Supplementing FTR #954, this broadcast continues analysis of the alleged Assad government chemical weapons attack. Key points of discussion include:
1. Further analysis by MIT expert Theodore Postol, who sees the photographic evidence alleged to support the Trump administration’s allegations as questionable. ” . . . ‘This addendum provides data that unambiguously shows that the assumption in the WHR that there was no tampering with the alleged site of the sarin release is not correct. This egregious error raises questions about every other claim in the WHR. … The implication of this observation is clear – the WHR was not reviewed and released by any competent intelligence expert unless they were motivated by factors other than concerns about the accuracy of the report. . . .”
2. Particularly suspicious (laughable?) is a picture showing personnel examining the purported sarin attack site with woefully inadequate protective clothing. ” . . . . ‘If there were any sarin present at this location when this photograph was taken everybody in the photograph would have received a lethal or debilitating dose of sarin. The fact that these people were dressed so inadequately either suggests a complete ignorance of the basic measures needed to protect an individual from sarin poisoning, or that they knew that the site was not seriously contaminated. This is the crater that is the centerpiece evidence provided in the WHR for a sarin attack delivered by a Syrian aircraft.’ . . . . ”
3. Questionable analysis in the alleged chlorine gas attacks also attributed to the al-Assad regime. ” . . . In one of the chlorine cases, however, Syrian eyewitnesses came forward to testify that the rebels had staged the alleged attack so it could be blamed on the government. In that incident, the U.N. team reached no conclusion as to what had really happened, but neither did the investigators – now alerted to the rebels’ tactic of staging chemical attacks – apply any additional skepticism to the other cases. In one case, the rebels and their supporters also claimed to know that an alleged ‘barrel bomb’ contained a canister of chlorine because of the sound that it made while descending. There was no explanation for how that sort of detection was even possible. . . .”
4. A British doctor who was a focal point of PR coverage of the alleged sarin attack has a jihadist background. ” . . . . A British doctor who documented a suspected chemical weapons attack in Syria was considered a ‘committed jihadist’ by MI6 and was struck off the General Medical Council in 2016. Shajul Islam, 31, posted several videos on Twitter in the aftermath of the Tuesday’s (4 April) attack where he appeared to be treating patients in Khan Sheikhoun. He appeared on several television networks such as NBC to discuss what he saw, but it has now emerged Islam was previously charged on terror offences in the UK. . . .”
4. The underlying strategic reason for some of the Trump/Russian interface, one that dovetails with the Syrian provocation/escalation: ” . . . . The United Arab Emirates arranged a secret meeting in January between Blackwater founder Erik Prince and a Russian close to President Vladimir Putin as part of an apparent effort to establish a back-channel line of communication between Moscow and President-elect Donald Trump, according to U.S., European and Arab officials. The meeting took place around Jan. 11 — nine days before Trump’s inauguration — in the Seychelles islands in the Indian Ocean, officials said. Though the full agenda remains unclear, the UAE agreed to broker the meeting in part to explore whether Russia could be persuaded to curtail its relationship with Iran, including in Syria, a Trump administration objective . . . .”
5. George W. Bush administration officials are confident another terrorist attack is coming appear to be concerned that the Trump could use terror to grab and abuse executive powers. We present some of their thoughts against the background of our discussion in FTR #953 about Bernie Sanders’ paving the way for Muslim Brotherhood-linked elements: ” . . . . ‘We can assume there will be another terrorist attack in the U.S. If the executive order is in place, he will point to the attack as support for the executive order and the need to expand it to other countries with bad dudes (Muslims). If the executive order has been struck down, Trump will blame judges and Democrats for the attack. . . .’We both wholly believe that Trump needs a bogeyman. But, more importantly, he needs distraction and a blame source. In terrorists, he has his bogeyman. In his control of the prevailing press narrative via tweet, he has distraction. And, in the judiciary, he has a source of blame for why his way was right from the beginning.’ . . . . ‘I am fully confident that an attack is exactly what he wants and needs.’ . . . .”
Whereas the Syrian alleged sarin incident appears to have been effected by some of the West’s al-Qaeda surrogates in the conflict, past provocations have involved more direct involvement by elements of the intelligence community. In May of 1963, with then South Vietnamese president Diem pushing for a reduction in U.S. forces in Vietnam (against American wishes), a bombing occurred at a Hue radio station that was the focal point of Buddhist protests of the government’s policy toward Buddhists. The authorship of that attack and a 1952 Saigon bombing, was not the Vietcong.
Key points of analysis:
1. The May, 1963 attack in Hue: “ . . . . As Dang Sy and his security officers were approaching the area in armored cars about fifty meters away, two powerful explosions blasted the people on the veranda of the station, killing seven on the spot and fatally wounding a child. At least fifteen others were injured. . . .”
2. Forensic analysis of the wounds of the victims: “ . . . Dr. Le Khac Quyen, the hospital director at Hue, said after examining the victims’ bodies that he had never seen such injuries. The bodies had been decapitated. He found no metal in the corpses, only holes. There were no wounds below the chest. In his official finding, Dr. Quyen ruled that ‘the death of the people was caused by an explosion which took place in mid-air, blowing off their heads and mutilating their bodies.’ . . . ”
3. Dr. Quyen’s conclusions about the source of the victims’ wounds in the 1963 attack: “ . . . . The absence of any metal in the bodies or on the radio station’s veranda pointed to powerful plastic bombs as the source of the explosions. . . .”
4. Analysis of the 1952 bombing in Saigon: “ . . . . Who did possess such powerful plastic bombs? An answer is provided by Graham Greene’s prophetic novel The Quiet American, based on historical events that occurred in Saigon eleven years before the bombing in Hue. Greene was in Saigon on January 9, 1952, when two bombs exploded in the city’s center, killing ten and injuring many more. A picture of the scene, showing a man with his legs blown off, appeared in Life magazine as the ‘Picture of the Week.’ The Life caption said the Saigon bombs had been ‘planted by Viet Minh Communists’ and ‘signaled general intensification of the Viet Minh violence.’ In like manner, the New York Times headlined: ‘Reds’ Time Bombs Rip Saigon Center.’ . . .”
5. In the 1952 bombing, the operational coordination between U.S. media outlets and the perpetrators of the attack is noteworthy for our purposes: “ . . . . General The’s bombing material, a U.S. plastic, had been supplied to him by his sponsor, the Central Intelligence Agency. Greene observed in his memoir, Ways of Escape, it was no coincidence that ‘the Life photographer at the moment of the explosion was so well placed that he was able to take an astonishing and horrifying photograph which showed the body of a trishaw driver still upright after his legs had been blown off.’ The CIA had set the scene, alerting the Life photographer and Times reporter so they could convey the terrorist bombing as the work of ‘Viet Minh Communists’ to a mass audience. . . .”
6. South Vietnamese investigation of the May, 1963 attack, arrived at a conclusion similar to Graham Greene’s discovery in the 1952 attack: “ . . . . According to an investigation carried by the Catholic newspaper Hoa Binh. . . . a Captain Scott . . . . had come to Hue from Da Nang on May 7, 1963. He admitted he was the American agent responsible for the bombing at the radio station the next day. He said he used ‘an explosive that was still secret and known only to certain people in the Central Intelligence Agency, a charge no larger than a matchbox with a timing device.’. . . .”
Just as JFK’s assassination–pinned on the ersatz Communist Lee Harvey Oswald–destroyed JFK’s attempts at detente with the Soviet Union, the “op” fronted for by Edward Snowden–the “Obverse Oswald”–destroyed the Obama/Clinton State Department’s attempts at a “re-boot” with Russia. This program is the second in a series reviewing how Oswald was “painted red.” For purposes of convenience and continuity, we begin the discussion by reviewing and synopsizing information indicating that Russia has been framed for the “Shadow Brokers” alleged hack of the NSA, much as it appears to have been framed for the DNC hack.
Indeed, with both the DNC hack and the “Shadow Brokers” non-hack of the NSA, the evidence points increasingly toward “Team Snowden” (including WikiLeaks) and Eddie the Friendly Spook himself. The process of propagandizing the high-profile hacks as effected by “Russia” is analogous to the “painting of Oswald Red.” This broadcast details a visit to Mexico City by “Oswald,” in which the patsy-to-be of the JFK assassination went to lengths to reinforce the image of a Communist, linked to, among other elements, the KGB’s assassination expert Valery Kostikov.
The “Oswald” operating in Mexico City did not look like Oswald: ” . . . He was described as ‘apparent age 35, athletic build, circa 6 feet, receding hairline, balding top.’ In a CIA cable back to Mexico City on October 10, the Lee Oswald who defected to the U.S.S.R. in October 1959 was described as not quite 24, ‘five feet ten inches, one hundred sixty five pounds, light brown wavy hair, blue eyes.’ . . .” He did not speak like Oswald: ” . . . . Equally noteworthy in the October 9 cable is the evidence it provides that the “Lee Oswald” who made the October 1 phone call was an impostor. The caller, it said, “spoke broken Russian.” The real Oswald was fluent in Russian. . . .”
The “Oswald” in Mexico City had unusual credentials: ” . . . [Cuban diplomat Silvia] Duran was a little suspicious of Oswald. She felt the American was too eager in displaying his leftist credentials: membership cards in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee and the American Communist Party, old Soviet documents, a newspaper clipping on his arrest in New Orleans, a photo of Oswald being escorted by a policeman on each arm that Duran thought looked Phony. Duran also knew that belonging to the Communist Party was illegal in Mexico in 1963. For that reason, a Communist would normally travel in the country with only a passport. Yet here was Oswald documented in a way that invited his arrest. . . .”
The “Oswald” in Mexico City displayed unusual behavior: ” . . . He took a revolver from his jacket pocket, placed it on a table, and said, ‘See? This is what I must now carry to protect my life.’ The Soviet officials carefully took the gun and removed its bullets. They told Oswald once again they could not give him a quick visa. They offered him instead the necessary forms to be filled out. Oswald didn’t take them. Oleg Nechiporenko joined the three men as their conversation was ending. For the second day in a row, he accompanied a depressed Oswald to the gate of the embassy, this time with Oswald’s returned revolver and its loose bullets stuck back in his jacket pocket. Nechiporenko says that he, Kostikov, and Yatskov then immediately prepared a report on Oswald’s two embassy visits that they cabled to Moscow Center. . . .”
A CIA telephonic intercept of the “Oswald” appears to have been a fabrication: ” . . . . The CIA’s transcript states that the Saturday, September 28, call came from the Cuban Consulate. The first speaker is identified as Silvia Duran. However, Silvia Duran has insisted repeatedly over the years, first, that the Cuban Embassy was closed to the public on Saturdays, and second, that she never took part in such a call. ‘Duran’ is said to be phoning the Soviet Consulate. Oleg Nechiporenko denies in turn that this call occurred. He says it was impossible because the Soviet switchboard was closed. The ‘Duran’ speaker in the transcript says that an American in her consulate, who had been in the Soviet Embassy, wants to talk to them. She passes the phone to a North American man. The American insists that he and the Soviet representative speak Russian. They engage in a conversation, with the American speaking with the translator describes as ‘terrible hardly recognizable Russian.’ This once again argues against the speaker being Oswald, given his fluent Russian. . . .”
The net effect of the phony Oswald in Mexico City was to reinforce the notion that a Communist killed Kennedy, increasing pressure for retaliation against Russia and/or Cuba and escalating Cold War tensions. ” . . . . One must give the CIA (and the assassination sponsors that were even further in the shadows) their due for having devised and executed a brilliant setup. They had played out a scenario to Kennedy’s death in Dallas that pressured other government authorities to choose among three major options: a war of vengeance against Cuba and the Soviet Union based on the CIA’s false Mexico City documentation of a Communist assassination plot; a domestic political war based on the same documents seen truly, but a war the CIA would fight with every covert weapon at its command; or a complete cover-up of any conspiracy evidence and a silent coup d’etat that would reverse Kennedy’s efforts to end the Cold War. . . .” The propaganda blitzkrieg against Russia over the high-profile hacks, Ukraine and Syria have positioned Hillary Clinton in an analogous fashion. It will be VERY difficult for her to avoid being sucked into the New Cold War dynamics. Program Highlights Include: Review of the disinformation linking Oswald to the KGB’s alleged assassination of Stephan Bandera (head of the OUN/B); review of the role of Pierre Omidyar in the Maidan coup; review of Oswald’s altogether improbable activities in the U.S., given his supposed Communist status.
QUICK: How many Presidential candidates can you name who kept a book of Adolf Hitler’s speeches by their bedside? Donald Trump does. For many years, what Mr. Emory terms “The Underground Reich” has been a fundamental point of discussion and analysis in these broadcasts and posts. In the third program analyzing the Donald Trump campaign, we examine the “Trumpenkampfverbande,” its political antecedents and adherents. Exemplifying, and networking with, generations of fascists and fascist organizations, the Trumpenkampfverbande embodies the emergence of the Underground Reich into plain view. A signature element of Trump’s campaign is his resuscitation of the “America First” slogan and concept, a manifestation both of his thinly-veiled appeal to Nazi and white supremacist elements and his willingness to cede dominance over world affairs to a German-dominated “third power bloc.” The America First concept mobilizes powerful feelings among those feeling overwhelmed and left behind by political and economic developments globally and in the United States. We note that the “original” America First was financed by Nazi Germany. Trump’s invocation of America First exemplifies the nature of his political heritage and allegiances. One of his top advisers Joseph E. Schmitz, “obsessed with all things German” and, according to associates, someone who “fired the Jews” (from the Pentagon) and manifested Holocaust denial. This is not atypical of “Team Trump.” One of the most important figures in mainstreaming “alt right” (i.e. Nazi, white nationalist and anti-Semitic) attitudes has been Breitbart’s Steve Bannon, now essentially running the Trump campaign. Trump and his campaign have a habit of re-tweeting information from “alt right” websites and message boards. Of primary significance in analyzing Trump concerns the main financial backer of his real estate projects–Deutsche Bank. In addition to the fact that this places a potential President in the position of owing upwards of $100 million to an institution that has openly defied U.S. regulatory positions, Deutsche Bank is a primary element of the remarkable and deadly Bormann capital network, about which we speak so often. Program Highlights Include: Analysis of the possibility that Trump’s father was in the Ku Klux Klan; review of Trump’s association with former Axis spy Norman Vincent Peale; review of Trump’s counsel–Senator Joe McCarthy aide Roy Cohn; Trump’s additional financial backing from George Soros, who got his start in business “Aryanizing” Jewish property during the Holocaust; Trump’s tweeting of a campaign ad featuring Waffen SS-clad World War II re-enactors; The enthusiastic suppoprt Trump has received from David Duke.
Donald Trump’s pronouncements about Russia’s policy vis a vis Ukraine and Crimea, his relatively benign statements about Putin, Putin’s relatively benign statements about Trump, Trump’s comments that are critical of NATO and the relationship between former Trump campaign aide Paul Manafort and Victor Yanukovich (the pro-Russian former president of Ukraine) have led many to view Trump as a “Putin/Kremlin/Russian” “dupe/agent.” In the first of two broadcasts, we analyze Trump’s views and associations in this regard in the context of traditional German “Ostpolitik,” as manifested by the postwar Federal Republic of Germany and the Underground Reich in particular. It is our considered opinion that Trump, far from being a “Putin/Kremlin/Russian” “dupe/pawn/agent” is an associate and operative of the Underground Reich and his attitudes toward Russia, Putin, Crimea and NATO reflect German “Ostpolitik.” For centuries, German and Prussian leaders and strategists have sought practical alliances and non-aggression pacts with Russia as a vehicle for securing their Eastern frontier, enhancing their commercial trade infrastructure and furthering their European and global hegemonic goals. In the Cold War and “New Cold War” eras, this Ostpolitik serves as a “good cop/bad cop” dynamic, giving Germany leverage with the U.S. and Russia/U.S.S.R. by creating ” . . . the heated atmosphere of an auction room where two eager opponents outbid each other. . . .” After presenting a synopsis of German Ostpolitik as practiced by German leaders over the centuries, the program highlights the manifestation of ostpolitik in the early Cold War period. In a 1949 letter in the “Buerger Zeitung,” the journalistic outlet for the Steuben Society, an open courting of Stalin and the U.S.S.R. is presented by Nazi and SA veterans Bruno Fricke and Dr. Otto Strasser. Despite its far-right and McCarthyite orientation, the paper openly advocates an alliance between a re-armed Germany and the Soviet Union, managed on the German side by Third Reich veterans. This signaled a “bidding war,” and was followed three years later by the Soviet Note of 3/10/1952, which echoed the call for the goals of the Fricke letter and which, in turn, heralded Germany’s drive for a unified Europe under German control and a re-armed Germany, which, ultimately, would leave NATO, along with the rest of Europe. ” . . . . The reaction of the German strategists to the Soviet Note of March 10, 1952, however, exposes their true designs. German geo-political journals speak of it as “the highest trump card in the hands of the Chancellor” which will enable him to mow down the resistance of France against Germany’s concept of a united Europe. The pro-Adenauer press interpreted the Russian Note as a tremendous asset in speeding up the timetable for the creation of a European army under German domination. . . .” Analyzing the nature of the Steuben Society, whose “Open Letter to Stalin” signaled the drive for the realization of the creation of a German-Dominated Third Power Bloc, the broadcast sets forth the Steuben Society’s position as part of the Nazi Fifth Column in pre-war America, and its continued activities as part of the postwar Underground Reich. Joseph E. Schmitz, of the far-right and Germanophile Schmitz family of California, is a key adviser to Donald Trump. Former Inspector General of the Pentagon under George W. Bush, Schmitz was, in the words of a former Pentagon colleague, “consumed with all things German and all things Von Steuben.” Is Schmitz a generative source for Trump’s resonance with German Ostpolitik? With the EU and the development of an EU military apparatus, contemporary Germany is manifesting the geopolitical goals of Adenauer’s and the “Buerger Zeitung’s” ostpolitik. Program Highlights Include: Joseph E. Schmitz’s involvement with a Von Steuben-linked German security network; Schmitz’s son’s involvement with the Von Steuben milieu; the “Buerger Zeitung’s” position as a key journalistic outlet for German-Americans; the “Buerger Zeitung’s” far-right, pro-McCarthy position.
Supplementing our many previous programs on Ukraine, this broadcast further develops the Orwellian re-write of World War II history, as well as chronicling the deep political history of the Ukrainian diaspora, its alliance with the Third Reich and its profound presence prior to, and during, World War II. An article in “Foreign Policy”–a mainstream publication–notes the role of Volodymyr Viatrovych in turning Ukrainian World War II history on its head.
Hired originally by Viktor Yuschenko to head the Orwellian-named “Institute for National Memory,” Viatrovych decamped to the U.S. after the election of the Yanukovich government, only to return to Ukraine and resume his revisionist work under Petro Poroshenko. Recasting the Third Reich allies and genocidal collaborators of the OUN/B as heroes and rescuers of Jews during the Holocaust, Viatrovych has been complemented in his work by eduction minister Serhiy Kvit and Yuriy Shukhevych, the son of UPA chief Roman Shukhevych. (The UPA was the military wing of the OUN/B.) In Ukraine, it is now a crime to say anything critical about the OUN/B or UPA.
The measure of the revisionism underway in Ukraine can be gauged by this statement about UPA policy toward the Poles: “. . . . UPA supreme commander Dmytro Kliachkivs’kyi explicitly stated: ‘We should carry out a large-scale liquidation action against Polish elements. During the evacuation of the German Army, we should find an appropriate moment to liquidate the entire male population between 16 and 60 years old.’ Given that over 70 percent of the leading UPA cadres possessed a background as Nazi collaborators, none of this is surprising. . . .” Recounting that quote would be a crime in Ukraine!
Much of the program consists of a recounting of the Ukrainian Fifth Column in the United States and its collaboration with the Third Reich. The German General Staff had been grooming Ukrainians as allies during the closing stages of the First World War and its aftermath, culminating with the formation of the OUN as an extension of Nazi imperial designs. Embedded with elements of our military, the Ukrainian Fifth Column were actively engaged in criminal activities, including sabotage of key American infrastructure targets.
The periodical of the OUN was titled “Svoboda,” now the name of one of the key OUN/B successor organizations in power in Ukraine.
Program Highlights Include: the Pelypenko affair, in which a Ukrainian Orthodox priest and Gestapo agent disclosed the dimensions and workings of the Nazi/Ukrainian Fifth Column in the U.S.; Svoboda party member Andriy Parubiy’s elevation to being speaker of the Ukrainian parliament; review of Viktor Yuschenko’s strong ties to the Ukrainian-American branches of the OUN/B; discussion of the bogus law degree of incoming Prime Minister Volodomyr Groysman, obtained from MAUP University, the epicenter of anti-Semitism in Ukraine; review of David Duke’s role as a faculty member at MAUP; the assignment of a contingent of the Nazi Azov battalion to “maintain order” in Odessa, the site of a massacre-by-fire of ethnic Russian protesters in 2014.
From the Republican Party to European political and intellectual elites to “The New York Times,” everyone is “shocked, shocked” at the fascistic nature of the Trump candidacy. They shouldn’t be–his candidacy is the direct outgrowth of powerful forces that have been at work in this country for decades. After highlighting two op-ed pieces from the “Times,” accurately noting the virulent fascism at the root of the Trump phenomenon, the broadcast notes that neither Europe, where fascism is on the march once again, nor the American so-called “progressive sector,” which has embraced the “Eddie the Friendly Spook,” Glenn Greenwald and Julian Assange are in a position to complain. Snowden, Greenwald, Assange et al embody PRECISELY the same forces percolating at the surface of the Trump waters. Much of the broadcast consists of excerpts of an important new book: “The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America’s Secret Government” by David Talbot. In that worthy volume, Talbot chronicles the role of the Dulles brothers and Sullivan and Cromwell in the capitalization of Hitler’s Germany and the cover-up of the Nazi flight capital program, Dulles’s long collaboration with Nazi General Reinhard Gehlen, Gehlen’s pursuit (with Dulles) of the Cold War as a continuation of Hitler’s war against the U.S.S.R., the Dulles/Gehlen collaboration in the formation of the fascist networks known as “Stay Behind/Gladio.” The program concludes with review of the Crusade For Freedom, a Dulles project which culminated in the formation of a Nazi branch of the GOP. Program Highlights Include: the genesis of the Bormann network and its apparent collaboration with the Dulles networks; Prescott Bush, Sr.’s role as the Senate’s liaison with Dulles’s CIA; the roles of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, William Casey and George H.W. Bush with the Crusade For Freedom; “The New York Times” and its own incorporation of Third Reich alumni as part of its collaboration with CIA.
Pravy Sektor associate Valentyn Nalyvaichenko (right) had been the head of the SBU (Ukrainian intelligence service) since the Maidan Coup, up until his ouster in June of 2015. Not surprisingly, he had operated the organization along the lines of the OUN/B. Previously, he had served in that same capacity under Viktor Yuschenko, seeing the outfit as a vehicle for rewriting Ukraine’s history in accordance with the historical revisionism favored by the OUN/B.
A new book was just published examining the life of Stepan Bandera, the Ukrainian fascist and Third Reich ally whose political heirs ascended to power in Ukraine through the Maidan coup. We have repeatedly made the point that the dimensions of official lying in the West were of truly Orwellian proportions–documented World War II history was being dismissed as “Russian propaganda” or “Kremlin propaganda.” ” . . . But thanks to Grzegorz Rossolinski-Liebe’s Stepan Bandera: The Life and Afterlife of a Ukrainian Nationalist, it now seems clear: those terrible Russians were right.” All of the contents of this website as of 12/19/2014–Dave Emory’s 35+ years of research and broadcasting–as well as hours of videotaped lectures are available on a 32GB flash drive. Dave offers his programs and articles for free–your support is very much appreciated.
In a recent appearance before a Jewish audience (while drumming up support for the Iran nuclear deal), President Obama noted that Iran was a country that denied the Holocaust. Obama’s remarks were deeply ironic in light of the fact that the OUN/B redux government in power in Ukraine (with American military, political and economic support) continues to manifest a profound Holocaust revisionism. Political and military allies of the Third Reich, the OUN/B under Stephan Bandera and Jaroslav Stetsko implemented ethnic cleansing massacres against Jews, Poles, Russians Roma and other “political undesirables” during the Second World War. Nurtured within elements of Western intelligence and incorporated into the Republican Party after World War II, the OUN/B were projected back into Ukraine following the breakup of the U.S.S.R. Implementing a law criminalizing criticism of the OUN/B and its military wing the UPA, the Ukrainian regime is institutionalizing a fundamental perversion of that region’s history during World War II. The Ukrainian perspective is being echoed in Western media and political pronouncements. Program Highlights Include: the Nazi Azov Battalion’s development of a youth wing; the whitewashing of the murderous career of Symon Petliura, a Ukrainian pogromist and antecedent of the OUN/B; the role of OUN/B operative Volodomyr Viatrovych in implementing Ukraine’s historical revisionism; continued cover-up of the facts concerning the shootdown of Malaysian Airlines flight MH-17; review of “Yuschenkoism”–Viktor Yuschenko’s revisionist policies that set the stage for Poroshenko’s perpetuation of those policies; review of Ukrainian presidents Yuschenko and Poroshenko honoring the OUN/B executioners at Babi Yar; Symon Petlyura’s abortive alliance with Vladimir Jabotinsky, which has been used to deny Petliura’s anti-Semitism.
The Pan-Turkist and fascist National Action Party and its youth wing, the Grey Wolves (also “Gray Wolves”) are back in the news. Terrorizing Chinese and other Asian interests in Turkey, they are overtly supporting the Uighurs, the Muslim separatist group that appears to be a primary element in a destabilization effort against China and efforts to win “independence” for energy-rich Xinjiang province. All of the contents of this website as of 12/19/2014–Dave Emory’s 35+ years of research and broadcasting–as well as hours of videotaped lectures are available on a 32GB flash drive. Dave offers his programs and articles for free–your support is very much appreciated.