Latest Patreon Talk: The OUN/B, the ABN and the Assassination of JFK

In the lat­est Patre­on talk, Mr. Emory delves into man­i­fes­ta­tions of polit­i­cal lying, with the assas­si­na­tion of Pres­i­dent Kennedy as foundation/centerpiece of dis­cus­sion. The role of the Ukrain­ian fas­cist OUN/B and over­lap­ping Anti-Bol­she­vik Bloc of Nations in the JFK assas­si­na­tion com­prise the bulk of the pre­sen­ta­tion. Ukrain­ian tele­vi­sion anchor quotes Adolf Eich­mann ver­ba­tim in this video from UKRAINE 24. WFMU-FM is pod­cast­ing For The Record–You can sub­scribe to the pod­cast HERE. Mr. Emory emphat­i­cal­ly rec­om­mends that listeners/readers get the 32GB flash dri­ve con­tain­ing all of Mr. Emory’s 43 years on the air, plus a library of old anti-fas­cist books on easy-to-down­load PDF files.

Radio Free Third Reich: Where the Term “Iron Curtain” and the Phrase “Better Dead Than Red” Originated UPDATED ON 10/22/2021

In AFA#1 we not­ed that the term “Iron Cur­tain,” gen­er­al­ly believed to have been mint­ed by Win­ston Churchill in a famous address he gave in Mis­souri, was actu­al­ly pur­loined from a pro­pa­gan­da address giv­en by Hitler finance min­is­ter Lutz Schw­erin von Krosigk dur­ing the twi­light days of the Third Reich. ” . . . . It was uttered by Hitler’s for­mer Finance Min­is­ter, Count [Lutz] Schw­erin von Krosigk, on May 2, 1945, when he was try­ing des­per­ate­ly to win Allied recog­ni­tion for the gov­ern­ment of Admi­ral Doenitz [in which von Krosigk was briefly For­eign Minister—D.E.]. . . . ‘The Iron Cur­tain moves clos­er,’ he declared in a broad­cast. ‘Peo­ple caught in the mighty hands of the Bol­she­viks are being destroyed.’. . . ” Also in AFA#1, we set forth the ori­gins of anoth­er Cold War catch­phrase: “Bet­ter Dead than Red.” ” . . . . It was the sym­bol­ism, as always, that count­ed. Radio Were­wolf ham­mered the theme ‘Rather dead than Red’ (a phrase that lived long after). . . .” It is not often that we are able to report good news. A hap­py excep­tion is the fact that William Steven­son’s “The Bor­mann Broth­er­hood” has been reis­sued in paper­back. Mr. Emory receives no mon­ey from this. WFMU-FM is pod­cast­ing For The Record–You can sub­scribe to the pod­cast HERE.

FTR #1145 The Uyghurs and the Destabilization of China, Part 3

This pro­gram con­tin­ues dis­cus­sion of the Uyghurs/“Uighurs” and the desta­bi­liza­tion of Chi­na. This ongo­ing effort is one of an array of covert and overt oper­a­tions against Chi­na.

Dis­cussed in numer­ous pro­grams, the Uighurs (also spelled Uyghurs) are heav­i­ly over­lapped with var­i­ous fas­cist ele­ments. All of these are present in the his­to­ry of the World Uyghur Con­gress.

1.–The nar­co-fas­cist regime of Chi­ang Kai-shek.
2.–The Grey Wolves, youth wing of the Nation­al Action Par­ty. The group was a key ele­ment of the Turk­ish “Stay Behind” move­ment.
3.–Various Islam­ic ter­ror­ist off­shoots of the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood, includ­ing Al-Qae­da and the Islam­ic State.
4.–The Anti-Bol­she­vik Bloc of Nations milieu, direct­ly evolved from the Third Reich and the Gehlen orga­ni­za­tion.
5.–The Dalai Lama and his SS/Third Reich her­itage.

Of great sig­nif­i­cance, once again, is the deci­sive pres­ence of the Nation­al Endow­ment for Democ­ra­cy, a U.S. intel­li­gence cut-out found­ed by William Casey.

Amer­i­can and West­ern media draw on an Amer­i­can regime-change oper­a­tion for much of their coverage–that orga­ni­za­tion is the World Uyghur [“Uighur”] Con­gress and numer­ous sub­sidiary ele­ments.

Exem­pli­fy­ing the WUC milieu is Rushan Abas: ” . . . . Anoth­er influ­en­tial orga­ni­za­tion spun out of the WUC net­work is the Cam­paign for Uyghurs. This group is head­ed by Rushan Abbas, the for­mer Vice Pres­i­dent of the UAA. Pro­mot­ed sim­ply as a Uyghur ‘human rights activist’ by West­ern media out­lets includ­ing the sup­pos­ed­ly adver­sar­i­al Democ­ra­cy Now!, Abbas is, in fact, a long­time US gov­ern­ment and mil­i­tary oper­a­tive. Abbas boasts in her bio of her ‘exten­sive expe­ri­ence work­ing with US gov­ern­ment agen­cies, includ­ing Home­land Secu­ri­ty, Depart­ment of Defense, Depart­ment of State, and var­i­ous US intel­li­gence agen­cies.’ While work­ing for the mil­i­tary con­trac­tor L3 Tech­nolo­gies, Abbas served the US gov­ern­ment and the Bush administration’s so-called war on ter­ror as a ‘con­sul­tant at Guan­tanamo Bay sup­port­ing Oper­a­tion Endur­ing Free­dom.’ Abbas ‘also worked as a lin­guist and trans­la­tor for sev­er­al fed­er­al agen­cies includ­ing work for the US State Depart­ment in Guan­tanamo Bay, Cuba and for Pres­i­dent George W. Bush and for­mer First Lady Lau­ra Bush’. Like so many of her col­leagues, Abbas enjoyed a stint at Radio Free Asia. While Abbas once shared her his­to­ry of col­lab­o­ra­tion with the US gov­ern­ment in the open, she has attempt­ed to scrub bio­graph­ic infor­ma­tion from her online pres­ence fol­low­ing a dis­as­trous pub­lic­i­ty appear­ance in Decem­ber 2019. Dur­ing a Reddit’s ‘Ask Me Any­thing’ ques­tion and answer forum, par­tic­i­pants blast­ed Abbas as a ‘CIA asset’ and fre­quent US gov­ern­ment col­lab­o­ra­tor, prompt­ing her attempt to dis­ap­pear her bio from the inter­net. . . .”

The osten­si­bly “peace­ful’ intent of the WUC can be eval­u­at­ed against the back­ground of the com­ments of for­mer WUC Vice-Pres­i­dent Sey­it Tum­turk: ” . . . . In 2018, Tüm­turk declared that Chi­nese Uyghurs view Turk­ish ‘state requests as orders.’ He then pro­claimed that hun­dreds of thou­sands of Chi­nese Uyghurs were ready to enlist in the Turk­ish army and join Turkey’s ille­gal and bru­tal inva­sion of North­ern Syr­ia ‘to fight for God’ – if ordered to do so by Erdo­gan. . . . Short­ly after Tumturk’s com­ments, Uyghur mil­i­tants dressed in Turk­ish mil­i­tary fatigues and on the Turk­ish side of the Syr­i­an bor­der released a video in which they threat­ened to wage war against Chi­na: ‘Lis­ten you dog bas­tards, do you see this? We will tri­umph!’ one fight­er exclaimed. ‘We will kill you all. Lis­ten up Chi­nese civil­ians, get out of our East Turkestan. I am warn­ing you. We shall return and we will be vic­to­ri­ous.’ . . .”

The pro­gram con­cludes with a look at the polit­i­cal his­to­ry of William Casey, on whose watch as CIA direc­tor many of the U.S. intel­li­gence fronts involved with the Uyghur desta­bi­liza­tion effort were devel­oped.

Key Aspects of Analy­sis of Casey Include: Casey’s Wall Street legal back­ground and the man­ner in which it dove­tailed with William Dono­van and the OSS (Amer­i­ca’s World War II intel­li­gence ser­vice); Casey’s net­work­ing with Lands­dale and oth­ers involved with the recov­ery of Gold­en Lily loot, in the Philip­pines, in par­tic­u­lar; Casey’s pos­si­ble role as a key imple­menter of the Black Eagle Fund; Casey’s role in set­ting up Cap­i­tal Cities, a com­pa­ny that even­tu­al­ly bought ABC in 1985; Casey’s posi­tion as Cap­i­tal Cities’ largest stock­hold­er, includ­ing in 1985, when he was CIA direc­tor; the prob­a­bil­i­ty that Cap­i­tal Cities was an intel­li­gence front; Casey’s key posi­tions in the Nixon Administration–Chairman of the SEC, Under Sec­re­tary of State for Eco­nom­ic Affairs and head of the Export-Import Bank; the prob­a­bil­i­ty that Casey was with CIA through­out his post-World War II career; Casey’s friend­ship with both Allen and John Fos­ter Dulles; Casey’s knowl­edge of how to “pri­va­tize” the CIA; Casey’s role as the han­dler of Fer­di­nand Mar­cos and his Gold­en Lily bul­lion; Rea­gan’s sign­ing of Exec­u­tive Order 12333, autho­riz­ing the CIA to enter into pri­vate rela­tion­ships with PMF’s (pri­vate mil­i­tary foun­da­tions) for intel­li­gence pur­pos­es, while per­mit­ting those rela­tion­ships to be kept secret.

FTR #1144 The Uyghurs and the Destabilization of China, Part 2

The pro­gram begins with review of Nazi/Gehlen/ABN links to anti-Chi­na efforts in Hong Kong and Xin­jiang province.

In numer­ous pro­grams, we have not­ed inter­na­tion­al net­work­ing between the Ukrain­ian Nazi Azov Bat­tal­ion and ele­ments around the world:

Azov is part of the “Inter­mar­i­um Revival” that is seen as using Naz­i­fi­ca­tion of the Ukraine “piv­ot point” as a spring­board for a glob­al Nazi takeover.
Amer­i­can Nazis and white suprema­cists are among the ele­ments net­work­ing with Azov and then “bring­ing it all back home” to their native lands.
Azov Bat­tal­ion and Pravy Sek­tor (“Right Sec­tor”) ele­ments have decamped to Hong Kong, net­work­ing with the so-called “Pro-Democ­ra­cy” forces and work­ing on behalf of EU NGOs. This was dis­cussed in FTR #1103.

Azov’s Hong Kong com­pa­tri­ots have adopt­ed the OUN/B slo­gan, now the offi­cial salute of the Ukrain­ian police and mil­i­tary. ” . . . . The inter­est has been mutu­al, with Hong Kong’s ‘democ­rats’ draw­ing inspi­ra­tion from Ukraine’s pro-West­ern Euro­maid­an ‘rev­o­lu­tion’ that has empow­ered far-right, fascis­tic forces. Hong Kong pro­test­ers have embraced the slo­gan ‘Glo­ry to Hong Kong’, adapt­ed from ‘Sla­va Ukrayi­ni’ or ‘Glo­ry to Ukraine’, a slo­gan invent­ed by Ukrain­ian fas­cists and used by Nazi col­lab­o­ra­tors dur­ing WWII that was re-pop­u­lar­ized by the Euro­maid­an move­ment. . . . ”

Joshua Wong–“boy won­der” and dar­ling of the Amer­i­can MSM–has dou­bled down on affin­i­ty with Ukraine: ” . . . . ‘No mat­ter the dif­fer­ences between Ukraine and Hong Kong, our fights for free­dom and democ­ra­cy are the same,’ Joshua Wong told The Kyiv Post in 2019. ‘[W]e have to learn from Ukraini­ans… and show sol­i­dar­i­ty. Ukraine con­front­ed the force of Rus­sia — we are fac­ing the force of Bei­jing.’ . . . .”

The Hong Kong iter­a­tion of the OUN/UPA salute has become an anthem. In its cov­er­age of the ban­ning of that song by the Chi­nese author­i­ties, The New York Times [pre­dictably] fails to dis­cuss the her­itage of the slogan/song, nor the nature of the Ukrain­ian Nazi “trou­ba­dours” who brought it to Hong Kong.

In this con­text, it is impor­tant to remem­ber that the Nation­al Endow­ment for Democracy–a U.S. intel­li­gence “cut-out” found­ed by for­mer CIA direc­tor William Casey–has helped finance the “pro-Democ­ra­cy” forces in Hong Kong.

One of the lead­ing pro­pa­gan­dists con­cern­ing “mass incar­cer­a­tion of the Uighurs” is Adri­an Zenz, a dog­mat­ic End Times Chris­t­ian, Ger­man nation­al and “senior fel­low in Chi­na stud­ies at the far-right Vic­tims of Com­mu­nism Memo­r­i­al Foun­da­tion, which was estab­lished by the US gov­ern­ment in 1983.”

The Vic­tims of Com­mu­nism Memo­r­i­al Foun­da­tion is an off­shoot of the milieu of the OUN/B. ” . . . . an out­growth of the Nation­al Cap­tive Nations Com­mit­tee, a group found­ed by Ukrain­ian nation­al­ist Lev Dobri­an­sky to lob­by against any effort for detente with the Sovi­et Union. Its co-chair­man, Yaroslav Stet­sko, was a top leader of the fas­cist OUN‑B mili­tia that fought along­side Nazi Ger­many dur­ing its occu­pa­tion of Ukraine in World War Two. . . .” A key fig­ure in the Azov Bat­tal­ion (ele­ments of which were present in Hong Kong) is Roman Zvarych, the per­son­al sec­re­tary for Stet­sko in the ear­ly 1980’s.

” . . . . for­mer­ly Yaroslav Stetsko’s pri­vate sec­re­tary, the U.S.-born Roman Zvarych (1953), rep­re­sents a younger gen­er­a­tion of the Ukrain­ian émi­gré com­mu­ni­ty active dur­ing the Cold War and a direct link from the ABN to the Azov Bat­tal­ion. . . . Zvarych par­tic­i­pat­ed in the activ­i­ties of the Anti-Bol­she­vik Bloc of Nations in the 1980s. . . . In Feb­ru­ary 2005, after Vik­tor Yushchenko’s elec­tion, Zvarych was appoint­ed Min­is­ter of Jus­tice. . . . Accord­ing to Andriy Bilet­sky, the first com­man­der of the Azov bat­tal­ion, a civ­il para­mil­i­tary unit cre­at­ed in the wake of the Euro­maid­an, Zvarych was head of the head­quar­ters of the Azov Cen­tral Com­mit­tee in 2015 and sup­port­ed the Azov bat­tal­ion with ‘vol­un­teers’ and polit­i­cal advice through his Zvarych Foun­da­tion. . . .”

Net­work­ing with Isa Yusuf Alptekin at the Ban­dung (Indone­sia) con­fer­ence was Ruzi (or “Ruzy”) Nazar, an Uzbek nation­al who fought in var­i­ous Third Reich mil­i­tary for­ma­tions, includ­ing the SS Dirlewanger Brigade. After the war, Nazar was a CIA oper­a­tive net­work­ing with the Nation­al Action Par­ty (or Nation­al Move­ment Par­ty) of Alparslan Turkes.

Nazar rep­re­sent­ed the Anti-Bol­she­vik Bloc of Nations at the 1984 WACL con­fer­ence in Dal­las.

Dis­cussed in numer­ous pro­grams, the Uighurs (also spelled Uyghurs) are heav­i­ly over­lapped with var­i­ous fas­cist ele­ments. All of these are present in the his­to­ry of the World Uyghur Con­gress.

1.–The nar­co-fas­cist regime of Chi­ang Kai-shek.
2.–The Grey Wolves, youth wing of the Nation­al Action Par­ty. The group was a key ele­ment of the Turk­ish “Stay Behind” move­ment.
3.–Various Islam­ic ter­ror­ist off­shoots of the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood, includ­ing Al-Qae­da and the Islam­ic State.
4.–As seen above, the Anti-Bol­she­vik Bloc of Nations milieu, direct­ly evolved from the Third Reich and the Gehlen orga­ni­za­tion.
5.–The SS/CIA/Third Reich milieu of the Dalai Lama.

Of great sig­nif­i­cance, once again, is the deci­sive pres­ence of the Nation­al Endow­ment for Democ­ra­cy, a U.S. intel­li­gence cut-out found­ed by William Casey.

Amer­i­can and West­ern media draw on an Amer­i­can regime-change oper­a­tion for much of their coverage–that orga­ni­za­tion is the World Uyghur [“Uighur”] Con­gress and numer­ous sub­sidiary ele­ments.

Exem­pli­fy­ing the WUC milieu is Rushan Abas: ” . . . . Anoth­er influ­en­tial orga­ni­za­tion spun out of the WUC net­work is the Cam­paign for Uyghurs. This group is head­ed by Rushan Abbas, the for­mer Vice Pres­i­dent of the UAA. Pro­mot­ed sim­ply as a Uyghur ‘human rights activist’ by West­ern media out­lets includ­ing the sup­pos­ed­ly adver­sar­i­al Democ­ra­cy Now!, Abbas is, in fact, a long­time US gov­ern­ment and mil­i­tary oper­a­tive. Abbas boasts in her bio of her ‘exten­sive expe­ri­ence work­ing with US gov­ern­ment agen­cies, includ­ing Home­land Secu­ri­ty, Depart­ment of Defense, Depart­ment of State, and var­i­ous US intel­li­gence agen­cies.’ While work­ing for the mil­i­tary con­trac­tor L3 Tech­nolo­gies, Abbas served the US gov­ern­ment and the Bush administration’s so-called war on ter­ror as a ‘con­sul­tant at Guan­tanamo Bay sup­port­ing Oper­a­tion Endur­ing Free­dom.’ Abbas ‘also worked as a lin­guist and trans­la­tor for sev­er­al fed­er­al agen­cies includ­ing work for the US State Depart­ment in Guan­tanamo Bay, Cuba and for Pres­i­dent George W. Bush and for­mer First Lady Lau­ra Bush’. Like so many of her col­leagues, Abbas enjoyed a stint at Radio Free Asia. While Abbas once shared her his­to­ry of col­lab­o­ra­tion with the US gov­ern­ment in the open, she has attempt­ed to scrub bio­graph­ic infor­ma­tion from her online pres­ence fol­low­ing a dis­as­trous pub­lic­i­ty appear­ance in Decem­ber 2019. Dur­ing a Reddit’s ‘Ask Me Any­thing’ ques­tion and answer forum, par­tic­i­pants blast­ed Abbas as a ‘CIA asset’ and fre­quent US gov­ern­ment col­lab­o­ra­tor, prompt­ing her attempt to dis­ap­pear her bio from the inter­net. . . .”

The osten­si­bly “peace­ful’ intent of the WUC can be eval­u­at­ed against the back­ground of the com­ments of for­mer WUC Vice-Pres­i­dent Sey­it Tum­turk: ” . . . . In 2018, Tüm­turk declared that Chi­nese Uyghurs view Turk­ish ‘state requests as orders.’ He then pro­claimed that hun­dreds of thou­sands of Chi­nese Uyghurs were ready to enlist in the Turk­ish army and join Turkey’s ille­gal and bru­tal inva­sion of North­ern Syr­ia “to fight for God” – if ordered to do so by Erdo­gan. . . . Short­ly after Tumturk’s com­ments, Uyghur mil­i­tants dressed in Turk­ish mil­i­tary fatigues and on the Turk­ish side of the Syr­i­an bor­der released a video in which they threat­ened to wage war against Chi­na: ‘Lis­ten you dog bas­tards, do you see this? We will tri­umph!’ one fight­er exclaimed. ‘We will kill you all. Lis­ten up Chi­nese civil­ians, get out of our East Turkestan. I am warn­ing you. We shall return and we will be vic­to­ri­ous.’ . . .”

FTR #1143 The Uyghurs and the Destabilization of China, Part 1

Pro­vid­ing polit­i­cal con­text for the Covid-19 out­break, the next three pro­grams explore the pro­pa­gan­diz­ing of the Uighur (also spelled “Uyghur”) pop­u­la­tion of Xin­jiang province. The alleged deten­tion of “mil­lions” of Uighurs in Xin­jiang province has been the foun­da­tion for U.S. eco­nom­ic sanc­tions against Chi­na. It has been a major pro­pa­gan­da vehi­cle as well.

(We have fol­lowed the Uighurs and the desta­bi­liza­tion of Chi­na for years, begin­ning with FTR #348.)

One should not fail to note that the efforts of “Team Uighur” are part of the full court press against Chi­na

Like the so-called “pro-democ­ra­cy” move­ment in Hong Kong, the orga­ni­za­tions that make­up “Team Uighur” are inex­tri­ca­bly linked with U.S. intel­li­gence. (We dis­cussed the Nation­al Endow­ment for Democ­ra­cy’s fund­ing of the “pro-Democ­ra­cy move­ment” in Hong Kong in FTR #‘s 1091, 1092 and 1093. NED was found­ed by William Casey, who was deeply involved with the cre­ation of many of the oth­er U.S. intel­li­gence fronts and affil­i­ates that have gen­er­at­ed the Uighur pro­pa­gan­da.)

At a deep­er his­tor­i­cal lev­el, “Team Uighur” is inex­tri­ca­bly linked with the gen­er­at­ing forces of inter­na­tion­al fas­cism.

The Net­work of Chi­nese Human Rights Defend­ers receives financ­ing from the Nation­al Endow­ment for Democ­ra­cy. The Jamestown Foundation–another ele­ment in “Team Uighur” also has its gen­e­sis with William Casey and the Rea­gan admin­is­tra­tion. The wide­ly repeat­ed “study” gen­er­at­ed by the NCHRD is based on inter­views of eight individuals–this in an are with a pop­u­la­tion of 20 mil­lion. ” . . . . In a 2018 report sub­mit­ted to the UN Com­mit­tee on the Elim­i­na­tion of Racial Dis­crim­i­na­tion – often mis­rep­re­sent­ed in West­ern media as a UN-authored report – CHRD ‘estimate[d] that rough­ly one mil­lion mem­bers of eth­nic Uyghurs have been sent to ‘re-edu­ca­tion’ deten­tion camps and rough­ly two mil­lion have been forced to attend ‘re-edu­ca­tion’ pro­grams in Xin­jiang.’ Accord­ing to CHRD, this fig­ure was ‘[b]ased on inter­views and lim­it­ed data.’ While CHRD states that it inter­viewed dozens of eth­nic Uyghurs in the course of its study, their enor­mous esti­mate was ulti­mate­ly based on inter­views with exact­ly eight Uyghur indi­vid­u­als. . . .”

One of the lead­ing pro­pa­gan­dists con­cern­ing “mass incar­cer­a­tion of the Uighurs” is Adri­an Zenz, a dog­mat­ic End Times Chris­t­ian, Ger­man nation­al and “senior fel­low in Chi­na stud­ies at the far-right Vic­tims of Com­mu­nism Memo­r­i­al Foun­da­tion, which was estab­lished by the US gov­ern­ment in 1983.”

The Vic­tims of Com­mu­nism Memo­r­i­al Foun­da­tion is an off­shoot of the milieu of the OUN/B. ” . . . . an out­growth of the Nation­al Cap­tive Nations Com­mit­tee, a group found­ed by Ukrain­ian nation­al­ist Lev Dobri­an­sky to lob­by against any effort for detente with the Sovi­et Union. Its co-chair­man, Yaroslav Stet­sko, was a top leader of the fas­cist OUN‑B mili­tia that fought along­side Nazi Ger­many dur­ing its occu­pa­tion of Ukraine in World War Two. . . .” A key fig­ure in the Azov Bat­tal­ion (ele­ments of which were present in Hong Kong) is Roman Zvarych, the per­son­al sec­re­tary for Stet­sko in the ear­ly 1980’s.

” . . . . for­mer­ly Yaroslav Stetsko’s pri­vate sec­re­tary, the U.S.-born Roman Zvarych (1953), rep­re­sents a younger gen­er­a­tion of the Ukrain­ian émi­gré com­mu­ni­ty active dur­ing the Cold War and a direct link from the ABN to the Azov Bat­tal­ion. . . . Zvarych par­tic­i­pat­ed in the activ­i­ties of the Anti-Bol­she­vik Bloc of Nations in the 1980s. . . . In Feb­ru­ary 2005, after Vik­tor Yushchenko’s elec­tion, Zvarych was appoint­ed Min­is­ter of Jus­tice. . . . Accord­ing to Andriy Bilet­sky, the first com­man­der of the Azov bat­tal­ion, a civ­il para­mil­i­tary unit cre­at­ed in the wake of the Euro­maid­an, Zvarych was head of the head­quar­ters of the Azov Cen­tral Com­mit­tee in 2015 and sup­port­ed the Azov bat­tal­ion with ‘vol­un­teers’ and polit­i­cal advice through his Zvarych Foun­da­tion. . . .”

Zenz has also gen­er­at­ed his fig­ures from high­ly ques­tion­able sources: ” . . . . Like the CHRD, Zenz arrived at his esti­mate ‘over 1 mil­lion’ in a dubi­ous man­ner. He based it on a sin­gle report by Istiqlal TV, a Uyghur exile media orga­ni­za­tion based in Turkey . . . . Far from an impar­tial jour­nal­is­tic orga­ni­za­tion, Istiqlal TV advances the sep­a­ratist cause while play­ing host to an assort­ment of extrem­ist fig­ures. One such char­ac­ter who often appears on Istiqlal TV is Abdulka­dir Yapuquan, a report­ed leader of the East Turkestan Islam­ic Move­ment (ETIM), a sep­a­ratist group that aims to estab­lish an inde­pen­dent home­land in Xin­jiang called East Turkestan. . . .”

The “pro-Democ­ra­cy” move­ment in Hong Kong also fea­tures Ukrain­ian Nazi elements–part of what we have called the “Earth Island Boo­gie.”

In numer­ous pro­grams, we have not­ed inter­na­tion­al net­work­ing between the Ukrain­ian Nazi Azov Bat­tal­ion and ele­ments around the world:

1.–Azov is part of the “Inter­mar­i­um Revival” that is seen as using Naz­i­fi­ca­tion of the Ukraine “piv­ot point” as a spring­board for a glob­al Nazi takeover.
2.–American Nazis and white suprema­cists are among the ele­ments net­work­ing with Azov and then “bring­ing it all back home” to their native lands.
3.–Azov Bat­tal­ion and Pravy Sek­tor (“Right Sec­tor”) ele­ments have decamped to Hong Kong, net­work­ing with the so-called “Pro-Democ­ra­cy” forces and work­ing on behalf of EU NGOs. This was dis­cussed in FTR #1103.

Azov’s Hong Kong com­pa­tri­ots have adopt­ed the OUN/B slo­gan, now the offi­cial salute of the Ukrain­ian police and mil­i­tary. ” . . . . The inter­est has been mutu­al, with Hong Kong’s ‘democ­rats’ draw­ing inspi­ra­tion from Ukraine’s pro-West­ern Euro­maid­an ‘rev­o­lu­tion’ that has empow­ered far-right, fascis­tic forces. Hong Kong pro­test­ers have embraced the slo­gan ‘Glo­ry to Hong Kong’, adapt­ed from ‘Sla­va Ukrayi­ni’ or ‘Glo­ry to Ukraine’, a slo­gan invent­ed by Ukrain­ian fas­cists and used by Nazi col­lab­o­ra­tors dur­ing WWII that was re-pop­u­lar­ized by the Euro­maid­an move­ment. . . . ”

Joshua Wong–“boy won­der” and dar­ling of the Amer­i­can MSM–has dou­bled down on affin­i­ty with Ukraine: ” . . . . ‘No mat­ter the dif­fer­ences between Ukraine and Hong Kong, our fights for free­dom and democ­ra­cy are the same,’ Joshua Wong told The Kyiv Post in 2019. ‘[W]e have to learn from Ukraini­ans… and show sol­i­dar­i­ty. Ukraine con­front­ed the force of Rus­sia — we are fac­ing the force of Bei­jing.’ . . . .”

The pro­gram con­cludes with atten­u­at­ed dis­cus­sion of Third Reich vet­er­an and CIA offi­cer Ruzi (also “Ruzy”) Nazar. A vet­er­an of the SS Dirlewanger Brigade, Nazar was liais­ing with the fas­cist Nation­al Action Par­ty (also “Nation­al Move­ment Par­ty”) of Alparslan Turkes at the time its Grey Wolves cadre was involved with shoot­ing the Pope, an act that appears to have been a provo­ca­tion.

In AFA #‘s 14 and 21, we not­ed that Nazar rep­re­sent­ed the Anti Bol­she­vik Bloc of Nations at the 1984 WACL con­fer­ence in Dal­las, Texas.

FTR #1110 Miscellaneous Articles and Updates

As the title indi­cates, this pro­gram presents a pot­pour­ri of arti­cles cov­er­ing a num­ber of top­ics.

A com­mon thread unit­ing them is the ongo­ing New Cold War and ele­ments fac­tor­ing in the impeach­ment pro­ceed­ings under­way in Wash­ing­ton. 

Reput­ed evi­dence of a new “hack” alleged­ly done by the G.R.U. does­n’t pass the sniffs test. 

Fac­tors to be weighed in con­nec­tion with the lat­est “hack” of the Ukrain­ian nat­ur­al gas com­pa­ny Buris­ma (on whose board Hunter Biden sits–a fact that has been a focal point of the impeach­ment pro­ceed­ings):

1.–Blake Darche, co-founder and Chief Secu­ri­ty offi­cer of Area 1, the firm that “detect­ed” the lat­est “hack” has a strong past asso­ci­a­tion with Crowd­Strike, the firm that helped launch the New Cold War pro­pa­gan­da blitz about sup­posed Russ­ian hacks. Darche was a Prin­ci­pal Con­sul­tant at Crowd­Strike.
2.–CrowdStrike, in turn, has strong links to the Atlantic Coun­cil, one of the think tanks that is part and par­cel to the Inter­mar­i­um Con­ti­nu­ity dis­cussed in FTR #‘s 1098, 1099, 1100, 1101. Dmitri Alper­ovitch, the com­pa­ny’s co-founder and Chief Tech­nol­o­gy Offi­cer is a senior fel­low at the Atlantic Coun­cil.
3.–An iron­ic ele­ment of the “analy­sis” of the hacks attrib­ut­es the acts to “Fan­cy Bear” and the G.R.U., based on alleged lazi­ness on the part of the alleged per­pe­tra­tors of the phish­ing attack. (Phish­ing attacks are very easy for a skilled actor to car­ry out in rel­a­tive anonymi­ty.) Area 1’s con­clu­sion is based on “pat­tern recog­ni­tion,” which is the embod­i­ment of lazi­ness. We are to believe that the G.R.U./Fancy Bear alleged perp used a “cook­ie cut­ter” approach.

As we have not­ed in many pre­vi­ous broad­casts and posts, cyber attacks are eas­i­ly dis­guised. Per­pe­trat­ing a “cyber false flag” oper­a­tion is dis­turbing­ly easy to do. In a world where the ver­i­fi­ably false and phys­i­cal­ly impos­si­ble “con­trolled demolition”/Truther non­sense has gained trac­tion, cyber false flag ops are all the more threat­en­ing and sin­is­ter.

Now, we learn that the CIA’s hack­ing tools are specif­i­cal­ly craft­ed to mask CIA author­ship of the attacks. Most sig­nif­i­cant­ly, for our pur­pos­es, is the fact that the Agen­cy’s hack­ing tools are engi­neered in such a way as to per­mit the authors of the event to rep­re­sent them­selves as Russ­ian.

” . . . . These tools could make it more dif­fi­cult for anti-virus com­pa­nies and foren­sic inves­ti­ga­tors to attribute hacks to the CIA. Could this call the source of pre­vi­ous hacks into ques­tion? It appears that yes, this might be used to dis­guise the CIA’s own hacks to appear as if they were Russ­ian, Chi­nese, or from spe­cif­ic oth­er coun­tries. . . . This might allow a mal­ware cre­ator to not only look like they were speak­ing in Russ­ian or Chi­nese, rather than in Eng­lish, but to also look like they tried to hide that they were not speak­ing Eng­lish . . . .”

This is of para­mount sig­nif­i­cance in eval­u­at­ing the increas­ing­ly neo-McCarthyite New Cold War pro­pa­gan­da about “Russ­ian inter­fer­ence” in the U.S. elec­tion, and Russ­ian author­ship of the high-pro­file hacks.

With Buris­ma at the cen­ter of the impeach­ment pro­ceed­ings in Wash­ing­ton, we note some inter­est­ing rela­tion­ships involv­ing Buris­ma and its board of direc­tors, on which Hunter Biden sits.

Some of the con­sid­er­a­tions to be weighed in that con­text

1.–Burisma formed a pro­fes­sion­al rela­tion­ship with the Atlantic Coun­cil in 2017: ” . . . . In 2017, Buris­ma announced that it faced no active pros­e­cu­tion cas­es, then formed a part­ner­ship with the Atlantic Coun­cil, a US think-tank active in pro­mot­ing anti-cor­rup­tion efforts in Ukraine. Buris­ma donat­ed between $100,000 and $250,000 to the Atlantic Coun­cil last year . . . .  Kari­na Zlochevs­ka, Mr. [Buris­ma founder Myko­la] Zlochevsky’s daugh­ter, attend­ed an Atlantic Coun­cil round­table on pro­mot­ing best busi­ness prac­tices as recent­ly as last week. . . .”
2.–The firm had on its board of Buris­ma of both Alek­sander Kwas­niews­ki and Cofer Black. ” . . . .When pros­e­cu­tors began inves­ti­gat­ing Burisma’s licens­es over self-deal­ing alle­ga­tions, Mr Zlochevsky stacked its board with West­ern lumi­nar­ies. . . .  they includ­ed for­mer Pol­ish pres­i­dent Alek­sander Kwas­niews­ki, who had vis­it­ed Ukraine dozens of times as an EU envoy, and  . . . .  ex-Black­wa­ter direc­tor Cofer Black. In Mona­co, where he report­ed­ly lives, Mr Zlochevsky joint­ly organ­is­es an annu­al ener­gy con­fer­ence with Mr Kwasniewski’s foun­da­tion. . . . ”
3.–Kwasniewski was not only the EU’s envoy seek­ing ful­fill­ment of the EU asso­ci­a­tion agree­ment, but a key mem­ber of Paul Man­afort’s Haps­burg Group. The evi­dence about Man­afort work­ing with that assem­blage to maneu­ver Ukraine into the West­ern orbit is exten­sive. Some of the rel­e­vant pro­grams are: FTR #‘s 1008, 1009 (back­ground about the deep pol­i­tics sur­round­ing the Hapsburg–U.S. intel­li­gence alliance) and 1022.That the actu­al Maid­an Coup itself was sparked by a provo­ca­tion fea­tur­ing the lethal snip­ing by OUN/B suc­ces­sor ele­ments is per­sua­sive. Some of the rel­e­vant pro­grams are: FTR #‘s 982, 1023, 1024.
4.–Kwasniewski’s foun­da­tion’s annu­al ener­gy con­fer­ences bring to mind the Three Seas Ini­tia­tive and the cen­tral role of ener­gy in it. The TSI and the role of ener­gy in same is high­light­ed in the arti­cle at the core of FTR #‘s 1098–1101. In this con­text, note the role of the Atlantic Coun­cil in the TSI and its ener­gy com­po­nent, along with the part­ner­ship between Buris­ma and the Atlantic Coun­cil. The TSI and its ener­gy com­po­nent, in turn, are a fun­da­men­tal ele­ment of the Inter­mar­i­um Con­ti­nu­ity, the mil­i­tary com­po­nent of which is now being cement­ed in the Impeach­ment Cir­cus: ” . . . . Under the men­tor­ship of Jarosław Kaczyńs­ki, the new Pol­ish pres­i­dent, Andrzej Duda, elect­ed in 2015, relaunched the idea of a Baltic-Black Sea alliance on the eve of his inau­gu­ra­tion under the label of ‘Three Seas Ini­tia­tive’ (TSI). Orig­i­nal­ly, the project grew out of a debate sparked by a report co-pub­lished by the Atlantic Coun­cil and the EU ener­gy lob­by group Cen­tral Europe Ener­gy Part­ners (CEEP) with the goal of pro­mot­ing big Cen­tral Euro­pean com­pa­nies’ inter­ests in the EU.[116] The report, enti­tled Com­plet­ing Europe—From the North-South Cor­ri­dor to Ener­gy, Trans­porta­tion, and Telecom­mu­ni­ca­tions Union, was co-edit­ed by Gen­er­al James L. Jones, Jr., for­mer Supreme Allied Com­man­der of NATO, U.S. Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Advi­sor, and chair­man of the Atlantic Coun­cil, and Pawel Olech­now­icz, CEO of the Pol­ish oil and gas giant Gru­pa Lotos.[117] It ‘called for the accel­er­at­ed con­struc­tion of a North-South Cor­ri­dor of ener­gy, trans­porta­tion, and com­mu­ni­ca­tions links stretch­ing from the Baltic Sea to the Adri­at­ic and Black Seas,’ which at the time was still referred to as the ‘Adri­at­ic-Baltic-Black Sea Initiative.’[118] The report was pre­sent­ed in Brus­sels in March 2015, where, accord­ing to Fred­er­ick Kempe, pres­i­dent and CEO of the Atlantic Coun­cil, it ‘gen­er­at­ed a huge amount of excite­ment.’ . . . .”
The pres­ence on the Buris­ma board of Cofer Black “ex”-CIA and the for­mer direc­tor of Erik Prince’s Black­wa­ter out­fit is VERY impor­tant. Erik Prince is the broth­er of Trump Edu­ca­tion Sec­re­tary Bet­sy De Vos and the busi­ness part­ner of John­son Cho Kun Sun, the Hong Kong-based oli­garch who sits on the board of Emer­da­ta, the rein­car­nat­ed Cam­bridge Ana­lyt­i­ca. Both Cofer Black and Alek­sander Kwas­niews­ki are in a posi­tion to pro­vide detailed intel­li­gence about the oper­a­tions of Buris­ma, includ­ing any data that the sup­posed “Russ­ian hack” might reveal.

With the impeach­ment pro­ceed­ings now head­ing toward their most prob­a­ble conclusion–Trump’s acquit­tal– and with the inces­sant bab­ble about the non-exis­tent “Russ­ian inter­fer­ence” in the U.S. elec­tion, it is worth con­tem­plat­ing Amer­i­can inter­fer­ence in Russ­ian pol­i­tics.

Against the back­ground of decades of Amer­i­can-backed and/or ini­ti­at­ed coups over­throw­ing gov­ern­ments around the world, we high­light U.S. sup­port for Boris Yeltsin. Fol­low­ing the NED’s ele­va­tion of Nazi-allied fas­cists in Lithua­nia and the expan­sion of that Gehlen/CFF/GOP milieu inside the for­mer Sovi­et Union cour­tesy of the Free Con­gress Foun­da­tion, the U.S. hoist­ed Yeltsin into the dri­ver’s seat of the new­ly-mint­ed Rus­sia. (One should nev­er for­get that Jef­frey Sachs, a key eco­nom­ic advis­er to Bernie Sanders and Alexan­dria Oca­sio-Cortez head­ed the team that sent the Russ­ian econ­o­my back to the stone age.)

Key points of con­sid­er­a­tion:

1.–” . . . . . . . . In late 1991, after the fall of the Sovi­et Union, Boris Yeltsin won a year of spe­cial pow­ers from the Russ­ian Par­lia­ment: for one year, he was to be, in effect, the dic­ta­tor of Rus­sia to facil­i­tate the mid­wifery of the birth of a demo­c­ra­t­ic Rus­sia. In March of 1992, under pres­sure from a dis­con­tent­ed pop­u­la­tion, par­lia­ment repealed the dic­ta­to­r­i­al pow­ers it had grant­ed him. Yeltsin respond­ed by declar­ing a state of emer­gency, giv­ing him­self the repealed dic­ta­to­r­i­al pow­ers. Russia’s Con­sti­tu­tion­al Court ruled that Yeltsin was act­ing out­side the con­sti­tu­tion. But the US sided – against the Russ­ian peo­ple and against the Russ­ian Con­sti­tu­tion­al Court – with Yeltsin. . . .”
2.–” . . . . Yeltsin dis­solved the par­lia­ment that had rescind­ed his pow­ers and abol­ished the con­sti­tu­tion of which he was in vio­la­tion. In a 636–2 vote, the Russ­ian par­lia­ment impeached Yeltsin. But Pres­i­dent Bill Clin­ton again sided with Yeltsin against the Russ­ian peo­ple and Russ­ian law, giv­ing him $2.5 bil­lion in aid. . . .”
3.–” . . . . Yeltsin took the mon­ey and sent police offi­cers and elite para­troop­ers to sur­round the par­lia­ment build­ing. Clin­ton ‘praised the Russ­ian Pres­i­dent has (sic) hav­ing done ‘quite well’ in man­ag­ing the stand­off with the Russ­ian Par­lia­ment,’ as The New York Times report­ed at the time. Clin­ton added that he thought ‘the Unit­ed States and the free world ought to hang in there’ with their sup­port of Yeltsin against his peo­ple, their con­sti­tu­tion and their courts, and judged Yeltsin to be ‘on the right side of his­to­ry.’ . . .”
4.–” . . . . On the right side of his­to­ry and armed with machine guns, Yeltsin’s troops opened fire on the crowd of pro­test­ers, killing about 100 peo­ple before set­ting the Russ­ian par­lia­ment build­ing on fire. By the time the day was over, Yeltsin’s troops had killed an uncon­firmed 500 peo­ple and wound­ed near­ly 1,000. Still, Clin­ton stood with Yeltsin. . . .”
5.–” . . . . In 1996, Amer­i­ca would inter­fere yet again. With elec­tions loom­ing, Yeltsin’s pop­u­lar­i­ty was nonex­is­tent, and his approval rat­ing was at about 6 per­cent. Accord­ing to Pro­fes­sor Emer­i­tus of Russ­ian Stud­ies at Prince­ton, Stephen Cohen, Clinton’s inter­fer­ence in Russ­ian pol­i­tics, his ‘cru­sade’ to ‘reform Rus­sia,’ had by now become offi­cial pol­i­cy. And, so, Amer­i­ca bold­ly inter­fered direct­ly in Russ­ian elec­tions. Three Amer­i­can polit­i­cal con­sul­tants, receiv­ing ‘direct assis­tance from Bill Clinton’s White House,’ secret­ly ran Yeltsin’s re-elec­tion cam­paign. As Time mag­a­zine broke the sto­ry, ‘For four months, a group of Amer­i­can polit­i­cal con­sul­tants clan­des­tine­ly par­tic­i­pat­ed in guid­ing Yeltsin’s cam­paign.’ ‘Fund­ed by the U.S. gov­ern­ment,’ Cohen reports, Amer­i­cans ‘gave mon­ey to favored Russ­ian politi­cians, instruct­ed min­is­ters, draft­ed leg­is­la­tion and pres­i­den­tial decrees, under­wrote text­books, and served at Yeltsin’s reelec­tion head­quar­ters in 1996.’ . . . .”
6.–” . . . . Then ambas­sador to Rus­sia Thomas Pick­er­ing even pres­sured an oppos­ing can­di­date to drop out of the elec­tion to improve Yeltsin’s odds of win­ning. . . .”
7.–” . . . . The US not only helped run Yeltsin’s cam­paign, they helped pay for it. The US backed a $10.2 bil­lion Inter­na­tion­al Mon­e­tary Fund (IMF) loan for Rus­sia, the sec­ond-biggest loan the IMF had ever giv­en. The New York Times report­ed that the loan was ‘expect­ed to be help­ful to Pres­i­dent Boris N. Yeltsin in the pres­i­den­tial elec­tion in June.’ . . .”

FTR #1102 Fascism: 2019 World Tour, Part 12 (The Intermarium Continuity, Part 3–Further Reflections on The Pivot Point)

Full appre­ci­a­tion and analy­sis of the his­tor­i­cal and polit­i­cal depth of Ukraine as a piv­ot point–a nexus vital to con­trol of the Earth Island and, con­se­quent­ly, the world–can be gleaned from exam­i­na­tion of the extent of net­work­ing between Ukrain­ian fas­cists, oth­er Cen­tral and East­ern Euro­pean fas­cists and Third Reich intel­li­gence. Note the mas­sive pres­ence of a Ukrainian/Nazi Fifth Col­umn in the US, linked to and direct­ed by Third Reich intel­li­gence.

The Ukrain­ian nation­al­ist alliance with Nazi Ger­many had as its foun­da­tion the under­stand­ing that Hitler would invade the Sovi­et Union and enlist the Ukraini­ans as allies.

This por­tion of the dis­cus­sion over­laps mate­r­i­al pre­sent­ed in FTR #907.

Key Points of Dis­cus­sion and Analy­sis Include:

1.–The role of for­mer Czarist intel­li­gence agent Boris Bra­sol in the White Russian/fascist under­ground oper­at­ing in con­junc­tion with Axis intel­li­gence. [Note: in FTR #511–a recap of Mis­cel­la­neous Archive Show M11–we not­ed Boris Bra­sol’s role as a con­duit of funds between Amer­i­can indus­tri­al­ist Hen­ry Ford and Adolf Hitler.]
2.–The pres­ence in this milieu of Gen­er­al George Van Horn Mose­ley, who was: an aide to Dou­glas MacArthur; an aide to Sen­a­tor Joseph McCarthy; as dis­cussed in AFA #10, a plot­ter with Third Reich intel­li­gence to over­throw FDR.
3.–Harry Ben­net­t’s col­lab­o­ra­tion with Axis agent Father Couglin. Ben­nett was in charge of Hitler finan­cial backer Hen­ry Ford’s “Per­son­nel Ser­vice,” which used pro­fes­sion­al crim­i­nals to attack Ford employ­ees and union orga­niz­ers. Ben­nett was a key mem­ber of the Michi­gan parole board and got some of the most vicious crim­i­nals in that state’s cor­rec­tion­al sys­tem released into the ser­vice of Ford, where they con­tin­ued to ply their trade.
4.–The key pres­ence in this milieu of the OUN, which had a head­quar­ters in Rome. ” . . . . In late 1940, the Orga­ni­za­tion of Ukrain­ian Nation­al­ists [OUN–D.E.] moved to Rome, where a cor­re­spon­dent of the offi­cial Ukrain­ian Fas­cist news­pa­per Svo­bo­da, of New Jer­sey, was the pay­mas­ter of funds sup­plied in the Unit­ed States. All mem­bers of the orga­ni­za­tion in Ger­many were in the Gestapo or the Reg­u­lar Army from the moment war broke out in Europe. They kept up con­stant con­tact with their Amer­i­can asso­ciates. . . .”

The Ukrain­i­nan fas­cist milieu was exposed in by Alex­ei Pelypenko. A Roman Catholic priest, Pelypenko turned against the Axis after the Hitler-Stal­in pact. No longer hav­ing con­fi­dence in Hitler’s plans to invade the Sovi­et Union and enlist the sup­port of the Ukrain­ian fas­cists as a polit­i­cal and mil­i­tary ally.

Pelypenko and oth­ers sought to ally them­selves with Britain and the U.S. in a Cen­tral Euro­pean alliance that listeners/readers will rec­og­nize as a man­i­fes­ta­tion of the Inter­mar­i­um. ” . . . . the action of the Moscow gov­ern­ment in mov­ing into East Poland and stop­ping the Ger­man advance and the sign­ing of the pact between Hitler and Stal­in caused him and his fel­low Ukraini­ans to lose faith in the Ger­mans’ car­ry­ing out their part of the agree­ment. He and his col­leagues felt that they should throw their lot in with the British and work for the for­ma­tion of a bloc of Slav­ic states, includ­ing Yugoslavia, Czecho­slo­va­kia, Roma­nia, Bul­gar­ia, and ‘Ukrainia.’ These col­leagues knew that it would be nec­es­sary to have British and Amer­i­can sup­port to form the bloc and defend the area from Russ­ian aggres­sion. . . .”

Note, also, that the OUN assas­si­nat­ed the Pol­ish Min­is­ter of the Inte­ri­or. The assas­sin was said by Pelypenko to have been tar­get­ing FDR on behalf of the Axis. ” . . . . he [Pelypenko] revealed that a White Russ­ian who had assas­si­nat­ed the Pol­ish Min­is­ter of the Inte­ri­or in 1934, was being import­ed to assas­si­nate Pres­i­dent Roo­sevelt. . . . ”

We con­clude the pro­gram with dis­cus­sion of the OUN’s mur­der of Pol­ish Min­is­ter of the Inte­ri­or Bro­nis­law Pier­ac­ki. Accord­ing to Pelypenko, the assas­sin was going to be brought into the Unit­ed States to kill FDR. Note that the assas­si­na­tion of Pier­ac­ki was planned at a meet­ing in Berlin.

” . . . . The assas­si­na­tion of Bro­nisław Pier­ac­ki, referred to as the War­saw process in the Ukrain­ian his­to­ri­og­ra­phy, was a well-orches­trat­ed tar­get killing of Poland’s top politi­cian of the inter­war peri­od, Min­is­ter of Inte­ri­or Bro­nisław Pier­ac­ki (1895–1934) by the Orga­ni­za­tion of Ukrain­ian Nation­al­ists (OUN) as a retal­i­a­tion for the gov­ern­ment pol­i­cy of Paci­fi­ca­tion which was car­ried out by the police. OUN was formed in Poland as an amal­ga­ma­tion between a num­ber of extreme right-wing orga­ni­za­tions includ­ing the Union of Ukrain­ian Fascists.[2] From the moment of its found­ing in 1929, fas­cism played a cen­tral role in the orga­ni­za­tion, com­bin­ing extreme eth­no-nation­al­ism with ter­ror­ism, cor­po­ratism, and anti-Semitism.[2][3] The cho­sen assas­sin, Hry­horij Maciejko pseu­do­nym ‘Gon­ta’, was a trust­ed mem­ber of OUN.[4] The assas­si­na­tion plan was decid­ed at an OUN meet­ing in Berlin. Maciejko was sup­plied with a makeshift bomb and a 7.65mm cal­iber pis­tol from Bandera.[1] In the morn­ing of 15 June 1934 Maciejko (age 31) appeared at the Fok­sal Street in War­saw in front of a social club fre­quent­ed by Pier­ac­ki. He wait­ed there for sev­er­al hours unde­tect­ed. The min­is­ter arrived in his lim­ou­sine at 3:30 p.m.; how­ev­er, Maciejko’s bomb failed. He pulled the gun and shot the min­is­ter from behind twice in the back of his head.[4] Maciejko escaped suc­cess­ful­ly with the help of OUN emis­saries all the way to Czecho­slo­va­kia and fur­ther to Argenti­na. . . . ”

Ulti­mate­ly, OUN per­son­nel were involved in cov­er­ing-up the assas­si­na­tion of JFK by help­ing to cre­ate the “Sovi­ets did it” diver­sion. This was cov­ered at length in FTR #876.

FTR #1054, FTR #1055 and FTR #1056 Interviews #23, #24 and #25 with Jim DiEugenio about “Destiny Betrayed”

These are the twen­ty-third, twen­ty-fourth and twen­ty-fifth (and con­clud­ing pro­gram) in a long series of inter­views with Jim DiEu­ge­nio about his tri­umphal analy­sis of Pres­i­dent Kennedy’s assas­si­na­tion and New Orleans Dis­trict Attor­ney Jim Gar­rison’s hero­ic inves­ti­ga­tion of the killing.

The first inter­view begins with a telling edi­to­r­i­al writ­ten for “The Wash­ing­ton Post” by for­mer Pres­i­dent Har­ry Tru­man.

Des­tiny Betrayed by Jim DiEu­ge­nio; Sky­horse Pub­lish­ing [SC]; Copy­right 1992, 2012 by Jim DiEu­ge­nio; ISBN 978–1‑62087–056‑3; pp. 378–379.

. . . . On Decem­ber 22, 1963, Har­ry Tru­man wrote an edi­to­r­i­al that was pub­lished in the Wash­ing­ton Post. The for­mer Pres­i­dent wrote that he had become “dis­turbed by the way the CIA had become divert­ed from its orig­i­nal assign­ment. It has become an oper­a­tional and at times a pol­i­cy-mak­ing arm of gov­ern­ment.” He wrote that he nev­er dreamed that this would hap­pen when he signed the Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Act. he thought it would be used for intel­li­gence analy­sis, not “peace­time cloak and dag­ger oper­a­tions.” He com­plained that the CIA had now become “so removed from its intend­ed role that it is being inter­pret­ed as a sym­bol of sin­is­ter and mys­te­ri­ous for­eign intrigue–and a sub­ject for Cold War ene­my pro­pa­gan­da.” Tru­man went as far as sug­gest­ing its oper­a­tional arm be elim­i­nat­ed. He con­clud­ed with the warn­ing that Amer­i­cans have grown up learn­ing respect for “our free insti­tu­tions and for our abil­i­ty to main­tain a free and open soci­ety. There is some­thing about the way the CIA has been func­tion­ing that is cast­ing a shad­ow over out his­toric posi­tion and I feel hat we need to cor­rect it.” . . . .

For­mer CIA Direc­tor (and then War­ren Com­mis­sion mem­ber) Allen Dulles vis­it­ed Tru­man and attempt­ed to get him to retract the state­ment. He dis­sem­bled about then CIA chief John McCone’s view of the edi­to­r­i­al.

The focal point of the first two pro­grams is the dra­mat­ic changes in U.S. for­eign pol­i­cy that occurred because of JFK’s assas­si­na­tion. Analy­sis in FTR #1056 con­tin­ues the analy­sis of Kennedy’s for­eign pol­i­cy and con­cludes with riv­et­ing dis­cus­sion of the strik­ing pol­i­cy under­tak­ings of the Kennedy admin­is­tra­tion in the area of civ­il rights. Jim has writ­ten a mar­velous, 4‑part analy­sis of JFK’s civ­il rights pol­i­cy.

Dis­cus­sion of JFK’s for­eign pol­i­cy and how his mur­der changed that builds on, and sup­ple­ments analy­sis of this in FTR #1031, FTR #1032 and FTR #1033.

Lyn­don Baines John­son reversed JFK’s for­eign pol­i­cy ini­tia­tives in a num­ber of impor­tant ways.

When the Unit­ed States reneged on its com­mit­ment to pur­sue inde­pen­dence for the colo­nial ter­ri­to­ries of its Euro­pean allies at the end of the Sec­ond World War, the stage was set for those nations’ desire for free­dom to be cast as incip­i­ent Marxists/Communists. This devel­op­ment was the foun­da­tion for epic blood­shed and calami­ty.

Jim details then Con­gress­man John F. Kennedy’s 1951 fact-find­ing trip to Saigon to gain an under­stand­ing of the French war to retain their colony of Indochi­na. (Viet­nam was part of that colony.)

In speak­ing with career diplo­mat Edmund Gul­lion, Kennedy came to the real­iza­tion that not only would the French lose the war, but that Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh guer­ril­las enjoyed great pop­u­lar sup­port among the Viet­namese peo­ple.

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.

Des­tiny Betrayed by Jim DiEu­ge­nio; Sky­horse Pub­lish­ing [SC]; Copy­right 1992, 2012 by Jim DiEu­ge­nio; ISBN 978–1‑62087–056‑3; pp. 368–371.

. . . . Clear­ly now that the with­draw­al was immi­nent, Kennedy was going to try and get the rest of his admin­is­tra­tion on board to his way of think­ing. Not only did this not hap­pen once Kennedy was dead, but the first meet­ing on Viet­nam after­wards was a strong indi­ca­tion that things were now going to be cast in a sharply dif­fer­ent tone. This meet­ing took place at 3:00 p.m. on Novem­ber 24. . . . John­son’s intent was clear to McNa­ma­ra. He was break­ing with the pre­vi­ous pol­i­cy. The goal now was to win the war. LBJ then issued a strong warn­ing: He want­ed no more dis­sen­sion or divi­sion over pol­i­cy. Any per­son who did not con­form would be removed. (This would lat­er be demon­strat­ed by his ban­ning of Hubert Humphrey from Viet­nam meet­ings when Humphrey advised John­son to rethink his pol­i­cy of mil­i­tary com­mit­ment to Viet­nam.) . . . . The read­er should recall, this meet­ing took place just forty-eight hours after Kennedy was killed. . . .

. . . . There­fore, on March 2, 1964, the Joint Chiefs passed a new war pro­pos­al to the White House. This was even more ambi­tious than the Jan­u­ary ver­sion. It includ­ed bomb­ing, the min­ing of North Viet­namese har­bors, a naval block­ade, and pos­si­ble use of tac­ti­cal atom­ic weapons in case Chi­na inter­vened. John­son was now draw­ing up a full scale bat­tle plan for Viet­nam. In oth­er words, what Kennedy did not do in three years, LBJ had done in three months.

John­son said he was not ready for this pro­pos­al since he did not have con­gress yet as a part­ner and trustee. But he did order the prepa­ra­tion of NSAM 288, which was based on this pro­pos­al. It was essen­tial­ly a tar­get list of bomb­ing sites that even­tu­al­ly reached 94 pos­si­bil­i­ties. By May 25, with Richard Nixon and Bar­ry Gold­wa­ter clam­or­ing for bomb­ing of the north, LBJ had made the deci­sion that the U.S. would direct­ly attack North Viet­nam at an unspec­i­fied point in the future. But it is impor­tant to note that even before the Tonkin Gulf inci­dent, John­son had ordered the draw­ing up of a con­gres­sion­al res­o­lu­tion. This had been final­ized by William Bundy, McGe­orge Bundy’s broth­er. There­fore in June of 1964, John­son began lob­by­ing cer­tain peo­ple for its pas­sage in con­gress. . . .

Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Mem­o­ran­dum 263

. . . . John­son seized upon the hazy and con­tro­ver­sial events in the Gulf of Tonkin dur­ing the first week of August to begin he air war planned in NSAM 288. Yet the Tonkin Gulf inci­dent had been pre­pared by John­son him­self. After Kennedy’s death, Pres­i­dent John­son made a few alter­ations in the draft of NSAM 273. An order which Kennedy had nev­er seen but was draft­ed by McGe­orge Bundy after a meet­ing in Hon­olu­lu, a meet­ing which took place while Kennedy was vis­it­ing Texas. . . .

. . . . On August 2, the destroy­er Mad­dox was attacked by three North Viet­namese tor­pe­do boats. Although tor­pe­does were launched, none hit. The total dam­age to the Mad­dox
was one bul­let through the hull. Both John­son and the Defense Depart­ment mis­rep­re­sent­ed this inci­dent to con­gress and the press. They said the North Viet­namese fired first, that the USA had no role in the patrol boat raids, that the ships were in inter­na­tion­al waters, and there was no hot pur­suit by the Mad­dox. These were all wrong. Yet John­son used this overblown report­ing, plus a non-exis­tent attack two nights lat­er on the destroy­er Turn­er Joy to begin to push his war res­o­lu­tion through Con­gress. He then took out the tar­get list assem­bled for NSAM 288 [from March of 1964–D.E] and ordered air strikes that very day. . . .

. . . . For on August 7, John­son sent a mes­sage to Gen­er­al Maxwell Tay­lor. He want­ed a whole gamut of pos­si­ble oper­a­tions pre­sent­ed to him for direct Amer­i­can attacks against the North. The tar­get date for the sys­tem­at­ic air war was set for Jan­u­ary 1965. This was called oper­a­tion Rolling Thun­der and it end­ed up being the largest bomb­ing cam­paign in mil­i­tary his­to­ry. The read­er should note: the Jan­u­ary tar­get date was the month John­son would be inau­gu­rat­ed after his re-elec­tion. As John New­man not­ed in his mas­ter­ful book JFK and Viet­nam, Kennedy was dis­guis­ing his with­draw­al plan around his re-elec­tion; John­son was dis­guis­ing his esca­la­tion plan around his re-elec­tion. . . .

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.

After detailed dis­cus­sion of the human and envi­ron­men­tal dam­age inflict­ed on Viet­nam and the strat­e­gy imple­ment­ed by LBJ after Kennedy’s assas­si­na­tion, the dis­cus­sion turns to John­son’s rever­sal of Kennedy’s pol­i­cy with regard to Laos.

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.

Des­tiny Betrayed by Jim DiEu­ge­nio; Sky­horse pub­lish­ing [SC]; Copy­right 1992, 2012 by Jim DiEu­ge­nio; ISBN 978–1‑62087–056‑3; p. 54.

. . . . At his first press con­fer­ence, Kennedy said that he hoped to estab­lish Laos as a “peace­ful country–an inde­pen­dent coun­try not dom­i­nat­ed by either side.” He appoint­ed a task force to study the prob­lem, was in reg­u­lar com­mu­ni­ca­tion with it and the Laot­ian ambas­sador, and decid­ed by Feb­ru­ary that Laos must have a coali­tion gov­ern­ment, the likes of which Eisen­how­er had reject­ed out of hand. Kennedy also had lit­tle inter­est in a mil­i­tary solu­tion. He could not under­stand send­ing Amer­i­can troops to fight for a coun­try whose peo­ple did not care to fight for them­selves. . . . He there­fore worked to get the Rus­sians to push the Pathet Lao into a cease-fire agree­ment. This includ­ed a maneu­ver on Kennedy’s part to indi­cate mil­i­tary pres­sure if the Rus­sians did not inter­vene strong­ly enough with the Pathet Lao. The maneu­ver worked, and in May of 1961, a truce was called. A few days lat­er, a con­fer­ence con­vened in Gene­va to ham­mer out con­di­tions for a neu­tral Laos. By July of 1962, a new gov­ern­ment, which includ­ed the Pathet Lao, had been ham­mered out. . . .

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.

One of the many out­growths of LBJ’s rever­sal of JFK’s South­east pol­i­cy was a wave of CIA-assist­ed hero­in addict­ing both GI’s in Viet­nam and Amer­i­can civil­ians at home.

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:

Des­tiny Betrayed by Jim DiEu­ge­nio; Sky­horse pub­lish­ing [SC]; Copy­right 1992, 2012 by Jim DiEu­ge­nio; ISBN 978–1‑62087–056‑3; pp. 208–209.

. . . . In Chap­ter 1, the author intro­duced Freeport Sul­phur and its sub­sidiaries Moa Bay Min­ing and Nicaro Nick­el. These com­pa­nies all had large invest­ments in Cuba pri­or to Castro’s rev­o­lu­tion. And this end­ed up being one of the ways that Gar­ri­son con­nect­ed Clay Shaw and David Fer­rie. This came about for two rea­sons. First, with Cas­tro tak­ing over their oper­a­tions in Cuba, Freeport was attempt­ing to inves­ti­gate bring­ing in nick­el ore from Cuba, through Cana­da, which still had trade rela­tions with Cuba. The ore would then be refined in Louisiana, either at a plant already in New Orleans or at anoth­er plant in Braith­waite. Shaw, an impres­sario of inter­na­tion­al trade, was on this explorato­ry team for Freeport. And he and two oth­er men had been flown to Cana­da by Fer­rie as part of this effort. More evi­dence of this con­nec­tion through Freeport was found dur­ing their inves­ti­ga­tion of Guy Ban­is­ter. Ban­is­ter appar­ent­ly knew about anoth­er flight tak­en by Shaw with an offi­cial of Freeport, like­ly Charles Wight, to Cuba. Again the pilot was David Fer­rie. Anoth­er rea­son this Freeport con­nec­tion was impor­tant to Gar­ri­son is that he found a wit­ness named James Plaine in Hous­ton who said that Mr. Wight of Freeport Sul­phur had con­tact­ed him in regards to an assas­si­na­tion plot against Cas­tro. Con­sid­er­ing the amount of mon­ey Freeport was about to lose in Cuba, plus the num­ber of East­ern Estab­lish­ment lumi­nar­ies asso­ci­at­ed with the company–such as Jock Whit­ney, Jean Mauze and God­frey Rockefeller–it is not sur­pris­ing that such a thing was con­tem­plat­ed with­in their ranks. . . .

LBJ reversed Kennedy’s pol­i­cy vis a vis Sukarno. 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.

Des­tiny Betrayed by Jim DiEu­ge­nio; Sky­horse pub­lish­ing [SC]; Copy­right 1992, 2012 by Jim DiEu­ge­nio; ISBN 978–1‑62087–056‑3; pp. 374–375.

. . . . Short­ly after, his aid bill land­ed on John­son’s desk. The new pres­i­dent refused to sign it. . . .

. . . . In return for not sign­ing the aid bill, in 1964, LBJ received sup­port from Both Augus­tus Long and Jock Whit­ney of Freeport Sul­phur in his race against Bar­ry Gold­wa­ter. In fact, Long estab­lished a group called the Nation­al Inde­pen­dent Com­mit­tee for John­son. This group of wealthy busi­ness­men includ­ed Robert Lehman of Lehman Broth­ers and Thomas Cabot, Michael Paine’s cousin. . . . Then, in ear­ly 1965, Augus­tus Long was reward­ed for help­ing John­son get elect­ed. LBJ app[ointed him to the For­eign Intel­li­gence Advi­so­ry Board. This is a small group of wealthy pri­vate cit­i­zens who advis­es the pres­i­dent on intel­li­gence mat­ters. The mem­bers of this group can approve and sug­gest covert activ­i­ties abroad. This appoint­ment is notable for what was about to occur. For with Sukarno now unpro­tect­ed by Pres­i­dent Kennedy, the writ­ing was on the wall. The Cen­tral Intel­li­gence Agency now bean to send into Indone­sia its so called “first team.” . . . .

. . . . Suhar­to now began to sell off Indone­si­a’s rich­es to the high­est bid­der. Includ­ing Freeport Sul­phur, which opened what were per­haps the largest cop­per and gold mines in the world there. . . . Freeport, along with sev­er­al oth­er com­pa­nies, now har­vest­ed bil­lions from the Suhar­to regime. . . .

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.

Des­tiny Betrayed by Jim DiEu­ge­nio; Sky­horse pub­lish­ing [SC]; Copy­right 1992, 2012 by Jim DiEu­ge­nio; ISBN 978–1‑62087–056‑3; pp. 28–29.

. . . . By 1960, a native rev­o­lu­tion­ary leader named Patrice Lumum­ba had gal­va­nized the nation­al­ist feel­ing of the coun­try. Bel­gium decid­ed to pull out. But they did so rapid­ly, know­ing that tumult would ensue and they could return to col­o­nize the coun­try again. After Lumum­ba was appoint­ed prime min­is­ter, tumult did ensue. The Bel­gians and the British backed a rival who had Lumum­ba dis­missed. They then urged the break­ing away of the Katan­ga province because of its enor­mous min­er­al wealth. Lumum­ba looked to the Unit­ed Nations for help, and also the USA. The for­mer decid­ed to help, . The Unit­ed States did not. In fact, when Lumum­ba vis­it­ed Wash­ing­ton July of 1960, Eisen­how­er delib­er­ate­ly fled to Rhode Island. Rebuffed by Eisen­how­er, Lumum­ba now turned to the Rus­sians for help in expelling the Bel­gians from Katan­ga. This sealed his fate in the eyes of Eisen­how­er and Allen Dulles. The pres­i­dent now autho­rized a series of assas­si­na­tion plots by the CIA to kill Lumum­ba. These plots final­ly suc­ceed­ed on Jan­u­ary 17, 1961, three days before Kennedy was inau­gu­rat­ed.

His first week in office, Kennedy request­ed a full review of the Eisenhower/Dulles pol­i­cy in Con­go. The Amer­i­can ambas­sador to that impor­tant African nation heard of this review and phoned Allen Dulles to alert him that Pres­i­dent Kennedy was about to over­turn pre­vi­ous pol­i­cy there. Kennedy did over­turn this pol­i­cy on Feb­ru­ary 2, 1961. Unlike Eisen­how­er and Allen Dulles, Kennedy announced he would begin full coop­er­a­tion with Sec­re­tary Dag Ham­marskjold at the Unit­ed Nations on this thorny issue in order to bring all the armies in that war-torn nation under con­trol. He would also attempt top neu­tral­ize the coun­try so there would be no East/West Cold War com­pe­ti­tion. Third, all polit­i­cal pris­on­ers being held should be freed. Not know­ing he was dead, this part was aimed at for­mer prime min­is­ter Lumum­ba, who had been cap­tured by his ene­mies. (There is evi­dence that, know­ing Kennedy would favor Lumum­ba, Dulles had him killed before JFK was inau­gu­rat­ed.) Final­ly, Kennedy opposed the seces­sion of min­er­al-rich Katan­ga province. . . . Thus began Kennedy’s near­ly three year long strug­gle to see Con­go not fall back under the claw of Euro­pean impe­ri­al­ism. . . . ”

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

Des­tiny Betrayed by Jim DiEu­ge­nio; Sky­horse Pub­lish­ing [SC]; Copy­right 1992, 2012 by Jim DiEu­ge­nio; ISBN 978–1‑62087–056‑3; pp. 372–373.

. . . . But in Octo­ber and Novem­ber [of 1963], things began to fall apart. Kennedy want­ed Colonel Michael Greene, an African expert, to train the Con­golese army in order

to sub­due a left­ist rebel­lion. But Gen­er­al Joseph Mobu­tu, with the back­ing of the Pen­ta­gon, man­aged to resist this train­ing, which the Unit­ed Nations backed. In 1964, the com­mu­nist rebel­lion picked up steam and began tak­ing whole provinces. The White House did some­thing Kennedy nev­er seri­ous­ly con­tem­plat­ed: uni­lat­er­al action by the USA. John­son and McGe­orge Bundy had the CIA fly sor­ties with Cuban pilots to halt the com­mu­nist advance. With­out Kennedy, the UN now with­drew. Amer­i­ca now became an ally of Bel­gium and inter­vened with arms, air­planes and advis­ers. Mobu­tu now invit­ed Tshombe back into the gov­ern­ment. Tshombe, per­haps at the request of the CIA, now said that the rebel­lion was part of a Chi­nese plot to take over Con­go. Kennedy had called in Edmund Gul­lion to super­vise the attempt to make the Con­go gov­ern­ment into a mod­er­ate coali­tion, avoid­ing the extremes of left and right. But with the Tshombe/Mobutu alliance, that was now dashed. Rightwing South Africans and Rhode­sians were now allowed to join the Con­golese army in a war on the “Chi­nese-inspired left.” And with the Unit­ed Nations gone, this was all done under the aus­pices of the Unit­ed States. The right­ward tilt now con­tin­ued unabat­ed. By 1965, Mobu­tu had gained com­plete pow­er. And in 1966, he installed him­self as mil­i­tary dic­ta­tor. . . . Mobu­tu now allowed his coun­try to be opened up to loads of out­side invest­ment. The rich­es of the Con­go were mined by huge West­ern cor­po­ra­tions. Their own­ers and offi­cers grew wealthy while Mobu­tu’s sub­jects were mired in pover­ty. Mobu­tu also sti­fled polit­i­cal dis­sent. And he now became one of the rich­est men in Africa, per­haps the world. . . .

In FTR #1033, we exam­ined JFK’s attempts at nor­mal­iz­ing rela­tions with Cuba. That, of course, van­ished with his assas­si­na­tion and the deep­en­ing of Cold War hos­til­i­ty between the U.S. and the Island nation, with a thaw of sorts com­ing under Barack Oba­ma a few years ago.

There is no more strik­ing area in which JFK’s mur­der reversed what would have been his­toric changes in Amer­i­ca’s for­eign pol­i­cy than U.S.-Soviet rela­tions.

JFK had imple­ment­ed a ban on atmos­pher­ic test­ing of nuclear weapons, bit­ter­ly opposed by the Pen­ta­gon, In a June, 1963 speech at Amer­i­can Uni­ver­si­ty, JFK called for re-eval­u­at­ing Amer­i­ca’s rela­tion­ship to the Sovi­et Union, and cit­ed the U.S.S.R’s deci­sive role in defeat­ing Nazi Ger­many dur­ing World War II.

JFK was also propos­ing joint space explo­ration with the Sovi­et Union, which would have appeared to be noth­ing less than trea­so­nous to the Pen­ta­gon and NASA at the time. After JFK’s assas­si­na­tion, the Kennedy fam­i­ly used a backchan­nel diplo­mat­ic con­duit to the Sovi­et lead­er­ship to com­mu­ni­cate their view that the Sovi­et Union, and its Cuban ally, had been blame­less in the assas­si­na­tion and that pow­er­ful right-wing forces in the Unit­ed States had been behind the assas­si­na­tion.

Per­haps JFK’s great­est con­tri­bu­tion was one that has received scant notice. In 1961, the Joint Chiefs were push­ing for a first strike on the Sovi­et Union–a deci­sion to ini­ti­ate nuclear war. JFK refused, walk­ing out of the dis­cus­sion with the dis­gust­ed obser­va­tion that “We call our­selves the human race.”

In FTR #‘s 876, 926 and 1051, we exam­ined the cre­ation of the meme that Oswald had been net­work­ing with the Cubans and Sovi­ets in the run-up to the assas­si­na­tion. In par­tic­u­lar, Oswald was sup­pos­ed­ly meet­ing with Valery Kostikov, a KGB offi­cial in charge of assas­si­na­tions in the West­ern Hemi­sphere.

This cre­at­ed the pre­text for blam­ing JFK’s assas­si­na­tion on the Sovi­et Union and/or Cuba. There are indi­ca­tions that JFK’s assas­si­na­tion may well have been intend­ed as a pre­text for a nuclear first strike on the Sovi­et Union.

JFK and the Unspeak­able: Why He Died and Why It Mat­ters by James W. Dou­glass; Touch­stone Books [SC]; Copy­right 2008 by James W. Dou­glas; ISBN 978–1‑4391–9388‑4; pp. 242–243.

. . . . As JFK may have recalled from the Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Coun­cil meet­ing he walked out of in July 1961, the first Net Eval­u­a­tion Sub­com­mit­tee report had focused pre­cise­ly on “a sur­prise attack in late 1963, pre­ced­ed by a peri­od of height­ened ten­sions.” Kennedy was a keen read­er and lis­ten­er. In the sec­ond pre­emp­tive-war report, he may also have noticed the slight but sig­nif­i­cant dis­crep­an­cy between its over­all time frame, 1963–1968, and the extent of its rel­a­tive­ly reas­sur­ing con­clu­sion, which cov­ered only 1964 through 1968. . . .

. . . . In his cat-and-mouse ques­tion­ing of his mil­i­tary chiefs, Pres­i­dent Kennedy had built upon the report’s appar­ent­ly reas­sur­ing con­clu­sion in such a way as to dis­cour­age pre­emp­tive-war ambi­tions. How­ev­er, giv­en the “late 1963” focus in the first Net Report that that was the most threat­en­ing time for a pre­emp­tive strike, Kennedy had lit­tle rea­son to be reas­sured by a sec­ond report that implic­it­ly con­firmed that time as the one of max­i­mum dan­ger. The per­son­al­ly fatal fall JFK was about to enter, in late 1963, was the same time his mil­i­tary com­man­ders may have con­sid­ered their last chance to “win” (in their terms) a pre­emp­tive war against the Sovi­et Union. In terms of their sec­ond Net Report to the Pres­i­dent, which passed over the per­ilous mean­ing of late 1963, the cat-and-mouse game had been reversed. It was the gen­er­als who were the cats, and JFK the mouse in their midst.

The explic­it assump­tion of the first Net Report was “a sur­prise attack in late 1963, pre­ced­ed by a peri­od of height­ened ten­sions.” The focus of that first-strike sce­nario cor­re­spond­ed to the Kennedy assas­si­na­tion sce­nario. When Pres­i­dent Kennedy was mur­dered in late 1963, the Sovi­et Union had been set up as the major scape­goat in the plot. If the tac­tic had been suc­cess­ful in scape­goat­ing the Rus­sians for the crime of the cen­tu­ry, there is lit­tle doubt that it would have result­ed in “a peri­od of height­ened ten­sions” between the Unit­ed States and the Sovi­et Union.

Those who designed the plot to kill Kennedy were famil­iar with the inner sanc­tum of our nation­al secu­ri­ty state. Their attempt to scape­goat the Sovi­ets for the Pres­i­den­t’s mur­der reflect­ed one side of the secret strug­gle between JFK and his mil­i­tary lead­ers over a pre­emp­tive strike against the Sovi­et Union. The assas­sins’ pur­pose seems to have encom­passed not only killing a Pres­i­dent deter­mined to make peace with the ene­my, but also using his mur­der as the impe­tus for a pos­si­ble nuclear first strike against that same ene­my. . . .

With the GOP and Trump admin­is­tra­tion open­ly sup­press­ing vot­ing rights of minori­ties, African-Amer­i­cans in par­tic­u­lar, the stel­lar efforts of JFK and the Jus­tice Depart­ment in the area of civ­il rights is strik­ing. JFK’s civ­il rights pol­i­cy was expo­nen­tial­ly greater than what had pre­ced­ed him, and much of what fol­lowed.

The con­clu­sion of the dis­cus­sion in FTR #1056 con­sists of Jim’s dis­cus­sion of his mar­velous, 4‑part analy­sis of JFK’s civ­il rights pol­i­cy.

FTR #1036 Interview #6 with Jim DiEugenio about “Destiny Betrayed”

The sixth of a planned long series of inter­views with Jim DiEu­ge­nio about his tri­umphal analy­sis of Pres­i­dent Kennedy’s assas­si­na­tion and New Orleans DA Jim Gar­rison’s hero­ic inves­ti­ga­tion of the killing, this pro­gram con­tin­ues analy­sis of the devel­op­ment of the leg­end (intel­li­gence cov­er) of Lee Har­vey Oswald.

(Lis­ten­ers can order Des­tiny Betrayed and Jim’s oth­er books, as well as sup­ple­ment­ing those vol­umes with arti­cles about this coun­try’s polit­i­cal assas­si­na­tions at his web­site Kennedys and King. Jim is also a reg­u­lar guest and expert com­men­ta­tor on Black Op Radio.)

In FTR #1035, we set forth the sus­pi­cious cir­cum­stances sur­round­ing Oswald’s “defec­tion” to the Sovi­et Union:

• A num­ber of aspects of his tenure the Sovi­et Union sug­gest that, not only was he there as a spook, but the Sovi­ets knew that he was there to spy. Among the note­wor­thy aspects of his Sovi­et sojourn that are set forth in this pro­gram:
• Oswald was giv­en a hard­ship dis­charge with just a few months remain­ing on his enlist­ment tour. He got this in an inor­di­nate­ly short amount of time. He was sup­posed to take care of his moth­er, and yet his broth­er Robert was there to care for her, mak­ing Lee’s pres­ence there unnec­es­sary.
• Oswald booked his steamship pas­sage from the Inter­na­tion­al Trade Mart in New Orleans, head­ed up by Clay Shaw, who was the focal point of Jim Gar­rison’s tri­al.
• Oswald osten­si­bly was going to Europe to attend Albert Schweitzer Col­lege, an obscure Swiss insti­tu­tion that the Swiss police required two months to locate.
• He defect­ed to the Sovi­et Union from Helsin­ki, Fin­land. His stay there rais­es sev­er­al ques­tions, includ­ing the fact that he stayed at the Torni Hotel, a five-star, lux­u­ry hotel.
• After leav­ing the Torni Hotel, he stayed at the Hotel Klaus Kur­ki, anoth­er high-end insti­tu­tion. How Oswald was able to pay for his stay at these insti­tu­tions is a mystery–he did not have enough mon­ey in his Marine Corps pay checks to do this.
• His selec­tion of Helsin­ki is sig­nif­i­cant, also, because the Sovi­et Embassy there was the only one that could issue a trav­el visa to the Sovi­et Union in a lit­tle more than a week. It was the only Embassy that could do this. How did Oswald come to know this?
After review­ing the curi­ous aspects of the begin­ning Oswald’s “defec­tion” to the Sovi­et Union, the pro­gram notes many aspects of his stay in the U.S.S.R. that strong­ly sug­gest he was there as an under­cov­er intel­li­gence oper­a­tive.
After leav­ing from the curi­ous­ly con­ve­nient depar­ture point of Helsin­ki, Fin­land, Oswald met an agent from Intourist, the Sovi­et state trav­el agency. Once again, the cir­cum­stances sur­round­ing Oswald’s stay in the Sovi­et Union are sug­ges­tive of an intel­li­gence cov­er, a “leg­end.”

1. Meet­ing with his Intourist guide, Oswald indi­cat­ed that he had secret infor­ma­tion about U.S. air oper­a­tions that he wished to share with Sovi­et intel­li­gence.
2. After being denied res­i­dence in the U.S.S.R. Oswald was involved in an appar­ent­ly “pho­ny” sui­cide attempt, which was almost cer­tain­ly an attempt to remain in the U.S.S.R. longer than his trav­el visa would have per­mit­ted. Were the Sovi­ets on to him? It seems alto­geth­er prob­a­ble.
3. Oswald was housed at the Metro­pole Hotel, which Sovi­et intel­li­gence out­fit­ted with sophis­ti­cat­ed sur­veil­lance tech­nol­o­gy, indi­cat­ing sus­pi­cion on their part.
4. Oswald was inter­viewed by U.S. Embassy offi­cer Richard Sny­der, who had strong links to U.S. intel­li­gence, includ­ing a pro­gram at Har­vard to vet stu­dents for intel­li­gence-con­nect­ed trav­el to the U.S.S.R. One of the stu­dents he over­saw was Zbig­niew Brzezin­s­ki.
5. Sny­der appears to have “han­dled” Oswald in such a way that he would nev­er cease being a U.S. cit­i­zen. Once again, Oswald repeat­ed his intent to give secret intel­li­gence about U.S. air oper­a­tions to Sovi­et intel­li­gence, most like­ly a ref­er­ence to the U‑2 project.
6. Oswald was sent to Min­sk, where he was put to work in a radio fac­to­ry, after being afford­ed more-than-com­fort­able liv­ing cir­cum­stances by Sovi­et author­i­ties.
7. Oswald sub­mit­ted a detailed, 30-page paper on the radio fac­to­ry that appears to have been an intel­li­gence report on the instal­la­tion.
8. Also while in the U.S.S.R., Oswald gave inter­views to jour­nal­ists, includ­ing Priscil­la John­son MacMil­lan, who was a “will­ing CIA asset.” In that inter­view, Oswald gave a per­for­mance which could only be described as a hack­neyed man­i­fes­ta­tion of a stereo­typed Marxist/Communist.
9. The han­dling of Oswald’s files in the cor­ri­dors of U.S. intel­li­gence are more than a lit­tle strange. Despite hav­ing threat­ened to open a trea­so­nous breach in the secu­ri­ty of U.S. air oper­a­tions, no 201 file was opened on Oswald, and his doc­u­men­ta­tion at Lan­g­ley was rout­ed to James Angle­ton’s files on the false defec­tor pro­gram. This was unthink­able. As we will see in future dis­cus­sion, the cir­cum­stances sur­round­ing the FBI’s FLASH clas­si­fi­ca­tion on Oswald–which would have sound­ed an alert upon this osten­si­ble trai­tor­’s re-entry into the U.S.–is also out of the ordi­nary. Recall the unusu­al treat­ment afford­ed State Depart­ment offi­cer Otto Otep­ka in con­nec­tion with inquiries into Oswald and the false defec­tor pro­gram. This was high­light­ed in FTR #1035.
10. While in the U.S.S.R. he met Mari­na Prusako­va (lat­er Mari­na “Oswald”), who may very well have been a Sovi­et intel­li­gence agent.
11. Mari­na lived with her uncle, who was an offi­cer with the MVD, the Sovi­et equiv­a­lent of the FBI.
12. Mari­na inter­act­ed with Robert Web­ster, anoth­er appar­ent “pho­ny” defec­tor from the U.S. to the U.S.S.R. Web­ster had worked for the CIA-linked RAND cor­po­ra­tion. It is high­ly unlike­ly that she would have inter­act­ed with both Oswald and Web­ster as a mat­ter of coin­ci­dence.
13. Mari­na also dis­cussed hav­ing enter­tained Afghanistan’s ambas­sador to the Sovi­et Union, again, indica­tive of a prob­a­ble intel­li­gence link on Mari­na’s part.
14. Fur­ther bur­nish­ing Mari­na’s prob­a­ble intel­li­gence con­nec­tions is the fact that she was pro­fi­cient in the Eng­lish lan­guage, both spo­ken and writ­ten. The notion that she would have need­ed an inter­preter, as she is alleged to have required in post-assas­si­na­tion inquiries.
15. Mari­na’s prob­a­ble intel­li­gence con­nec­tion and the prob­a­bil­i­ty that she was assigned to Oswald dove­tails with the sit­u­a­tion of Richard Case Nag­ell. While in Japan, Oswald came in con­tact with Richard Case Nag­ell, a deep-cov­er intel­li­gence offi­cer assigned to play a dou­ble agent. Even­tu­al­ly, Nag­ell was assigned by his [osten­si­ble] Sovi­et han­dlers to kill Oswald, whom they felt was going to be a fall guy for a plot to kill JFK, and use that as pre­text for a war either against the U.S.S.R. and/or Cuba. Unable to talk Oswald out of engag­ing in the asso­ci­a­tions with which he was con­nect­ed, Nagell–who had infil­trat­ed the New Orleans anti-Cas­tro Cuban milieu in which Oswald was entrenched, shot up a Texas bank in order to get him­self put in prison, say­ing he did not want to become a trai­tor. Nag­ell is the focal point of the remark­able book The Man Who Knew Too Much by Dick Rus­sell, who was inter­viewed in FTR #54.
16. The rapid­i­ty and ease with which Oswald and Mari­na were grant­ed per­mis­sion to leave the Sovi­et Union togeth­er also sug­gests that she may have been per­form­ing an intel­li­gence func­tion. Nor­mal­ly, it might have tak­en some years for a Sovi­et woman who had mar­ried an Amer­i­can to obtain per­mis­sion to emi­grate.

After get­ting back to the Unit­ed States, the con­nec­tions and activ­i­ties of the Oswalds con­tin­ue to be “pass­ing strange,” IF one takes the leg­end of the so-called assas­sin at face val­ue.

Hav­ing threat­ened to com­mit trea­son by dis­clos­ing clas­si­fied infor­ma­tion about U.S. air oper­a­tions, (the U‑2 being the salient item), Oswald is met not by the CIA, not by the FBI, but by Spas T. Raikin, the Sec­re­tary Gen­er­al of the Anti-Bol­she­vik Bloc of Nations. Orig­i­nal­ly called the Com­mit­tee of Sub­ju­gat­ed Nations when it was formed by Adolf Hitler in 1943, the Anti-Bol­she­vik Bloc of Nations became, in turn, an inte­gral part of the Rein­hard Gehlen spy out­fit, a key ele­ment of the for­mer World Anti-Com­mu­nist League, and an impor­tant part of the Repub­li­can Par­ty. It is unthink­able that he would not have been de-briefed by U.S. intel­li­gence and the FBI. In fact, Jim men­tions that a for­mer CIA offi­cer Don­ald Dene­selya told the House Select Com­mit­tee on Assas­si­na­tions that the CIA did, in all like­li­hood, debrief Oswald. The Agency, how­ev­er, sought to dis­tance itself from the JFK assas­si­na­tion fall guy.

When the sup­posed Marx­ist trai­tor returned to the U.S., he was embraced by the vir­u­lent­ly anti-Com­mu­nist White Russ­ian com­mu­ni­ty in the Dallas/Fort Worth are, them­selves with close links to the Gehlen milieu.
Among the peo­ple with which the Oswalds net­worked in Texas were:

1. Max Clark and his Wife, the for­mer Princess Sherba­tov, a mem­ber of the Romanov Roy­al fam­i­ly!
2. Peter Gre­go­ry.
3. George Bouhe, who will fig­ure promi­nent­ly in our next pro­gram.
4. George de Mohren­schildt, who we will exam­ine at length in our next inter­view. De Mohren­schildt was part of the fam­i­ly that manged the Nobel Oil Fields for the Czar; was the cousin of Baron Kon­stan­tin May­dell, in charge of Abwehr oper­a­tions in the Unit­ed States for a time (Abwehr was Ger­man mil­i­tary intel­li­gence); an asso­ciate of George H.W. Bush; a long­time CIA asset; a petro­le­um geol­o­gist.

FTR #1035 Interview #5 with Jim DiEugenio about “Destiny Betrayed”

The fifth of a planned long series of inter­views with Jim DiEu­ge­nio about his tri­umphal analy­sis of Pres­i­dent Kennedy’s assas­si­na­tion and New Orleans DA Jim Gar­rison’s hero­ic inves­ti­ga­tion of the killing, this pro­gram begins analy­sis of the devel­op­ment of the leg­end (intel­li­gence cov­er) of Lee Har­vey Oswald.

(Lis­ten­ers can order Des­tiny Betrayed and Jim’s oth­er books, as well as sup­ple­ment­ing those vol­umes with arti­cles about this coun­try’s polit­i­cal assas­si­na­tions at his web­site Kennedys and King. Jim is also a reg­u­lar guest and expert com­men­ta­tor on Black Op Radio.)

This week’s dis­cus­sion begins with a syn­op­sis of the career of James Jesus Angle­ton, the long-time CIA chief of coun­ter­in­tel­li­gence. Long pre-occu­pied with the mat­ter of defec­tors from the Sovi­et Union, Angle­ton under­took a pro­gram of run­ning false defec­tors to the U.S.S.R. in order to gain bet­ter intel­li­gence about that nation.

The num­ber of “defec­tors” to the Sovi­et Union expand­ed expo­nen­tial­ly, lead­ing State Depart­ment offi­cer Otto Otep­ka to query the CIA as to which of them were gen­uine defec­tors, and which were actu­al­ly left-cov­er spooks. One of the defec­tors about which he inquired was Lee Har­vey Oswald, and a CIA reply about Oswald was marked “SECRET.”

Otep­ka’s career nose­dived after this.

Des­tiny Betrayed by Jim DiEu­ge­nio; Sky­horse pub­lish­ing [SC]; Copy­right 1992, 2012 by Jim DiEu­ge­nio; ISBN 978–1‑62087–056‑3; pp. 164–165.
. . . . He was first tak­en off of sen­si­tive cas­es. Sto­ries began to appear in the press that his job could be elim­i­nat­ed. He was asked to take anoth­er posi­tion in State but he declined. He was then called before a Sen­ate Com­mit­tee to explain his meth­ods for issu­ing secu­ri­ty clear­ances. This hap­pened four times in less than three years. He still would not resign or sus­pend his defec­tor inves­ti­ga­tion. Spies, phone taps, and lis­ten­ing devices were then plant­ed in his office. His office start­ed to be searched after hours and his trash was scoured for any of his notes. Even his house was being sur­veilled. Otep­ka could not under­stand what was hap­pen­ing to him. He could only con­clude that the sen­si­tive study of Amer­i­can defec­tors hid­den in his safe was behind it all. That safe was lat­er drilled into after he was thrown out of his orig­i­nal office and reas­signed. Who­ev­er drilled it then used a tiny mir­ror to deter­mine the com­bi­na­tion. The safe­crack­er then removed its con­tents. On Novem­ber 5, 1963 Otep­ka was for­mal­ly removed from his job at State. Lat­er on, author Jim Hougan asked him if he had been able to fig­ure out if Oswald was a real or false defec­tor. Otep­ka replied, “We had not made up our minds when my safe was drilled and we were thrown out of the office.” Just two and a half weeks after his forcible depar­ture from State, Oswald, the man he had stud­ied for months on end, was accused of killing Pres­i­dent Kennedy. . . .

Against the back­ground of the false defec­tor pro­gram, we begin analy­sis of Oswald, the Marx­ist Marine.

As we have dis­cussed in oth­er pro­grams and posts, in his teens, Oswald was part of a Civ­il Air Patrol unit com­mand­ed by David Fer­rie, the long-time intel­li­gence offi­cer and the first focal point of Jim Gar­rison’s inves­ti­ga­tion. (As chron­i­cled by Daniel Hop­sick­er, that same unit also con­tained Bar­ry Seal, the long­time CIA pilot and a key play­er in the Iran-Con­tra relat­ed drug traf­fick­ing.)

Inter­est­ing­ly and sig­nif­i­cant­ly, as Oswald and his fel­low CAP cadets were gain­ing oper­a­tional access to mil­i­tary bases–suggesting some sig­nif­i­cant con­nec­tions to mil­i­tary and CIA by leader Ferrie–Oswald began to express and pur­sue alleged Communist/Marxist/Soviet incli­na­tions to some high school peers. At the same time, he was also giv­ing voice to a desire to join the mil­i­tary.

Even­tu­al­ly, Oswald joined the Marines. Dur­ing his tenure in the Marine Corps, his pro-Marx­ist/pro-Sovi­et lean­ings and his secu­ri­ty sta­tus both esca­lat­ed:

1. Train­ing at Keesler Air Force Base in Mis­sis­sip­pi, Oswald got a Secu­ri­ty Clear­ance.
2. He even­tu­al­ly was sta­tioned at Atsu­gi Air Force Base in Japan, from which the CIA-con­nect­ed U‑2 spy plane flew. Bear in mind that Oswald’s Marxist/Communist pro­fes­sions con­tin­ued apace dur­ing this time.
3. Oswald was actu­al­ly in charge of phys­i­cal secu­ri­ty for the U‑2 at one point in his tour of duty at Atsugi–remarkable for a self-pro­fessed Marx­ist.
4. While in Japan, he came in con­tact with Richard Case Nag­ell, a deep-cov­er intel­li­gence offi­cer assigned to play a dou­ble agent. Even­tu­al­ly, Nag­ell was assigned by his [osten­si­ble] Sovi­et han­dlers to kill Oswald, whom they felt was going to be a fall guy for a plot to kill JFK, and use that as pre­text for a war either against the U.S.S.R. and/or Cuba. Nag­ell is the focal point of the remark­able book The Man Who Knew Too Much by Dick Rus­sell, who was inter­viewed in FTR #54.
5. CIA offi­cer, anti-Cas­tro lynch­pin and future Water­gate bur­glar E. Howard Hunt also turned up in Japan at the same time as Oswald, oper­at­ing in close prox­im­i­ty to the U‑2 oper­a­tions.
6. Dur­ing his Marine Corps tenure, Oswald stat­ed to asso­ciate David Buck­nell that he would go to the Sovi­et Union on an under­cov­er intel­li­gence oper­a­tion and return a hero. Buck­nell stat­ed that Oswald was no Com­mu­nist.
7. Anoth­er Marine asso­ciate of Oswald’s–Jim Botelho–also said Oswald was no Com­mu­nist and that, if he had been, Botel­ho would have tak­en vio­lent action against him.
8. Oswald had access to sen­si­tive radar infor­ma­tion per­tain­ing to the U‑2 project and also knew the radio codes for his base. After his “defec­tion” to the U.S.S.R., he was the talk of the base. Nonethe­less, the radio codes were not changed.
9. The lone asso­ciate of Oswald who cor­rob­o­rat­ed his dubi­ous Marx­ist credentials–Kerry Thornley–turned up lat­er in New Orleans, net­work­ing with Oswald and the oth­er play­ers in Oswald’s appar­ent pro-Cas­tro activ­i­ties. We will cov­er this in future broad­casts.
10. While in the Marines, Oswald devel­oped a pro­fi­cient com­mand of the Russ­ian language–a dif­fi­cult tongue to mas­ter. He appears to have attend­ed the Defense Lan­guage Insti­tute in Mon­terey, Cal­i­for­nia.
11. Oswald was a lousy shot in a branch of the service–the Marines–that placed a pre­mi­um on marks­man­ship. Labeled a “shit­bird” by his fel­low Marines for his lack of pro­fi­cien­cy with a rifle, Oswald lacked the extra­or­di­nary marks­man­ship required to do what he alleged­ly did in Dal­las.

The cir­cum­stances of Oswald’s “defec­tion” to the Sovi­et Union are sus­pi­cious as well:

1. Oswald was giv­en a hard­ship dis­charge with just a few months remain­ing on his enlist­ment tour. He got this in an inor­di­nate­ly short amount of time. He was sup­posed to take care of his moth­er, and yet his broth­er Robert was there to care for her, mak­ing Lee’s pres­ence there unnec­es­sary.
2. Oswald booked his steamship pas­sage from the Inter­na­tion­al Trade Mart in New Orleans, head­ed up by Clay Shaw, who was the focal point of Jim Gar­rison’s tri­al.
3. Oswald osten­si­bly was going to Europe to attend Albert Schweitzer Col­lege, an obscure Swiss insti­tu­tion that the Swiss police required two months to locate.
4. He defect­ed to the Sovi­et Union from Helsin­ki, Fin­land. His stay there rais­es sev­er­al ques­tions, includ­ing the fact that he stayed at the Torni Hotel, a five-star, lux­u­ry hotel.
5. After leav­ing the Torni Hotel, he stayed at the Hotel Klaus Kur­ki, anoth­er high-end insti­tu­tion. How Oswald was able to pay for his stay at these insti­tu­tions is a mystery–he did not have enough mon­ey in his Marine Corps pay checks to do this.
6. His selec­tion of Helsin­ki is sig­nif­i­cant, also, because the Sovi­et Embassy there was the only one that could issue a trav­el visa to the Sovi­et Union in a lit­tle more than a week. It was the only Embassy that could do this. How did Oswald come to know this?