trump is still Commander in Chief. There might be a whole different agenda going on here.
The President also scrapped plans to relocate the Stuttgart-based U.S. Africa Command, which effectively embeds Washington in the armed forces of 53 countries across the continent, elsewhere in Europe. Research shows the Command’s training programs have precipitated a significant rise in the number of military coups in Africa.
As Agee attested, U.S. military bases are a hotbed of CIA spies. Berlin therefore must remain “one of the most important operational areas for far-reaching CIA programs” within and without the country, whether Germans like it or not.
Source
************
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Sorry for the missing name :
Guido Giacomo Preparata
Thanks!
Conjuring Hitler
HOW BRITAIN AND AMERICA MADE THE THIRD REICH
http://druckversion.studien-von-zeitfragen.net/Conjuring%20Content%20and%20Preface.pdf
By Guido Giacomo
(…)
Second, a detailed analysis of the emergence of Nazism is generally shunned so it seems, for it might reveal too much; in truth, it might disclose that the Nazis were never a creature of chance.
The thesis of the book suggests that for the length of fifteen years (1919-1933), the Anglo-Saxon élites tampered with German politics with a conscious intent to obtain a reactionary movement, which they could then set up as a pawn for their geopolitical intrigues.
When this movement emerged immediately after WWI in the shape of a religious, anti-Semitic sect disguised as a political party (i.e. the NSDAP), the British clubs kept it under close observation, proceeded to endorse it semi-officially in 1931 when the Weimar Republic was being dismantled by the Crisis, and finally embraced it, with deceit, throughout the Thirties.
This is to say that although England did not conceive Hitlerism, she nonetheless created the conditions under which such a phenomenon could appear, and devoted herself to support financially the Nazis and subsequently arm them to their teeth with the prospect of manipulating them. Without such methodical and unsparing ‘protection’ on the part of the Anglo-American élites, along with the complicit buttress of Soviet Russia, there would have been no Führer and no Nazism:
the political dynamism of the Nazi movement owed its success to a general state of instability in Germany, which was wholly artificial—a wreckage engineered by the Anglo-American clubs themselves.
By ‘clubs’ and ‘élites’ I mean the established and self-perpetuating fraternities that ruled the Anglo-Saxon commonwealths: these were (and still are) formed by an aggregation of dynasts issued from the banking houses, the diplomatic corps, the officer caste, and the executive aristocracy, which still remains solidly entrenched in the constitutional fabric of the modern ‘democracies’.
These ‘clubs’ act, rule, breed and think like a compact oligarchy, and co-opt the middle-class to use it as a filter between themselves and their cannon fodder: the commoners. In fact, in the so-called ‘democratic constituency’, which represents to date the most sophisticated model of oligarchic rule, the electorate wields no clout whatever, and political ability is but another expression for the powers of persuasion needed to ‘build consensus’ around (momentous) decisions already taken elsewhere†.
The story told in this book is the story of the British empire, which by 1900, fearing the rising power of the young German Reich contrived in secrecy a plan for a giant encirclement of the Eurasian land-mass. The main objective of this titanic siege was the prevention of an alliance between Germany and Russia: if these two powers could have fused into an ‘embrace’, so reasoned the British stewards, they would have come to surround themselves with a fortress of resources, men, knowledge and military might such as to endanger the survival of the British empire in the new century. From this early realization, Britain embarked upon an extraordinary campaign to tear Eurasia asunder by hiring France and Russia, and subsequently America, to fight the Germans. The vicissitudes of the first half of the twentieth century made up the epic of the great siege of Europe.
As will be shown in Chapter 1, WWI completed the first act of the attack, which was crowned by the imperial ingress of the United States on the grand chessboard. Germany had lost the war, but she had not been defeated on her own territory; Germany’s élites, her political and economic structure had remained intact. Thus after 1918 began the second act of the siege: that is, an astounding political maneuver willingly performed by the Allies to resurrect in Germany a reactionary regime from the ranks of her vanquished militarists. Britain orchestrated this incubation with a view to conjuring a belligerent political entity which she encouraged to go to war against Russia: the premeditated purpose was to ensnare the new, reactionary German regime in a two-front war (WWII), and profit from the occasion to annihilate Germany once and for all. To carry out these deep, and painstaking directives for world control, two conditions were necessary:
1) an imposing, and anti-German regime secretly aligned with England had to be set up in Russia,
and 2) the seed of chaos had to be planted in Germany to predispose the
institutional terrain for the growth of this reactionary movement of ‘national
liberation’.
The first objective was realized by back-stabbing the czar in Russia in
1917 and installing the Bolsheviks into power; the second by drafting the clauses of the Peace Treaty so as to leave the dynastic clans of Germany unscathed: indeed, it was from their fold that Britain expected the advent of this revanchist movement (Chapter 2).
(…)
The article you quote has a bizarre policy of substituting “he/she” for “he” all throughout. That kind of aberration doesn’t sync with credibility. And yes, Germany may be a US controlee; which raises the issue of why it is arming Israel and endorsing the Gaza genocide.