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

For The Record

Week­ly Shows, divid­ed into two 30-minute seg­ments, con­sist­ing of print excerpts and inter­views.

This category contains 1235 posts
Listen to For The Record:
Ask your local station to carry the show.

FTR#1272 Interview #11 with Jim DiEugenio about “JFK Revisited”

This broad­cast con­tin­ues our vis­its with Jim DiEugenio–author of Des­tiny Betrayed and JFK Revisited–selected by Oliv­er Stone to write the screen­play for his lat­est doc­u­men­tary.

Cor­rec­tion: Mr. Emory misiden­ti­fied jour­nal­ist Ander­son Coop­er as the son of Cok­ie Roberts. He is the son of the late socialite Glo­ria Van­der­bilt.

Express­ing a sen­ti­ment that appears to have been shared by many in the gov­ern­ment, Secret Ser­vice agent Elmer Moore brand­ed JFK a “trai­tor” in a con­ver­sa­tion with Jim Gochenaur:

JFK Revis­it­ed: Through the Look­ing Glass by Jim DiEu­ge­nio; Sky­horse Pub­lish­ing [HC]; Copy­right 2022 by Jim DiEu­ge­nio; Intro­duc­tion Copy­right 2022 by Oliv­er Stone; ISBN 978–1‑5107–7287‑8; p. 205.

. . . . Jim Gochenaur: Moore leaned back in his big com­fort­able leather chair and he said, “Who killed Jack Kennedy?” Then he said, “Well, I’ll tell you who didn’t. With 100 per­cent cer­tain­ty. It wasn’t the Rus­sians.” And my head is start­ing to swim, I want­ed to break in right at that point. But then he said, “I’ll tell you why—JFK was the Rus­sians’ boy. He was giv­ing away every­thing he could. That man, for all intents and pur­pos­es, dare I say it? Jim, I will say it. JFK was a trai­tor.”

The bizarre saga of the con­vo­lut­ed jour­ney of the “Mag­ic Bul­let” (CE399) is framed by Park­land Hos­pi­tal O.P. Wright’s wid­ow, who stat­ed that “more than one nurse” had found bul­lets on stretch­ers at the hos­pi­tal on the day Kennedy was shot.

JFK Revis­it­ed: Through the Look­ing Glass by Jim DiEu­ge­nio; Sky­horse Pub­lish­ing [HC]; Copy­right 2022 by Jim DiEu­ge­nio; Intro­duc­tion Copy­right 2022 by Oliv­er Stone; ISBN 978–1‑5107–7287‑8; p. 225.

. . . . [Josi­ah] Thomp­son gave an impor­tant speech at the 2003 Duquesne Uni­ver­si­ty JFK Assas­si­na­tion Con­fer­ence. He revealed that, in a 1993 inter­view, O.P. Wright’s widow—who also worked at Park­land Hospital—said that more than one nurse had approached her I the twen­ty-four hours after the assas­si­na­tion because they had found bul­lets on gur­neys. . . .

Addi­tion­al Points of Dis­cus­sion and Analy­sis Include: The lack of iden­ti­fi­able fin­ger­prints on the rifle alleged­ly used by Oswald to kill JFK; For­mer police offi­cer and Park­land Hos­pi­tal secu­ri­ty offi­cial O.D. Wright’s claim that the bul­let he found on a stretch­er at Park­land had a point­ed tip, unlike CE399; War­ren Com­mis­sion mem­bers’ dis­sent from the offi­cial ver­sion of the assas­si­na­tion; The fact that the FBI’s and CIA’s analy­sis of the shoot­ing dif­fered from the War­ren Com­mis­sion’s the­sis; The test fir­ings of bul­lets into skulls from behind that pro­duced results anti­thet­i­cal to the War­ren Com­mis­sion’s the­sis; The dis­cov­ery of skull frag­ments in both Dealey Plaza on 11/22/1963 and in the lim­ou­sine; Dis­cov­ery of a bul­let with a bent tip in JFK’s lim­ou­sine; Admi­ral George Burkley (JFK’s per­son­al physi­cian) and his con­tra­ven­tion of the War­ren Com­mis­sion’s the­sis; Cov­er-up of Burkley’s analy­sis by the War­ren Com­mis­sion; Burkley’s fam­i­ly’s accounts of Burkley’s dis­agree­ment with the offi­cial ver­sion of the assas­si­na­tion; the curious–and ominous–reversal by Burkley’s daugh­ter on her ini­tial agree­ment to coop­er­ate with inde­pen­dent inves­ti­ga­tors.


FTR#1271 Interview #10 with Jim DiEugenio about “JFK Revisited”

This broad­cast con­tin­ues our vis­its with Jim DiEugenio–author of Des­tiny Betrayed and JFK Revisited–selected by Oliv­er Stone to write the screen­play for his lat­est doc­u­men­tary.

Jim begins by relat­ing Oliv­er Stone’s address to the Cannes Film Fes­ti­val, fol­low­ing the screen­ing of JFK Revis­it­ed.

Not­ing the evi­den­tiary archives assem­bled and cre­den­tialed by the ARRB, he not­ed that “con­spir­a­cy the­o­ry” has become “con­spir­a­cy fact.”

Record­ed on Vet­er­ans’ Day of 2022, we not­ed Oliv­er Stone’s own ser­vice as a dec­o­rat­ed com­bat infantry­man in Viet­nam, and recapped how JFK was with­draw­ing the U.S. from Viet­nam when he was killed.

As we tran­si­tion into analy­sis of the bal­lis­tic and medical/forensic evi­dence, a telling quote frames the dis­cus­sion of CE399 (the “Mag­ic Bul­let”) and the sit­u­a­tion in Park­land Hos­pi­tal on 11/22/1963:

JFK Revis­it­ed: Through the Look­ing Glass by Jim DiEu­ge­nio; Sky­horse Pub­lish­ing [HC]; Copy­right 2022 by Jim DiEu­ge­nio; Intro­duc­tion Copy­right 2022 by Oliv­er Stone; ISBN 978–1‑5107–7287‑8; p. 225.;

. . . . [Josi­ah] Thomp­son gave an impor­tant speech at the 2003 Duquesne Uni­ver­si­ty JFK Assas­si­na­tion Con­fer­ence. He revealed that, in a 1993 inter­view, O.P. Wright’s widow—who also worked at Park­land Hospital—said that more than one nurse had approached her I the twen­ty-four hours after the assas­si­na­tion because they had found bul­lets on gur­neys. . . .


FTR#1270 Interview #9 with Jim DiEugenio about JFK Revisited

Noth­ing is more impor­tant in the JFK inves­ti­ga­tion than the role of the media, the ele­ment we rely upon for our infor­ma­tion. That dis­til­late pro­vides us with our basis for mak­ing intel­li­gent, mea­sured deci­sions.

In our long series of inter­views with Mr. DiEu­ge­nio about his book Des­tiny Betrayed, we not­ed that the media have func­tioned close­ly with the intel­li­gence ser­vices and oth­er fed­er­al agen­cies to active­ly cov­er-up the truth.

The pro­gram begins with Jim’s review of the medi­a’s role in the Gar­ri­son case.

Next, we syn­op­size the role of media vis a vis the War­ren Report, includ­ing: Major net­works and MSM print voic­es (NYT, WaPo) endorse report, despite the fact that the 26 vol­umes of tes­ti­mo­ny and exhibits had yet to be released; War­ren Com­mis­sion­er John J. McCloy’s CBS inter­view where he doesn’t answer Wal­ter Cronkite’s query, nor does he men­tion that his daugh­ter Ellen heav­i­ly liaised with net­work man­age­ment on the pro­gram; Alec Baldwin’s expe­ri­ence with NBC, who wouldn’t let him book guests crit­i­cal of the War­ren Report and is told that NBC’s stance is to sup­port the offi­cial ver­sion of the assas­si­na­tion (Tom Brokaw—“No Gar­ri­son”); Back­ground on the Sarnoff fam­i­ly’s intel­li­gence con­nec­tions.

We then syn­op­size Life Mag­a­zine’s role in the cov­er-up, includ­ing: Though not dis­cussed in JFK Revis­it­ed, it was Life that pur­chased Zaprud­er film and then re-arranged the still frames in its issue sup­port­ing War­ren Report; Hen­ry Luce’s role as enabler of the Pow­ers That Be (his idol, BTW, was Mus­soli­ni); C.D. Jackson’s role with Life—though not dis­cussed in film, he was a life­long intel/national secu­ri­ty play­er; Life’s pub­li­ca­tion of the cov­er pho­to of “Oswald” hold­ing the rifle and pis­tol he sup­pos­ed­ly used in the killings; Oswald’s wed­ding ring on dif­fer­ent fin­gers of  “Oswald’s” hand. 

Next, we high­light key aspects of the rifle alleged­ly used by Oswald, includ­ing: The salient fact that in Texas (at that point in time) any­one could pur­chase a rifle over the counter with­out doc­u­men­ta­tion; Why would any­one plan­ning a polit­i­cal assas­si­na­tion pur­chase a mail-order rifle?; Dif­fer­ent bar­rel lengths of  “Oswald’s” rifle in var­i­ous pre­sen­ta­tions; dif­fer­ent mount­ings of sling on “Oswald’s” rifle in var­i­ous pre­sen­ta­tions; The fact that mail order box wasn’t in Oswald’s name, so he couldn’t have received the weapon; the dis­parate time frames involved in send­ing the weapon through the mail. 

We con­clude with dis­cus­sion of the rifle and foren­sics vis a vis its present on 6th floor “sniper’s perch,” includ­ing: The remark­ably neat place­ment of the spent car­tridges in the “sniper’s nest;” Reporter Tom Alyea’s dis­cus­sion of how the “sniper’s perch” looked pri­or to appar­ent inter­fer­ence.


FTR#1269 Interview #8 with Jim DiEugenio about “JFK Revisited”

In this broad­cast, we con­tin­ue our dis­cus­sion with the hero­ic Jim DiEu­ge­nio, select­ed by Oliv­er Stone to write the screen­play for his doc­u­men­tary JFK Revis­it­ed. Jim also wrote the book con­tain­ing tran­scripts of both the two-hour and four-hour ver­sions of the doc­u­men­tary and sup­ple­men­tal inter­views.

No dis­cov­ery by the ARRB was more impor­tant than its uncov­er­ing of the Oper­a­tion North­woods con­tin­gency plan to set up a provo­ca­tion to jus­ti­fy a U.S. inva­sion of Cuba.

The law­suit filed by the Mary Fer­rell Foun­da­tion aims at com­pelling fur­ther dis­clo­sure about North­woods.

At log­ger­heads with then Chair­man of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Lyman Lem­nitzer, JFK replaced him with Maxwell Tay­lor, unaware that Tay­lor and Lem­nitzer were close. 

The ARRB faced seri­ous resis­tance from the Secret Ser­vice in its attempts to shed fur­ther light on the JFK assas­si­na­tion. Although pro­hib­it­ed by law from doing so, the Secret Ser­vice destroyed doc­u­ments.

Par­tic­u­lar­ly note­wor­thy are doc­u­ments from the agency about two attempts on JFK’s life in 1963 that may very well have been part of the con­stel­la­tion of events lead­ing up to Dal­las on 11/22.

That agency was par­tic­u­lar­ly reluc­tant to share records about the two attempts on JFK’s life.

ARRB mem­ber Dou­glas Horne uncov­ered some fas­ci­nat­ing infor­ma­tion about pay records of both Oswald dur­ing his last months in the Marines and TSBD man­ag­er Roy Tru­ly, Oswald’s super­vi­sor at the build­ing.


FTR#1268 Interview #7 with Jim DiEugenio about “JFK Revisited”

In this broad­cast, we con­tin­ue our dis­cus­sion with the hero­ic Jim DiEu­ge­nio, select­ed by Oliv­er Stone to write the screen­play for his doc­u­men­tary JFK Revis­it­ed. Jim also wrote the book con­tain­ing tran­scripts of both the two-hour and four-hour ver­sions of the doc­u­men­tary and sup­ple­men­tal inter­views.

The pro­gram begins with review of the man­ner in which our soci­ety is dri­ven by visu­al events: the “crawl” at the end of the movie “JFK” led to the for­ma­tion of the ARRB, in a man­ner anal­o­gous to how the air­ing of the Zaprud­er film on Ger­al­do River­a’s Good Night Amer­i­ca led to the for­ma­tion of the House Select Com­mit­tee on Assas­si­na­tions.

Next, we note that the ARRB staffers were peo­ple who did not believe that JFK’s assas­si­na­tion was a con­spir­a­cy, nor did they think that there was a cov­er-up.

Notable in the ARRB’s pro­ceed­ings is the fact that nei­ther CIA oper­a­tions records nor Con­gres­sion­al records are acces­si­ble via FOIA requests.

Notable in the ARRB’s pro­ceed­ings is the fact that nei­ther CIA oper­a­tions records nor Con­gres­sion­al records are acces­si­ble via FOIA requests.

In this regard, the ARRB was empow­ered in an impor­tant and unprece­dent­ed way.

Meet­ing resis­tance from then President–and for­mer CIA chief–George H.W. Bush, the ARRB was not staffed until Clin­ton became Pres­i­dent.

Judge Tun­heim (of the ARRB) not­ed that var­i­ous Fed­er­al Agen­cies felt that they could just wait out the ARRB until its man­dat­ed time had expired.

The board received exten­sions of its man­dat­ed time, although it still was not able to get all the doc­u­ments released.

The exten­sions stretched out ARRB’s tenure to four years.

A telling inci­dent occurred when Judge Tun­heim and the ARRB was pars­ing a CIA doc­u­ment they want­ed released. The Agency offi­cer present stat­ed that there was a rea­son that the doc­u­ment could not be released, but he just “could­n’t think of it.”

The CIA’s coun­sel, who was present, indi­cat­ed that the ARRB could pro­ceed as planned.

Of note is the fact that Judge Tun­heim dis­closed that George Joan­nides, who over saw Car­los Bringuier’s DRE for the CIA, had served as the Agen­cy’s liai­son to the House Select Com­mit­tee on Assas­si­na­tions and that the ARRB, as well as the HSCA, was mis­led in this regard.

As not­ed pre­vi­ous­ly, researcher Jef­fer­son Mor­ley’s Free­dom of Infor­ma­tion Act law­suit direct­ed at oblig­ing CIA to dis­close more infor­ma­tion about Joan­nides was turned down by an appeals court, with Brett Kavanaugh cast­ing a deci­sive vote, just before his nom­i­na­tion to the Supreme Court.

The CIA did release records about Lee Har­vey Oswald, which had been in the province of the late James Jesus Angle­ton.

In our long series of inter­views with Mr. DiEu­ge­nio about Des­tiny Betrayed, we not­ed that Har­ry Con­nick, who suc­ceed­ed Jim Gar­ri­son as New Orleans DA, had ordered some of Gar­rison’s files to be burned.

Many were, how­ev­er one of Con­nick­’s assis­tants did not burn those records and kept the doc­u­ments. Even­tu­al­ly, the ARRB got those doc­u­ments.

Con­nick was not pleased.

Review­ing some of our syn­op­tic dis­cus­sion about Con­nick, from the writ­ten descrip­tion for FTR#1050:

Key points of dis­cus­sion and analy­sis about Con­nick:

1.–He was seem­ing­ly omnipresent in Clay Shaw’s crim­i­nal tri­al, oper­at­ing to obstruct Gar­ri­son and aid Clay Shaw and the Fed­er­al Gov­ern­ment, for which he  worked.
2.–Station WDSU–very close to Clay Shaw and the vehi­cle for both the Wal­ter Sheri­dan dis­in­for­ma­tion hit piece on Jim Gar­ri­son and the Ed Butler/Carlos Bringuier inter­view of the “Com­mu­nist” Oswald–was active on behalf of Con­nick.
3.–The Gur­vich broth­ers, who infil­trat­ed Gar­rison’s inves­ti­ga­tion and net­worked with Clay Shaw’s defense team (with William appear­ing as a wit­ness in the hear­ing on Shaw’s per­jury tri­al), were active on behalf of Har­ry Con­nick.
4.–Clay Shaw him­self, as well as DRE oper­a­tive Car­los Bringuier con­tributed to Con­nick­’s elec­tion cam­paign.
5.–In his sec­ond cam­paign to replace Gar­ri­son, Con­nick was suc­cess­ful.
6.–After becom­ing New Orleans DA, he burned many of Gar­rison’s files.


FTR#‘s 1266 and 1267 Interviews #5 and #6 with Jim DiEugenio about “JFK Revisited”

These pro­grams con­tin­ue our series of inter­views with Jim DiEu­ge­nio about the Oliv­er Stone doc­u­men­tary JFK Revis­it­ed, for which Jim wrote the screen­play.

Yet anoth­er area in which JFK’s pol­i­cy out­look ran afoul of the pre­vail­ing wis­dom of the Cold War was with regard to the Con­go. A Bel­gian colony which was the vic­tim of geno­ci­dal poli­cies of King Leopold (esti­mates of the dead run as high as 8 mil­lion), the dia­mond and min­er­al-rich Con­go gained a frag­ile inde­pen­dence.

In Africa, as well, Kennedy under­stood the strug­gle of emerg­ing nations seek­ing free­dom from colo­nial dom­i­na­tion as falling out­side of and tran­scend­ing stereo­typed Cold War dynam­ics.

In the Con­go, the bru­tal­ly admin­is­tered Bel­gian rule had spawned a vig­or­ous inde­pen­dence move­ment crys­tal­lized around the charis­mat­ic Patrice Lumum­ba. Under­stand­ing of, and sym­pa­thet­ic to Lumum­ba and the ide­ol­o­gy and polit­i­cal forces embod­ied in him, Kennedy opposed the reac­tionary sta­tus quo favored by both Euro­pean allies like the Unit­ed King­dom and Bel­gium, as well as the Eisenhower/Dulles axis in the Unit­ed States.

In 1961, there was anoth­er assas­si­na­tion that over­lapped events lead­ing up to JFK’s killing. U.N. Sec­re­tary Gen­er­al Dag Ham­marskjold was on the same page as JFK with regard to Con­golese inde­pen­dence from Bel­gium, nega­tion of the Bel­gian-spon­sored attempt at get­ting min­er­al-rich Katan­ga province to secede and was of the same mind as JFK with regard to assur­ing Patrice Lumum­ba’s sur­vival. 

Ham­marskjold’s 1961 death in a plane crash was not the acci­dent it was rep­re­sent­ed as being:

JFK Revis­it­ed: Through the Look­ing Glass by Jim DiEu­ge­nio; Sky­horse Pub­lish­ing [HC]; Copy­right 2022 by Jim DiEu­ge­nio; Intro­duc­tion Copy­right 2022 by Oliv­er Stone; ISBN 978–1‑5107–7287‑8; p. 105.

. . . . The pho­tos of Ham­marskjold show his body as the only one not burned or charred. And he had a play­ing card, report­ed­ly the ace of spades, stuffed into his shirt col­lar above the know in the tie. Now, due to Susan Williams’ book and new evi­dence offered by Desmond Tutu and the Union of South Africa’s Truth and Rec­on­cil­i­a­tion Com­mis­sion, there are con­tro­ver­sial doc­u­ment that indi­cate Allen Dulles was involved in the sab­o­tage of the plane. The project was called Oper­a­tion Celeste and was to be car­ried out through a secret white suprema­cist group called SAMIR.

Kennedy’s old men­tor Edmund Gul­lion advised JFK that Ham­marskjold’s death was not the acci­dent it was rep­re­sent­ed as being.

JFK Revis­it­ed: Through the Look­ing Glass by Jim DiEu­ge­nio; Sky­horse Pub­lish­ing [HC]; Copy­right 2022 by Jim DiEu­ge­nio; Intro­duc­tion Copy­right 2022 by Oliv­er Stone; ISBN 978–1‑5107–7287‑8; pp. 402–403.

. . . . Sus­pi­cions were every­where that there had been foul play. The first per­son on the scene was the US air attache. And there were bul­lets that he said were in the vic­tims includ­ing Ham­marskjold. And a close friend of Pres­i­dent Kennedy, Edmund Gul­lion, sent a cable home say­ing: Con­trary to the offi­cial expla­na­tion for this trag­ic inci­dent, this was an assas­si­na­tion . . . .

In the Con­go, LBJ reversed JFK’s pol­i­cy stance, and the cor­po­rate loot­ing of the Con­go result­ed under Gen­er­al Joseph Mobu­tu, him­self a ben­e­fi­cia­ry of the pira­cy.

LBJ also reversed JFK’s pol­i­cy toward Indone­sia.

In 1955, Sukarno host­ed a con­fer­ence of non-aligned nations that for­mal­ized and con­cretized a “Third Way” between East and West. This, along with Sukarno’s nation­al­ism of some Dutch indus­tri­al prop­er­ties, led the U.S. to try and over­throw Sukharno, which was attempt­ed in 1958.

Kennedy under­stood Sukarno’s point of view, and had planned a trip to Indone­sia in 1964 to forge a more con­struc­tive rela­tion­ship with Sukharno. Obvi­ous­ly, his mur­der in 1963 pre­clud­ed the trip.

In 1965, Sukarno was deposed in a bloody, CIA-aid­ed coup in which as many as a mil­lion peo­ple were killed.

Of par­tic­u­lar inter­est in con­nec­tion with Indone­sia, is the dis­po­si­tion of Freeport Sul­phur, a com­pa­ny that had enlist­ed the ser­vices of both Clay Shaw and David Fer­rie in an effort to cir­cum­vent lim­i­ta­tions on its oper­a­tions imposed by Cas­tro’s Cuba.

It should be not­ed that Freeport had set its cor­po­rate sights on a very lucra­tive pair of moun­tains in Indone­sia, both of which had enor­mous deposits of min­er­als, iron, cop­per, sil­ver and gold in par­tic­u­lar.

Cuba was an area of major con­flict between JFK and the Pow­ers That Be.

When JFK gave a green light to the attempt­ed over­throw of Cas­tro via the Bay of Pigs inva­sion, he had under­stood that the plan itself was des­tined to work.

In fact, Allen Dulles knew the plan as for­mu­lat­ed would fail, and expect­ed Kennedy to autho­rize the mil­i­tary to step in and neu­tral­ize Cas­tro.

Real­iz­ing that he had been lied to, JFK dis­missed Allen Dulles, Richard Bis­sell and Gen­er­al C.P. Cabell.

He also spoke of shat­ter­ing the CIA into a thou­sand pieces. It is grim­ly, mor­bid­ly iron­ic that it was Kennedy’s head that was shat­tered, and that he was “decap­i­tat­ed.”

Dur­ing the Cuban Mis­sile Cri­sis, JFK rebuffed the pres­sure from the Joint Chiefs of Staff to invade Cuba, there­by avoid­ing the con­fronta­tion with Sovi­et tac­ti­cal nuclear weapons that had been pro­vid­ed to Cas­tro, unbe­knownst to the U.S.

Opt­ing for a block­ade, Kennedy also estab­lished a quid-pro-quo with Niki­ta Khrushchev, agree­ing to remove U.S. nuclear mis­siles from Turkey.

This was fol­lowed by a num­ber of back-door diplo­mat­ic attempts at nor­mal­iz­ing rela­tions with Cuba.

At the moment that Cas­tro heard JFK had been killed, he was meet­ing with French jour­nal­ist Jean Daniel, who had func­tioned as one of those back-door diplo­mat­ic chan­nels to Cas­tro.

After dis­cus­sion of the “dual front” 531 Lafayette Place/544 Camp Street in New Orleans run by “pri­vate inves­ti­ga­tor” Guy Ban­is­ter, we review the alleged “left­ist” Lee Har­vey Oswald’s involve­ment with that orga­ni­za­tion and his appar­ent­ly con­trived alter­ca­tion with Car­los Bringuier, the anti-Cas­tro Cuban and mem­ber of the DRE, part of the CIA-spon­sored fronts oper­at­ing against Cas­tro.

As we have seen in past pro­grams, George Joan­nides direct­ed the DRE for CIA dur­ing Bringuier’s tenure with the orga­ni­za­tion. Researcher Jef­fer­son Mor­ley filed a FOIA suit against CIA to pre­cip­i­tate more dis­clo­sure about Joan­nides, who had been the Agen­cy’s liai­son with the House Select Com­mit­tee on Assas­si­na­tions.

Appel­late Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh cast a decid­ing vote negat­ing Mor­ley’s appeal.

Dis­cus­sion con­cludes with analy­sis of how two visu­al events keyed major events in the inves­ti­ga­tion of JFK’s assas­si­na­tion: a 1975 TV pro­gram, on which Ger­al­do Rivera–featuring come­di­an Dick Gre­go­ry and Robert Groden–aired the Zaprud­er film. The uproar fol­low­ing that led to the for­ma­tion of the House Select Com­mit­tee on Assas­si­na­tion.

The “crawl” at the end of Oliv­er Stone’s JFK, inform­ing the audi­ence that the HSCA had  clas­si­fied key doc­u­ments until 2029, gen­er­at­ing fur­ther out­rage and lead­ing to the for­ma­tion of the Assas­si­na­tion Records Review Board.


FTR#s 1264 & 1265 Interviews #3 and #4 with Jim Di Eugenio about “JFK Revisited”

Con­tin­u­ing our dis­cus­sion with Jim DiEu­ge­nio about JFK Revis­it­ed, we begin with analy­sis of com­par­i­son between the “stab in the back” hypoth­e­sis float­ed by reac­tionar­ies in Weimar Ger­many, deny­ing that they lost World War I, with sim­i­lar revi­sion­ism float­ed by the right wing con­cern­ing Amer­i­ca’s defeat in Viet­nam.

Bridg­ing dis­cus­sion that will be con­tin­ued in our pre­vi­ous pro­gram, we note a key quote from the book and doc­u­men­tary by Lisa Pease, not­ing that JFK stood apart from the Eisenhower/Dulles view that non-align­ment among the for­mer colo­nial ter­ri­to­ries that achieved inde­pen­dence was the equiv­a­lent of pro-Com­mu­nist ori­en­ta­tion.

JFK Revis­it­ed: Through the Look­ing Glass by Jim DiEu­ge­nio; Sky­horse Pub­lish­ing [HC]; Copy­right 2022 by Jim DiEu­ge­nio; ISBN 978–1‑5107–7287‑8; p. 352.

. . . . Lisa Pease: His [JFK’s] approach was a rad­i­cal break from his pre­de­ces­sor. In an oral his­to­ry inter­view that Sukarno gave after John Kennedy’s death, he said words to the effect that what made Kennedy spe­cial is that he believed non-align­ment was not amoral as it had been under John Fos­ter Dulles. I thought that was an inter­est­ing way of putting it. . . .

Exem­pli­fy­ing Kennedy’s under­stand­ing of how nation­al­ist aspi­ra­tions were at the fore­front of strug­gles for nation­al inde­pen­dence that were cast into the anni­hi­lat­ing Cold War meat­grinder, we detail his trip to Indochi­na, where he net­worked with French gen­er­als, who told him that France was win­ning its strug­gle against the Viet Minh, and then with State Depart­ment pro­fes­sion­al Edmund Gul­lion, who opined that France was los­ing the war and would, in the end, lose.

Gul­lion also told Kennedy that, if the U.S. got involved, it would lose as well. It was Gullion’s con­vic­tion that the Viet­namese peo­ples’ desire for inde­pen­dence trumped any­thing the West could do.

We note that rough­ly 80% of the bud­get of the French war effort was bankrolled by the U.S. We also note that there was a con­tin­gency plan devel­oped for a mas­sive U.S. air sup­port oper­a­tion on behalf of the French called “Oper­a­tion Vul­ture.” Part of that plan was the deploy­ment of three atom­ic bombs for use against the Viet­namese.

For more about Kennedy’s ear­ly edu­ca­tion about the real­i­ties of war in South­east Asia, see—among oth­er pro­grams, FTR#1031.

This aware­ness guid­ed JFK’s Viet­nam pol­i­cy, in which he not only resist­ed tremen­dous pres­sure to com­mit U.S. com­bat troops to Viet­nam, but planned a with­draw­al of U.S. forces from Viet­nam.

Per­haps the most impor­tant change made after JFK’s assas­si­na­tion was John­son’s nega­tion of Kennedy’s plans to with­draw from Viet­nam.

LBJ can­celled Kennedy’s sched­uled troop with­draw­al, sched­uled per­son­nel increas­es and imple­ment­ed the 34A pro­gram of covert oper­a­tions against North Viet­nam. Exe­cut­ed by South Viet­namese naval com­man­dos using small, Amer­i­can-made patrol boats, these raids were sup­port­ed by U.S. destroy­ers in the Gulf of Tonkin, which were elec­tron­i­cal­ly “fin­ger­print­ing” North Viet­namese radar instal­la­tions.

The elec­tron­ic fin­ger­print­ing of North Viet­namese radar was in antic­i­pa­tion of a pre-planned air war, a fun­da­men­tal part of a plan by LBJ to involve the Unit­ed States in a full-scale war in South­east Asia.

Despite hav­ing promised dur­ing the 1964 cam­paign that no Amer­i­can com­bat units would be com­mit­ted to Viet­nam, with­in three months of the elec­tion, the first com­bat units were dis­patched to that unfor­tu­nate nation.

In addi­tion to not­ing that Hubert Humphrey, con­trary to pop­u­lar mis­con­cep­tion, was an oppo­nent of John­son’s war strat­e­gy, we note that Robert McNa­ma­ra was also opposed to it, although he went along with the Com­man­der in Chief’s poli­cies.

McNa­ma­ra did com­mis­sion the Pen­ta­gon study of Viet­nam pol­i­cy that became the Pen­ta­gon Papers. 

Jim notes that Noam Chom­sky and Pro­fes­sor Howard Zinn ini­tial­ly opposed dis­cus­sion of how JFK’s assas­si­na­tion changed U.S. Viet­nam pol­i­cy.

There is a clip in the film of a con­ver­sa­tion between LBJ and McNa­ma­ra where LBJ cod­i­fies his oppo­si­tion to the JFK/McNamara poli­cies in Viet­nam.

The fledg­ling nation of Laos was also part of French Indochi­na, and Jim notes how out­go­ing Pres­i­dent Eisen­how­er coached Pres­i­dent-Elect Kennedy on the neces­si­ty of com­mit­ting  U.S. com­bat forces to Laos.

Again, Kennedy refused to com­mit U.S. ground forces and engi­neered a pol­i­cy of neu­tral­i­ty for Laos.

Where­as JFK had imple­ment­ed a pol­i­cy afford­ing neu­tral­i­ty to Laos–against the wish­es of the Joint Chiefs, CIA and many of his own cab­i­net, LBJ scrapped the neu­tral­ist pol­i­cy in favor of a CIA-imple­ment­ed strat­e­gy of employ­ing “nar­co-mili­tias” such as the Hmong tribes­men as com­bat­ants against the Pathet Lao. This counter-insur­gency war­fare was com­ple­ment­ed by a mas­sive aer­i­al bomb­ing cam­paign.

JFK’s pol­i­cy vis a vis the war of inde­pen­dence being waged by the French in Alge­ria is of par­tic­u­lar impor­tance.

The pro­gram  reviews Kennedy’s stance on Alge­ria. A French colony in North Africa, Alger­ian inde­pen­dence forces waged a fierce guer­ril­la war in an attempt at becom­ing free from France. Once again, Kennedy opposed the West­ern con­sen­sus on Alge­ria, which sought to retain that prop­er­ty as a French pos­ses­sion.

The French peo­ple were divid­ed over the Alger­ian strug­gle, and those divi­sions led to the fall of the Fourth Repub­lic and the rise of Charles De Gaulle. De Gaulle grant­ed Alge­ria its inde­pen­dence and then faced down the lethal oppo­si­tion of the OAS, a group of mil­i­tary offi­cers ground­ed in the fas­cist col­lab­o­ra­tionist pol­i­tics of Vichy France. De Gaulle sur­vived sev­er­al assas­si­na­tion attempts against him and there are a num­ber of evi­den­tiary trib­u­taries lead­ing between those attempts and the forces that killed Kennedy.

Mau­rice Brooks Gatlin–one of Guy Ban­is­ter’s investigators–boasted of hav­ing trans­ferred a large sum of mon­ey from the CIA to the OAS offi­cers plot­ting against De Gaulle. In addi­tion, Jean Souetre–a French OAS-linked assas­sin was in the Dal­las Fort Worth area on 11/22/1963.

JFK, Alge­ria and oper­a­tional links between JFK’s assas­si­na­tion and OAS attempts on De Gaulle’s life are dis­cussed in FTR#1162.

Note that JFK told the French that he could not con­trol his own intel­li­gence ser­vices.

The pro­gram con­cludes with dis­cus­sion of JFK’s poli­cies with regard to Africa, the Con­go in par­tic­u­lar. This top­ic is pre­sent­ed at greater length in our next inter­view with Jim.


FTR#‘s 1262 and 1263 Interviews #1 and #2 with Jim DiEugenio about “JFK Revisited”

Begin­ning with dis­cus­sion of the gen­e­sis of JFK Revis­it­ed, we high­light a 2013 con­fer­ence in Pitts­burgh, PA, at which Jim DiEu­ge­nio deliv­ered a pow­er point pre­sen­ta­tion about Pres­i­dent Kennedy’s for­eign pol­i­cy pro­gram and the deci­sions that result­ed from that.

Because the address drew a stand­ing ova­tion from the audi­ence, one of the atten­dees brought the mate­r­i­al in the pre­sen­ta­tion to the atten­tion of Oliv­er Stone, which, in turn, led to the launch­ing of this doc­u­men­tary project.

Cit­ing the rou­tine rhetor­i­cal dis­missal of the real­i­ties of the JFK assas­si­na­tion as a coup d’etat, jour­nal­ists and politi­cians rou­tine­ly employ the rhetor­i­cal device “Con­spir­a­cy The­o­ry.” Mean­ing, in effect, a “deranged, lone nut,” the term has its applied ori­gins in an inter­nal CIA dis­cus­sion about how to coun­ter­act War­ren Com­mis­sion crit­ics!

We dis­cuss the MSM’s con­fla­tion of the Q‑Anon types with researchers such as Mr. DiEu­ge­nio and Mr. Emory.

Imme­di­ate­ly fol­low­ing the release of the doc­u­men­tary (along with the DVD’s of the mate­r­i­al and the book JFK Revis­it­ed), author Tim Wein­er penned a piece for Rolling Stone mag­a­zine in which he rep­re­sent­ed the argu­ments pre­sent­ed in the film (and in the accom­pa­ny­ing book, by exten­sion) as stem­ming from Sovi­et dis­in­for­ma­tion.

We note that this type of mis­rep­re­sen­ta­tion is in line with the wide­ly dis­trib­uted pro­pa­gan­da asser­tion scape­goat­ing Rus­sia and Vladimir Putin for this country’s prob­lems and those of the world in gen­er­al.

Suf­fice it to say that none of the mate­r­i­al in the doc­u­men­tary is Soviet/Russian.

By way of demon­strat­ing the non­sen­si­cal nature of the con­tention that “Soviet/Russian pro­pa­gan­da” under­lies the argu­ments pre­sent­ed by Stone/DiEugenio, we review a key ele­ment from Jim’s mag­num opus Des­tiny Betrayed.

When Richard Helms, head of the CIA at that time, con­vened a group to dis­cuss Jim Garrison’s pros­e­cu­tion of Clay Shaw, Ray Roc­ca, the top aide to Agency Counter-intel­li­gence chief James Angle­ton, opined that Gar­ri­son would obtain a con­vic­tion of Shaw. Roc­ca was the acknowl­edged expert at CIA on Garrison/JFK assas­si­na­tion.

Not even Tim Wein­er could dis­miss the CIA’s num­ber two coun­ter­in­tel­li­gence offi­cial as “a Sovi­et agent/propagandist.”

Attempts at por­tray­ing the JFK assas­si­na­tion as a Sovi­et con­spir­a­cy con­tin­ue to this day with for­mer CIA chief James Woolsey hav­ing authored the recent­ly-released Oper­a­tion Drag­on, which uses the alle­ga­tions of a for­mer Roman­ian intel­li­gence agent to pin respon­si­bil­i­ty for the assas­si­na­tion on the U.S.S.R.

Attempts to attribute the JFK assas­si­na­tion on the Sovi­et Union and/or Fidel Castro’s Cuba are not new.

The war in Ukraine is a direct echo of an aspect of attempt­ing to “paint Oswald Red.”

The Nazis and fas­cists in con­trol of the reins of nation­al secu­ri­ty pow­er in Ukraine are direct­ly descend­ed from the OUN/B of Stephan Ban­dera, whose forces col­lab­o­rat­ed with the Third Reich dur­ing World War II.

This polit­i­cal and his­tor­i­cal dynam­ic is set forth in a num­ber of pro­grams, includ­ing FTR#876.

After Oswald’s return to the U.S., he was met by Spas T. Raikin, Sec­re­tary Gen­er­al of the Amer­i­can Friends of the Anti-Bol­she­vik Bloc of Nations. This despite the fact that Oswald had pro­posed giv­ing mil­i­tary secrets to the Sovi­et Union.

After the death of Ban­dera, the OUN/B was head­ed by Yaroslav Stet­zko, the head of the WWII Nazi col­lab­o­ra­tionist gov­ern­ment, which imple­ment­ed Hitler’s eth­nic cleans­ing pro­grams. The OUN/B dom­i­nat­ed the ABN, which was orig­i­nal­ly named the Com­mit­tee of Sub­ju­gat­ed Nations, when it was formed by Adolf Hitler in 1943.

Echoes of the Ban­dera orga­ni­za­tion and the ABN are present in the desta­bi­liza­tion of Chi­na, as well.

LBJ suc­cess­ful­ly used the fears of a Third World War that might stem from the per­cep­tion that the USSR and/or Cuba was behind the assas­si­na­tion in order to per­suade Earl War­ren, among oth­ers, that they should serve on the com­mis­sion. We dis­cussed “the paint­ing of Oswald Red” in numer­ous pro­grams, includ­ing FTR#‘s 925, 926.

For much of this year, the nation’s atten­tion has been focused on the Jan­u­ary 6 Hear­ings. Note­wor­thy is the fact that the nation’s law­ful gov­ern­ment was over­thrown on 11/22/1963.

When Biden intones that “our democ­ra­cy is under fire,” he is “a day late and a dol­lar short.”

“Our democ­ra­cy” was, lit­er­al­ly, under fire on that Fri­day in Dal­las, and democ­ra­cy has been a mere façade in the time since.

Mem­bers of Con­gress have sound­ed grave warn­ings about the Secret Ser­vice and appar­ent­ly “lost” com­mu­ni­ca­tions con­cern­ing the assaults of 1/06/2021.

As these talks progress, we will high­light the Secret Ser­vice and their per­for­mance vis a vis the assas­si­na­tion of JFK. Con­gress, too, is “a day late and a dol­lar short.”

As will be detailed lat­er in this series, both Pres­i­dents Trump and Biden delayed release of the ARRB records at the des­ig­nat­ed junc­tures.

Anoth­er inter­est­ing “Team Trump” link to the assas­si­na­tion inves­ti­ga­tion con­cerns Jef­fer­son Mor­ley’s FOIA suit to learn more about George Joan­nides, who man­aged the Car­los Bringuier-linked DRE for the CIA. 

Mor­ley’s appeal was turned down by an appeals court, with Brett Kavanaugh cast­ing the decid­ing vot­er, just before decamp­ing for his hear­ings on his qual­i­fi­ca­tions for the Supreme Court.

One of JFK’s stances that put him great­ly at odds con­cern­ing nation­al secu­ri­ty and for­eign pol­i­cy was his view toward, and actions in con­junc­tion with, the for­mer Sovi­et Union.

In that regard, we note: Kennedy’s autho­riza­tion of the atmos­pher­ic test ban treaty, the first sub­stan­tive arms lim­i­ta­tion agree­ment with the for­mer Sovi­et Union—bitterly opposed by key mem­bers of the nation­al secu­ri­ty estab­lish­ment; JFK’s refusal to invade Cuba dur­ing the Cuban Mis­sile Cri­sis, which, com­bined with his refusal to uti­lize the mil­i­tary to assist the Bay of Pigs inva­sion, cement­ed the view among key nation­al secu­ri­ty play­ers that he was a traitor/Communist; Kennedy’s June 1963 speech at Amer­i­can Uni­ver­si­ty, in which he rec­og­nized the USSR’s enor­mous con­tri­bu­tion toward the defeat of Nazi Ger­many and called for a new rela­tion­ship with the USSR; JFK’s pro­pos­al that the U.S. and U.S.S.R. under­take joint space explo­ration.

Bridg­ing dis­cus­sion that will be con­tin­ued in our next pro­grams, we note a key quote from the book and doc­u­men­tary by Lisa Pease, not­ing that JFK stood apart from the Eisenhower/Dulles view that non-align­ment among the for­mer colo­nial ter­ri­to­ries that achieved inde­pen­dence was the equiv­a­lent of pro-Com­mu­nist ori­en­ta­tion.

JFK Revis­it­ed: Through the Look­ing Glass by Jim DiEu­ge­nio; Sky­horse Pub­lish­ing [HC]; Copy­right 2022 by Jim DiEu­ge­nio; ISBN 978–1‑5107–7287‑8; p. 352.

. . . . Lisa Pease: His [JFK’s] approach was a rad­i­cal break from his pre­de­ces­sor. In an oral his­to­ry inter­view that Sukarno gave after John Kennedy’s death, he said words to the effect that what made Kennedy spe­cial is that he believed non-align­ment was not amoral as it had been under John Fos­ter Dulles. I thought that was an inter­est­ing way of putting it. . . .


FTR#1261 Bong-Bong and the Marcos Continuum

Explor­ing a deep polit­i­cal, his­tor­i­cal and eco­nom­ic dynam­ic, this pro­gram sets forth fun­da­men­tal aspects of what the late, bril­liant Ster­ling and Peg­gy Sea­grave called “The Mar­cos Dynasty.”

This pro­gram excerpts two of their excel­lent books–which Mr. Emory emphat­i­cal­ly rec­om­mends. There are links pro­vid­ed with each text excerpt to facil­i­tate the acqui­si­tion of the books, which, again, Mr. Emory emphat­i­cal­ly rec­om­mends.

Recent­ly elect­ed pres­i­dent of the Philip­pines (with close rel­a­tives of for­mer pres­i­dent Duterte as aides), Fer­di­nand Mar­cos, Jr.—nicknamed Bong-Bong—has net­worked with U.S. Sec­re­tary of State Antony Blinken and renewed an invig­o­rat­ed, anti-Chi­na alliance.

Essen­tial for an under­stand­ing of the Bong-Bong/Blinken liai­son is aware­ness of Mar­cos, Jr.’s par­tic­i­pa­tion in his dic­ta­tor father’s phe­nom­e­nal­ly lucra­tive recov­er­ies of Gold­en Lily war gold secret­ed in the Philip­pines dur­ing World War II. 

This sub­ject is cov­ered in the land­mark text Gold War­riors by Ster­ling and Peg­gy Sea­grave.

(FTR #‘s 427, 428, 446, 451, 501, 688, 689, 1106, 1107 & 1108 deal with the sub­ject mate­r­i­al of that con­sum­mate­ly impor­tant book.)

Fer­di­nand, Sr.’s rise was aid­ed by his “god­fa­ther,” Judge Chua, who was his bio­log­i­cal father in an out-of-wed­lock liai­son. This was rel­a­tive­ly com­mon in the Philip­pines and not stig­ma­tized as in many oth­er soci­eties.

Judge Chua’s posi­tion in the Chua fam­i­ly gave him great influ­ence. In turn, the clan asso­ci­a­tions of Chi­nese in the Philip­pines were fun­da­men­tal to the pro­fes­sion­al and social under­tak­ings of mem­bers of that com­mu­ni­ty.

Of great sig­nif­i­cance is the strong affil­i­a­tion of the clans with the Kuom­intang of Chi­ang Kai-shek, impart­ing a fas­cist ide­o­log­i­cal ori­en­ta­tion to them. This was a major deep polit­i­cal influ­ence on Fer­di­nand Mar­cos, Sr., the out-of-wed­lock son of the influ­en­tial Judge Chua.

Next, we present the deep polit­i­cal back­ground that shaped Fer­di­nand Mar­cos and an explo­ration of the man­ner in which eco­nom­ic class con­sid­er­a­tions shaped alliances dur­ing the Japan­ese fas­cist occu­pa­tion of the Philip­pines and its after­math.

In FTR#‘s 905, 970, among oth­er pro­grams, we explored how the U.S. reha­bil­i­tat­ed and resus­ci­tat­ed the Japan­ese fas­cist infra­struc­ture from that nation’s World War II impe­r­i­al state.

We have spo­ken of promi­nent Japan­ese fas­cists Sasakawa Ryoichi and Kodama Yoshio in numer­ous pro­grams.

Com­bined with Chi­ang Kai-shek’s reac­tionary stance, those reha­bil­i­tat­ed Japan­ese fas­cists con­sti­tut­ed the crit­i­cal foun­da­tion of America’s Cold War in Asia.

The MacArthur team in the Philip­pines dur­ing the Cold War was culled from the col­lab­o­ra­tionist milieu who worked with the Japan­ese dur­ing the occu­pa­tion. This includ­ed the head of the Japan­ese occu­pa­tion gov­ern­ment, Jose Lau­rel, as well as Benig­no Aquino Sr. and Manuel Rox­as.

Fol­low­ing the ouster of Fer­di­nand Mar­cos, Sr. the Philip­pine gov­ern­ment was head­ed by Cory Aquino, the wid­ow of slain CIA agent Benig­no Aquino, Jr. and Sal­vador Lau­rel, the son of Jose Lau­rel.

Col­lab­o­ra­tor Manuel Rox­as was MacArthur’s “favorite son” to man­age post­war Philip­pine gov­ern­ment.


FTR#‘s 1259 and 1260 How Many Lies Before You Belong to The Lies?, Parts 21 & 22

Updat­ing cov­er­age of the Ukraine war, the title of this series comes from the late, bril­liant polit­i­cal come­di­an Mort Sahl’s 1976 auto­bi­og­ra­phy Heart­land. Mort Sahl was one of Jim Gar­rison’s inves­ti­ga­tors in the New Orleans DA’s inves­ti­ga­tion of the assas­si­na­tion of JFK.

The pro­gram begins with dis­cus­sion of a pow­er­ful eco­nom­ic motive for bait­ing Rus­sia into the Ukraine war–creating a pre­text for oblig­ing Europe and Ger­many to forego use of the Nord­stream 2 pipeline and sev­er the EU from con­sump­tion of Russ­ian nat­ur­al gas.

” . . . . The only way left for U.S. diplo­mats to block Euro­pean pur­chas­es is to goad Rus­sia into a mil­i­tary response and then claim that aveng­ing this response out­weighs any pure­ly nation­al eco­nom­ic inter­est. As hawk­ish Under-Sec­re­tary of State for Polit­i­cal Affairs, Vic­to­ria Nuland, explained in a State Depart­ment press brief­ing on Jan­u­ary 27: ‘If Rus­sia invades Ukraine one way or anoth­er Nord Stream 2 will not move for­ward.’ The prob­lem is to cre­ate a suit­ably offen­sive inci­dent and depict Rus­sia as the aggres­sor. . . .”

In FTR#1245, we detailed Swiss intel­li­gence offi­cer Jacques Baud’s analy­sis of Ukraine’s impend­ing assault on the eth­ni­cal­ly and lin­guis­ti­cal­ly Russ­ian pop­u­la­tion of East­ern Ukraine and Biden’s sign­ing off on that oper­a­tion in order to real­ize Amer­i­can and West­ern Euro­pean goals.

Next, we present an oblique, pos­si­bly very sig­nif­i­cant ele­ment. A For­eign Pol­i­cy arti­cle dis­cussing a for­bear­er of EU pres­i­dent Ursu­la Von Der Leyen’s who was a key Third Reich offi­cial in Gali­cia (West­ern Ukraine).

It appears that Joachim Frei­herr von der Leyen was a mem­ber of the promi­nent silk mer­chant fam­i­ly into which Ursu­la mar­ried.

Con­ven­tion­al fam­i­ly trees make no men­tion of him: ” . . . . Joachim Frei­herr von der Leyen ( Sep­tem­ber 28, 1897 in Haus Meer , Büderich (Meer­busch) ; † 1945 in Dres­den ) was a Ger­man lawyer and admin­is­tra­tive offi­cial who worked as a dis­trict admin­is­tra­tor in the occu­pied coun­tries of Czecho­slo­va­kia and Poland dur­ing the Nation­al Social­ist peri­od and as a dis­trict cap­tain of the dis­trict of Gali­cia was involved in the orga­ni­za­tion of the Holo­caust. Von der Leyen comes from the von der Leyen fam­i­ly of silk barons in Krefeld. . . .”

Next, we high­light the ongo­ing lion­iza­tion of Ukrain­ian Nazi and fas­cist ele­ments in the main­stream U.S. press.

A long spread in the Sun­day New York Times beat­i­fies the Nazi Azov Reg­i­ment, the chief Ukrain­ian unit defend­ing the Azovstal steel works.

Anoth­er NYT piece presents a hero­ic por­tray­al of a Ukrain­ian sabo­teur from the Nazi/fascist Azov and Right Sec­tor units: ” . . . . Before the war, Svarog occa­sion­al­ly joined week­end train­ing with Right Sec­tor and Nation­al Corps, a branch of the Azov move­ment, both of which are aligned with para­mil­i­tary units in Ukraine. . . .”

The ele­va­tion of Ukrain­ian Nazis and fas­cists by the U.S. is exem­pli­fied by a Pen­ta­gon-spon­sored ath­let­ic com­pe­ti­tion: ” . . . .This August, dur­ing the Depart­ment of Defense’s annu­al War­rior Games at Dis­ney World in Orlan­do, Flori­da, lib­er­al come­di­an Jon Stew­art award­ed a Ukrain­ian mil­i­tary vet­er­an named Ihor Halush­ka the ‘Heart of the Team’ award for ‘inspir­ing his team’ with his ‘per­son­al exam­ple.’ Halush­ka hap­pens to have been a mem­ber of the neo-Nazi Azov Bat­tal­ion, which has been armed by the US and inte­grat­ed into the Ukrain­ian Nation­al Guard. . . . Per­haps the most famous Ukrain­ian War­rior Games par­tic­i­pant is Yulia Palevs­ka, who the New York Times has dubbed ‘a sym­bol of Ukrain­ian brav­ery and self-sac­ri­fice.’. . . . Yulia Palevs­ka and Ihor Halush­ka were mem­bers of the fas­cist Right Sec­tor orga­ni­za­tion and Azov Bat­tal­ion, respec­tive­ly. . . .”

Next, we fur­ther devel­op Ukraine’s enemies/death list, not­ing the expe­ri­ence of for­mer Marine Corps intel­li­gence offi­cer Scott Rit­ter.

Join­ing Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters and Hen­ry Kissinger on the list, sev­er­al of the mem­bers of which have been mur­dered, Rit­ter notes the pres­ence of OUN/B youth camps in this coun­try, pos­si­ble breed­ing grounds for assas­sins.

Fur­ther­more, Rit­ter cor­rect­ly locates those OUN/B youth camps in the polit­i­cal con­tin­u­um stretch­ing from the Third Reich, through the Cold War, up to today—a con­tin­u­um inex­tri­ca­bly linked with the Gehlen orga­ni­za­tion.

“ . . . . I had to dri­ve past Ellenville, a sleepy lit­tle town that is home to a camp belong­ing to the Ukrain­ian Amer­i­can Youth Asso­ci­a­tion which, every sum­mer, coor­di­nates with the Orga­ni­za­tion for the Defense of Four Free­doms of Ukraine to hold a ‘Heroes’ Hol­i­day’ hon­or­ing vet­er­an of the Ukrain­ian People’s Army and the Orga­ni­za­tion of Ukrain­ian Nation­al­ists. . . . That a mon­u­ment to men respon­si­ble for geno­ci­dal mass mur­der and who, in the case of two of them (Shukhevych and Ban­dera) open­ly col­lab­o­rat­ed with Nazi Ger­many, could be erect­ed in the Unit­ed States is dis­turb­ing. [NB—Konovalets coop­er­at­ed with the Third Reich as well, D.E.] That every year Ukrain­ian-Amer­i­can adher­ents of the odi­ous ide­ol­o­gy of Stepan Ban­dera gath­er to cel­e­brate his lega­cy at a “children’s camp” where the youth are arrayed in brown uni­forms that make them look like what they, in fact, are — ide­o­log­i­cal storm troop­ers for a hate­ful neo-Nazi ide­ol­o­gy that pro­motes the racial supe­ri­or­i­ty of the Ukrain­ian peo­ple, is a nation­al abom­i­na­tion. . . . Ban­dera has been ele­vat­ed to the sta­tus of a nation­al hero in Ukraine, and his birth­day is con­sid­ered a nation­al hol­i­day. . . . The lega­cy of Stepan Ban­dera is at the very heart of what pass­es for Ukrain­ian nation­al­ism today. It dom­i­nates the polit­i­cal are­na inside Ukraine, where all com­pet­ing polit­i­cal ide­ol­o­gy and affil­i­a­tions have been out­lawed by Pres­i­dent Volodymyr Zelen­sky. . . .”

In FTR #907, we not­ed the pro­found pres­ence of the Ukrain­ian fas­cists in the Unit­ed States, as well as their oper­a­tional con­nec­tions to the Third Reich. In FTR #1072, we not­ed the Ukrain­ian youth cadre in the U.S., and its affil­i­a­tion with the OUN/B milieu in Ukraine.

Our next item out these con­nec­tions, not­ing:

1. The CYM orga­ni­za­tion and its pres­ence in the U.S.

2. The deci­sive involve­ment of post-World War II emi­gres in the growth of that move­ment.

3. CYM’s close affil­i­a­tion with the OUN/B.

4. CYM’s uni­formed, mil­i­tary ori­en­ta­tion: ” . . . . Among the most pop­u­lar activ­i­ties are mil­i­tary-style games where campers are divid­ed into two teams that have to dodge or cap­ture their oppo­nents by mov­ing stealth­ily and orga­niz­ing ambush­es. . . . .”

Fur­ther solid­i­fy­ing the con­ti­nu­ity between the Third Reich, the Gehlen Org and the GOP, we note that, while it was the BND (the intel­li­gence ser­vice of the Fed­er­al Repub­lic) the “Org” was financ­ing the East­ern Euro­pean fas­cist groups that encom­passed the CYM camps in the U.S.

Our pro­grams con­clude with excerpts of anoth­er inter­view with Swiss intel­li­gence offi­cer Jacques Baud.

For the edi­fi­ca­tion of the read­er, we present the full text of the inter­view here.

In the pro­gram, we note Ukraine’s “mir­ror imag­ing” of the polit­i­cal and mil­i­tary aspects of the war, rep­re­sent­ing Ukrain­ian atroc­i­ties and war crimes as Russ­ian.

In turn, West­ern media slav­ish­ly report the Ukrain­ian pro­pa­gan­da as fact, a dynam­ic Mr. Emory has cit­ed as cement­ing the Naz­i­fi­ca­tion of Amer­i­ca, begun dur­ing the clos­ing stages of World War II.

Baud cites Ukrain­ian oper­a­tions behind Russ­ian lines: “ . . . . This is a ter­ror­ist cam­paign tar­get­ing pro-Russ­ian Ukrain­ian per­son­al­i­ties and offi­cials. It fol­lows major changes in the lead­er­ship of the SBU, in Kiev, and in the regions, includ­ing Lvov, Ternopol since July. It is prob­a­bly in the con­text of this same cam­paign that Darya Dug­i­na was assas­si­nat­ed on August 21. The objec­tive of this new cam­paign could be to con­vey the illu­sion that there is an ongo­ing resis­tance in the areas tak­en by the Rus­sians and thus revive West­ern aid, which is start­ing to fatigue. These sab­o­tage activ­i­ties do not real­ly have an oper­a­tional impact and seem more relat­ed to a psy­cho­log­i­cal oper­a­tion. It may be that these are actions like the one on Snake Island at the begin­ning of May, intend­ed to demon­strate to the inter­na­tion­al pub­lic that Ukraine is act­ing. What the inci­dents in Crimea indi­rect­ly show is that the pop­u­lar resis­tance claimed by the West in Feb­ru­ary does not exist. . . .”

Colonel Baud also high­lights Ukraine’s shelling of the Zapor­i­hizia Nuclear Pow­er Plant: “ . . . . By bomb­ing the plant, Ukraine could also be try­ing to pres­sure the West to inter­vene in the con­flict, under the pre­text that Rus­sia is seek­ing to dis­con­nect the plant from the Ukrain­ian pow­er grid before the fall. This sui­ci­dal behavior—as stat­ed by UN Sec­re­tary Gen­er­al António Guterres—would be in line with the war waged by Ukraine since 2014. There is strong evi­dence that the attacks on Ener­go­dar are Ukrain­ian. The frag­ments of pro­jec­tiles fired at the site from the oth­er side of the Dnieper are of West­ern ori­gin. It seems that they come from British BRIMSTONE mis­siles, which are pre­ci­sion mis­siles, whose use is mon­i­tored by the British. Appar­ent­ly, the West is aware of the Ukrain­ian attacks on the ZNPP. This might explain why Ukraine is not very sup­port­ive of an inter­na­tion­al com­mis­sion of inquiry and why West­ern coun­tries are putting unre­al­is­tic con­di­tions for send­ing inves­ti­ga­tors from the IAEA, an agency that has not shown much integri­ty so far. . . .”

Colonel Baud sums up the role of ter­ror cen­tral to the Naz­i­fied Ukrain­ian regime, par­rot­ed by West­ern MSM: “ . . . . Ukrain­ian crimes were begin­ning to be revealed on social net­works, and on 27 March Zelen­sky feared that this would jeop­ar­dize West­ern sup­port. This was followed—rather opportunely—by the Bucha mas­sacre on 3 April, the cir­cum­stances of which remain unclear. Britain, which then had the chair­man­ship of the UN Secu­ri­ty Coun­cil, refused three times the Russ­ian request to set up an inter­na­tion­al com­mis­sion of enquiry into the crimes of Bucha. Ukrain­ian social­ist MP Ilya Kiva revealed on Telegram that the Bucha tragedy was planned by the British MI6 spe­cial ser­vices and imple­ment­ed by the SBU. The fun­da­men­tal prob­lem is that the Ukraini­ans have replaced the ‘oper­a­tional art’ with bru­tal­i­ty. . . .”