332 'Andere Tijden' is een 'asset' van de 1%.

This blog:

There is a program on Dutch tv that looks back at historical events, with the eyes of today.
Last week it was about Philip Agee, the former CIA employee who published a book called 'Inside the Company'in 1975, in which he showed that the CIA was toppling all kinds of bona fide and democratic governments, because they refused to hand over their country to American Interests.

The only relevant aspect about Philip Agee is that he did what he did: show us that the CIA works for the American 1% rich,and against the peoples of other countries.

The program could have cited John Perkins or Tim Wiener to show that probably Agee was right.
They could have looked at the more modern way that America topless governments: by way of 'humanitarian motives' or by inventing false arguments ( fir Iraq: WMD's, Al Qaida connections, Bomb on London in 40 minutes, Uranium from Niger, etc.) or by supporting extremists in the country ( Wahabites in Syria,  fascists in the Ukraïne).  

But no.
All they did was to inform us that Philip Agee was probably supported by Cuba. And then suggest that a similar case may true for Snowdon: why else would he be living in Russia?
Not attacking the information of Agee or Snowdon, because that is impossible. The facts are too true. But attacking the source.  No matter how weak this attack is: the public is unable to think, for themselves, so they will accept any suggestion as if it is the truth.


Note:
The role of the CIA is of course worth a blog on its own.
Maybe later.
here I want to mention a book that Philip Agee wrote together with Louis Wolf, in 1978:
Dirty Work, the CIA in western Europe.
It has 3 short reviews, one of which is this one:

Those who are not steeped in real-world intelligence are too dismissive of this. While Phi Agee was a traitor by US legal standards, he was actually a patriot far ahead of his time by moral standards.

I recommend this reference work as a baseline for understanding just how bad we are today--nothing has changed.

See also:
Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA
See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA's War on Terrorism
The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA from 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America
Dark Alliance: The CIA, the Contras, and the Crack Cocaine Explosion
Failure of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA
Beyond Repair: The Decline and Fall of the CIA
Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth'
The Human Factor: Inside the CIA's Dysfunctional Intelligence Culture
Flawed by Design: The Evolution of the CIA, JCS, and NSC
On Intelligence: Spies and Secrecy in an Open World

                   -------------------------------------------

Here is the website where you can find the program, in Dutch,  and also a scope of the program: ( Andere Tijden )

Here is a reaction that I wrote on the website: 

'Andere Tijden' zou best een nuttig programma kunnen zijn. Als het middels oudere bronnen ( Philip Agee, John Perkins, Tim Weiner) liet zien dat wat de VS deed in Irak, Libië, Syrië en Ukraïne eigenlijk niks nieuws is: Al decennia lang ondermijnt de VS landen die niet willen luisteren. Vroeger deed men dat op de traditionele manier : met spionnen, geheim agenten etc. Nu infiltreert men openlijk, maar altijd onder een vlag van 'Wij komen Het Goede brengen". De NGO's zijn ontelbaar: USaid, NED, NRI etc. Maar ook Amnesty en HRW zijn geïnfiltreerd en doen vaak het werk dat vroeger door secret agents werd gedaan: landen kapot maken. Legale regeringen omver werpen en vervangen door hun 'minions'. 

Maar 'Andere Tijden' kiest er niet voor om een nuttig programma te zijn. Ze kiest er voor om bronnen die - met gevaar voor eigen leven- de waarheid publiceren, in de verdachtenbank te zetten. Zodat we de waarheid wat minder zullen vertrouwen en de leugens weer wat meer. 

"Agee was on the Cuban pay-roll". So what? Is daarmee zijn informatie onjuist? Heeft de USA ooit ontkent dat Agee onzin sprak? Nee dus. Ik ben geïnteresseerd in de waarheid, niet in wie die waarheid vertelt. 

Melvin Goodman, de ex CIA man die zegt dat Agee geld kreeg van Cuba, heeft trouwens heel wat interessante zaken te melden in deze doc: http://tiny.cc/q0ntcx   

Ook in 'The Power of Nightmares' vertelt Goodman heel interessante zaken:  over hoe de Neocons de brave Reagan extra bang maakten voor de Russen, gewoon met behulp van  geruchten die door de CIA zelf waren bedacht. 

Ik weet niet of het onwetendheid danwel kwaadwillendheid  is, maar 'Andere Tijden ' draagt bij aan een minder menselijke wereld door de kant van de boosaardigen te kiezen. Bijv: de VS heeft sinds WO2 al in 33 landen bommen gegooid, waarbij 12 tot 15 miljoen mensen het leven lieten. http://tiny.cc/vi1niw  Hoeveel landen hebben Rusland, Syrië, Irak, Libië, Yugoslavië, Iran en al die andere 'booswichten' gebombardeerd?  Hoeveel miljoenen  zijn door hen gedood?  Nul.

Maakt niet uit. Ze moeten kapot, en als 'Andere tijden" zijn steentje daaraan bij kan dragen, zal ze het niet laten, zo blijkt.  

331 Flight MH370. Premature speculation.

This blog:

Warning: I have spent very little time on this subject. But with my background in 'conspiracies' I may have some useful insight.

 Some facts about the plane:  
- A Malaysian plane going from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing disappeared on 8 march 2014.
- A normal accident is unlikely: Pilots would have sent out an alarm. Debris would have been found on the traject between KL and Beijing.
- 'Somebody' turned out some instruments ( tracing stuff) during the flight. But not all was turned out. Some signals tell us that the plane changed course.
- The pilots were suspected, but seem to be innocent.
- After 2 weeks of searching and investigating the Malaysian government declared yesterday that they are convinced that the plane fell into the Ocean and that no people have survived.
- Today, on 25 march, there are demonstrations in Beijing: relatives of the passengers do not believe the Malaysian government. They want proof.

Some facts about Malaysia:
- 23% of the population are ethnic Chinese. 70% are Malay or other people from the land.
- The Chinese are rich and powerful, but it's a democracy, so they do not have all political power.
- Human nature is such that a country where a small and identifiable ethnic group is rich and powerfull is a little hard to manage: the people who are the original dwellers feel second-class in their own country and tend to revolt. ( bumiputera)
-Malaysia was an Asian Tiger that was hit hard by the crisis of 1998.

Dr. Mahathir Mohammed, the man who made modern Malaysia: 
- Like Lee Kuan Yew made Singapore, mr Mahathir was very, very influential in Malaysia.
- Dr. Mahathir Mohammed succeeded to have the Chinese and the Malays live together without real conflicts, to the enormous benefit of both groups.  He proved that it is possible to live in peace in a multi-ethnic country, also when the majority are Muslims who are economically dominated by non-muslims.
- Mahathir is now almost 90 years old and was Prime Minister for 22 years: from 1981 to 2003.
- During the Asian Tigers - crisis Mahathir did not like the IMF to interfere. His ambitious deputy,  mr.  Anwar did choose pro-America. Mahathir sent Anwar to jail. Was Anwar working together with the the Americans? Was he 'their man' or was he a man of his own?
Mahathir sent Anwar to jail.  Al Gore attacked Mahathir for that in Kuala Lumpur, after which Malaysia sent Al Gore out of the country...
- Ellen H. Brown ( Web of Debt) says that Malaysia refused to be helped by the IMF and this proved to be much better off than all those Tigers who accepted the IMF austerity and loans.
Below you will find pages 254 and 255 from her book. I have marked red some important parts.


Some Wikipedia quotes: 
Mahathir continued to emphasize Asian development models over contemporary Western ones... he particularly criticized the double standards of Western nations. 
Mahathir has always been an outspoken critic of the United States. 
Under Mahathir, Malaysia was a staunch supporter of the Palestinian cause, and established diplomatic relations with the PLO.

Some Mahathir-quotes about Israel, the Jews and the Holocaust:

In 2003:
We Muslims are actually very strong, 1.3 billion people cannot be simply wiped out. The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million [during the Holocaust]. But today the Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them. They invented socialism, communism, human rights and democracy so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong so they may enjoy equal rights with others. With these they have now gained control of the most powerful countries. And they, this tiny community, have become a world power. 

"I am not anti-Semitic.... I am against those Jews who kill Muslims and the Jews who support the killers of Muslims."

He tagged the West as "anti-Muslim", for double standards by "protecting Jews while allowing others to insult Islam." 

He also said "But when somebody condemns the Muslims and called my prophet "terrorist", did the European Union say anything?"

In January 2010, at The General Conference For The Support of Al Quds, Mahathir stated, regarding the Holocaust and Israel, that:

“The Jews had always been a problem in European countries. They had to be confined to ghettoes and periodically massacred. But still they remained, they thrived and they held whole Governments to ransom...Even after their massacre by the Nazis of Germany, [Jews] survived to continue to be a source of even greater problems for the world...The Holocaust failed as a final solution.”

Following the Israeli court’s decision declaring the state blameless in the death of American activist Rachel Corrie, Dr Mahathir wrote in his blog in September 2012:

“I am glad to be labeled antisemitic [...] How can I be otherwise, when the Jews who so often talk of the horrors they suffered during the Holocaust show the same Nazi cruelty and hard-heartedness towards not just their enemies but even towards their allies should any try to stop the senseless killing of their Palestinian enemies."

  The conclusion: 
Malaysia does not have many ( jewish) friends in the USA, nor in Wall Street and certainly not in Israel. 
And now this plane is missing. 
It did not have an accident: then there would be debris on its normal traject.  
The pilots had to be involved ( some switches were turned by them) , but they were not involved.  
They think the plane fell into the sea at a far away place where the sea is 6000 meters deep. 
In the mean time the relatives of the victims are protesting  agressively before the Malaysian Embassey: they do not trust the Malay government at all. 

Here is my premature speculation: 
There is a company ( SPC, Dov Zakheim) in the USA that has the technology to take over the controle of planes while they are airborne. 
Many people think that this is how the 911 planes were taken over and flew so perfectly into the buildings. Experienced pilots stated that this was a very difficult manoevre for even a very experienced pilot. 
Now why would it not be possible that these same people ( who did 911)  decided to take this plane over and let it sink in a very remote and deep part of the ocean? 
Now it is almost impossible to get the black box and find out about the take-over. 
Motives?
It could be a revenge for the non-compliance of Malaysia ( with IMF, with USA wishes, with Israel etc. etc.) 
It could be a way to create hostility between the ethnic Chinese and the Malays in order to destabilise the country. 
It could be just a test to see if they can do it and get away with it. 

So far my speculations. 

Some other theory : Salon


                   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ellen Brown:  Web of Debt: ( pages 253-255)

The Asian Crisis of 1997

Until then, the East Asian countries had remained largely debtfree,

avoiding reliance on IMF loans or foreign capital except for direct

investment in manufacturing plants, usually as part of a long-term

national goal. But that was before Washington began demanding

that the Tiger economies open their controlled financial markets to

free capital flows, supposedly in the interest of “level playing fields.”

Like Japan, the East Asian countries went along with the program.

The institutional speculators then went on the attack, armed with a

secret credit line from a group of international banks including

Citigroup.

They first targeted Thailand, gambling that it would be forced to

devalue its currency and break from its peg to the dollar. Thailand

capitulated, its currency was floated, and it was forced to turn to the

IMF for help. The other geese then followed one by one. Chalmers

Johnson wrote in The Los Angeles Times in June 1999:

The funds easily raped Thailand, Indonesia and South Korea,

then turned the shivering survivors over to the IMF, not to help

victims, but to insure that no Western bank was stuck with nonperforming

loans in the devastated countries.6

Mark Weisbrot testified before Congress, “In this case the IMF not

only precipitated the financial crisis, it also prescribed policies that

sent the regional economy into a tailspin.” The IMF had prescribed

the removal of capital controls, opening Asian markets to speculation

by foreign investors, when what these countries really needed was a

supply of foreign exchange reserves to defend themselves against speculative

currency raids. At a meeting of regional finance ministers in

1997, the government of Japan proposed an Asian Monetary Fund

(AMF) that would provide the needed liquidity with fewer conditions

than were imposed by the IMF. But the AMF, which would have

directly competed with the IMF of the Western bankers, met with

strenuous objection from the U.S. Treasury and failed to materialize.

Meanwhile, the IMF failed to provide the necessary reserves, while

insisting on very high interest rates and “fiscal austerity.” The result

was a liquidity crisis (a lack of available money) that became a major

regional depression. Weisbrot testified:

The human cost of this depression has been staggering. Years of

economic and social progress are being negated, as the

unemployed vie for jobs in sweatshops that they would have

previously rejected, and the rural poor subsist on leaves, bark,

and insects. In Indonesia, the majority of families now have a

monthly income less than the amount that they would need to

buy a subsistence quantity of rice, and nearly 100 million people

– half the population – are being pushed below the poverty line.7

In 1997, more than 100 billion dollars of Asia’s hard currency reserves

were transferred in a matter of months into private financial

hands. In the wake of the currency devaluations, real earnings and

employment plummeted virtually overnight. The result was mass

poverty in countries that had previously been experiencing real economic

and social progress. Indonesia was ordered by the IMF to unpeg

its currency from the dollar barely three months before the dramatic

plunge of the rupiah, its national currency. In an article in Monetary

Reform in the winter of 1998-99, Professor Michel Chossudovsky

wrote:

This manipulation of market forces by powerful actors constitutes

a form of financial and economic warfare. No need to re-colonize

lost territory or send in invading armies. In the late twentieth

century, the outright “conquest of nations,” meaning the control

over productive assets, labor, natural resources and institutions,

can be carried out in an impersonal fashion from the corporate

boardroom: commands are dispatched from a computer terminal,

or a cell phone. Relevant data are instantly relayed to major

financial markets – often resulting in immediate disruptions in

the functioning of national economies. “Financial warfare” also

applies complex speculative instruments including the gamut of

derivative trade, forward foreign exchange transactions, currency

options, hedge funds, index funds, etc. Speculative instruments

have been used with the ultimate purpose of capturing financial wealth

and acquiring control over productive assets.

Professor Chossudovsky quoted American billionaire Steve Forbes,

who asked rhetorically:

Did the IMF help precipitate the crisis? This agency advocates

openness and transparency for national economies, yet it rivals

the CIA in cloaking its own operations. Did it, for instance,

have secret conversations with Thailand, advocating the

devaluation that instantly set off the catastrophic chain of events?

. . . Did IMF prescriptions exacerbate the illness? These countries’

monies were knocked down to absurdly low levels.8

Chossudovsky warned that the Asian crisis marked the elimination

of national economic sovereignty and the dismantling of the Bretton

Woods institutions safeguarding the stability of national economies.

Nations no longer have the ability to control the creation of their own

money, which has been usurped by marauding foreign banks.9

Malaysia Fights Back

Most of the Asian geese succumbed to these tactics, but Malaysia

stood its ground. Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said

the IMF was using the financial crisis to enable giant international

corporations to take over Third World economies. He contended:

They see our troubles as a means to get us to accept certain

regimes, to open our market to foreign companies to do business

without any conditions. [The IMF] says it will give you money if

you open up your economy, but doing so will cause all our banks,

companies and industries to belong to foreigners. . . .

They call for reform but this may result in millions thrown

out of work. I told the top official of IMF that if companies were

to close, workers will be retrenched, but he said this didn’t matter

as bad companies must be closed. I told him the companies

became bad because of external factors, so you can’t bankrupt

them as it was not their fault. But the IMF wants the companies

to go bankrupt.10

Mahathir insisted that his government had not failed. Rather, it

had been victimized along with the rest of the region by the international

system. He blamed the collapse of Asia’s currencies on an orchestrated

attack by giant international hedge funds. Because they

profited from relatively small differences in asset values, the speculators

were prepared to create sudden, massive and uncontrollable outflows

of capital that would wreck national economies by causing capital

flight. He charged, “This deliberate devaluation of the currency of

a country by currency traders purely for profit is a serious denial of

the rights of independent nations.” 

Mahathir said he had appealed to

the international agencies to regulate currency trading to no avail, so

he had been forced to take matters into his own hands. He had imposed

capital and exchange controls, a policy aimed at shifting the

focus from catering to foreign capital to encouraging national development.

He fixed the exchange rate of the ringgit (the Malaysian national

currency) and ordered that it be traded only in Malaysia. These

measures did not affect genuine investors, he said, who could bring in

foreign funds, convert them into ringgit for local investment, and apply

to the Central Bank to convert their ringgit back into foreign currency

as needed.

Western economists waited for the economic disaster they assumed

would follow; but capital controls actually helped to stabilize the

system. Before controls were imposed, Malaysia’s economy had

contracted by 7.5 percent. The year afterwards, growth projections

went as high as 5 percent. Joseph Stiglitz, chief economist for the

World Bank, acknowledged in 1999 that the Bank had been “humbled”

by Malaysia’s performance. It was a tacit admission that the World

Bank’s position had been wrong.11

330 How it works: Bosnia, Syria, Ukraïne

This blog: 

Below you find a long blog from The Saker. It's very worthwhile to read, especially the end, where he summarises recent history.

Like The Saker ( and many others) I am convinced that the USA is eliminating countries that do not want to be a puppet of the USA, or are a potential danger to Israel, or just for the sake of generating arms-sales or a more complete power of the FED over other Central banks, or to weaken the USA's competitors China and Russia. 
The way they do it goes like this: They stimulate internal strive or even civil war. ( If necessary by snipers shooting at both parties). In their world-Media they declare the government to be the bad guys and the opposition to be the good guys ( !! even if they are head-cutting and liver eating Medieval fanatics). These 'good guys' are supported for 'humanitary reasons' or for R2P.  
It is important that more and more people begin to understand the method, because there are still a few countries on the list to be destroyed: Iran, Russia, Malaysia etc.   

Two facts that I am aware of, and that corroborate the Saker's view on what really happened: 
1. Pappa Bush decided to give only money to Yuguslav 'republcs' if they would seceded themseves from Serbia.   So the USA clearly created animosity within Y. ( Source: Engdahl,  Centruy of War)
2. A man who was one of the founders of Al Qaida, and was in an Egypt prison for years, was released when Mubarak lost his power. This man states on video: "The Americans promised us a Khalifaat. But they did not deliver."   This proves that Al Qaida was not the enemy of the USA , but that the USA in reality cooperated and stimulated and helped the Al Qaida destructors. ( See my blog: Nabil Naiim) 


( Here is the original blog, with over 60 comments)

MONDAY, MARCH 24, 2014

The Empire's war against the Serbian nation: lessons for the Resistance

Fifteen years ago the AngloZionist Empire begin the third phase of its war against the Serbian nation.  It is important to take a few minutes to remember this war because the main purpose of this war was to show to the Russian people what could be done to it if it dared resist.  Just as the US had bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima primarily with the purpose of showing the Soviet Union what it could do to it, so did the AngloZionists bomb the Serbian people living in Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia and Serbia primarily to send a "message" to the Russian people: if you resist - you are next.  Besides a massive bombing and cruise missile strikes campaign, the Empire also unleashed the biggest propaganda campaign in history, presenting the Serbs as vicious, crazed, nationalist and sadistic mass murderers and all of their enemies as progressive, freedom loving, democratic and heroic civilians which only had light weapons to resist the massive onslaught of Serbian heavy weapons.  The narrative then further hyped the vilification by speaking of Serbian "concentration camps" and massive "ethnic cleansing" campaigns which included "rape as a weapon of war".  Finally, and logically, the AngloZionists concluded that Milosevic was the "new Hitler" and that the Serbs were actually engaging in genocide. 

At the time, practically everybody bought that narrative.  There were a few exceptions here and there - the independent journalist Michel Collon in Belgium deserves a special mention here with his book MediaMensonges written as early as 1994 - but by and large the Empire's campaign of "strategic psyops" was a stunning success.

I will return to the topic of this war on a regular basis because a lot of things still must be re-visited and re-explained, especially now that the Muslim world has found itself on the receiving end of exactly the same forces doing exactly the same thing in Libya and Syria.  But for the time being, I just want to share an email exchange I had with one upset reader to whom my reply could serve as a useful starting point to begin to set the record straight.

Here is the email which I got last week:

Dear Saker, 
Let me first congratulate you on excellent articles and commentaries on your site. I enjoy reading them, and agree with them. 
But, of course, there is one thing that bothers me in your writings, your obsession with "suffering" of Serbia and Serbs. Even in today's article you mentioned 78 days of "suffering" of Serbia. If you really needed good example of suffering from Balkans couldn't you use Siege of Sarajevo which lasted  from 5 April 1992 to 29 February 1996, longer then Siege of Stalingrad, and guess who kept Sarajevo under the siege, yes your dear Serbian fascists. 
Few pictures ... 
https://www.google.ca/search?q=siege+of+sarajevo&client=ubuntu&hs=kzk&channel=fs&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=zIEsU-aLKYOsyAGOmoGAAg&ved=0CEUQ7Ak&biw=1458&bih=774&dpr=1 
Enemy of my enemy does not have to be my friend, and a lot of progressive writers loose some of their credibility by portraying Serbs under Milosevic as another victim of US imperialism, they are the same shitty nazies like those who are ruling Ukraine these days. They came in power by coup, they pushed other nations from Yugoslavia, they committed worst crimes during  wars in ex-YU mostly in Bosnia, but also in Croatia and Kosovo! 
Best,
xxxxx xxxxxx
 
P.S. I was born and lived for 31 years in Sarajevo until Serbs forced me to leave in 1991.

 Here is the text of my reply: (slightly corrected)

Dear xxxxx,

Thanks for your email.  I have to honestly tell you that while I sympathize with your plight as I would do for the plight of any person suffering the consequences of civil war, I find your arguments wholly unconvincing.  First and foremost, you have to ask yourself basic questions: 

1) who of the Croats, Bosnian Muslims or Serbs unleashed the devil of nationalism and who stood for a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural society? (answer: Croats and Bosnian Muslims)

2) which was the party which decided to use a symbol clearly associated with a Bandera-like regime? (answer: the Croats with their checkerboard)

3) whose side got the support of the so-called international community and even for the USAF to bomb on their behalf? (answer: Croats and Bosnian Muslims)

4) which side did exactly what the Ukies do today and said: 'we can secede from you, but you cannot secede from us'? (answer: Croats and Bosnian Muslims)

5) which side even got the al-Qaeda types to support them with money, guns and wahabi crazies? (answer: Bosnian Muslims)

6) which side use to hide inside UNPAs or UN safe havens and conduct attacks from there? (answer: Croats and Bosnian Muslims)

7) which side was backstabbed by its own people? (answer: Bosnian Serbs whom Milosevic slapped with en embargo)

8) which side had the most displaced persons/refugees? (Serbs from Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo)

9) which side organized false flag massacres (Markale I and II, Racak) to trigger intervention? (answer: Bosnian Muslims)

10) which side had to give up its so-called "heavy weapons" before the US and Croat forces attacked them? (answer: Krajina-Serbs)

11) which side turned a formerly progressive and liberal society into an obscurantist and intolerant one as portrayed in the Bosnian movie "Luna's choice"? (answer: Bosnian Muslims)

12) which side had the full 100% support of the US propaganda machine and the NWO media? (answer: Croats and Bosnian Muslims)

13) which side produced the worst collaborators with Hitler? (answer: Croats and Bosnian Muslims)

14) which side produce the strongest resistance against the Nazis? (answer: Serbs with Tito and Mikhailovich)

15) which side managed to get the support of BOTH the various Jewish lobbies AND of the Vatican (answer: the Croats)

16) which side benefited from nightly delivery of weapons from NATO and Turkey? (answer: the Bosnian Muslims)

17) which side first signed a peace agreement and then reneged on it? (answer: the Bosnian Muslims)

18) which side had crimes committed against it never punished by the Hague Tribunal? (answer: the Serbs)

Also - let me tell you a little something about myself.  I used to do military analysis for, amongst other assignments, the United Nations and I followed the wars in Croatia and Bosnia on day-to-day basis, and not the public stuff , but classified UNPROFOR reports.  I also personally interviewed *A LOT* of UNPROFOR officers include 2 UNPROFOR Force commanders.  So, believe me, I know what did or did not happen in Bosnia, Croatia and, Kosovo.  Yes, there were crazy Serbian nationalists and murderers who committed atrocities, no doubt here at all, but no more and no less then what the Croats or the Bosnian Muslims did.  Second, I make a HUGE difference between Milosevic (both an ex-banker AND an ex-communist) and the Bosnian Serb people, including Karadzic and his aides.  Milosevic was the scum of the earth, a fake nationalist, fake communist, and real capitalist SOB who betrayed his people at least twice (when he slapped sanctions against the Bosnian Serbs and when he betrayed the Kosovo Serbs), but Federal Forces in Bosnia committed the least atrocities and massacres and some Serbian paramilitay units - like the one of Capitan Dragan - has an excellent record on human rights.  So to portray the Serbs as Nazis the way you do is simply not honest and, in the case of a person like me, futile - because I know what was going on behind the propaganda veil.

As for the leaders of the so-called "good guys" a lot of them were scum and professional liars (Tudjman, Silajdzic) or maniacs (Itzebegovich).  Yes, Milosevic was a piece of shit too, but no worse than these guys. 
Your vision is simple: bad Serbs, good Croats and/or good Bosnian Muslims.  That is utter nonsense.  Like in any other country, in all the ethnic/religious groups of the former Yugoslavia you had a majority of decent but passive people, a certain percentage of sick and evil folks who like to do evil, and a small group of heroes who kept their decency in the middle of the horror around them.  And 90% of people did NOT want a way, much less so a civil one.  And today, most people in Bosnia understand that they have been used by the US Empire and regret the civilized society and country which they lost.  I think that if somebody did a public opinion survey in Bosnia and asked the people: "when you see the outcome today do you think that  it worth triggering a civil war at the time?" the vast majority would answer "no".  Well, that civil war was not started by the Serbs. 
So, please, don't come tell me how bad the other guy is. Look at what *your* people did to *themselves* and try to learn something from it.

Kind regards,

The Saker

I did not get a reply, nor was I expecting one (though I do expect today's post to trigger an avalanche of outraged comments).  The crisis in the Ukraine is far from over and there are other events to which I would like to turn to - like the absolutely barbaric condemnation to death of 528 members of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.  The situation in Syria also deserves much more coverage then the zero-coverage I have been giving it since the crisis began in the Ukraine.  Alas, I simply do not have to time to reply to all the comments and emails I get every day, nevermind providing a focused coverage on several "fronts" so I always pick the one which appears to most important to me.  All this is to explain that I will not be able to reply, especially in detail, to what I expect to be quite a few irate comments to this post.  I sincerely apologize for that, but I promise to come back to this topic as soon as things cool down elsewhere.

For one thing, I consider it my moral obligation to address my many Muslim readers with a plea to "connect the dots" and realize that they have been lied to not only about Chechina, but also about Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo.  I know that some of them have been reading this blogs for years and they know my views on nationalism, religion and Islam and that I really do try to live by Malcolm X's motto "I am for truth, no matter who tells it".  The Empire's propaganda machine tried hard in presenting the wars in Chechnia and in the former Yugoslavia as a war of Orthodox Christians against Islam.  Sadly, this propaganda campaign was nothing short of a total triumph, especially amongst Muslims.  So today I want to submit to you all, but especially to my Muslim readers, the following exchange with a first-rate Muslim scholar and academic to whom I had written to express my enthusiasm for his book and my issue with only once sentence in it. (I am not going to reveal the name of this person out of respect for him, especially since he is going through a great deal of suffering right now).  Here is what I wrote:

Dear Sir,

My name is xxxxxx xxxxxxx and I am writing to you for two reasons. First, to express my gratitude for your most interesting essay on Wahhabism which was recommended to me by a Muslim friend as "the best book on Wahhabism". I can only agree wholeheartedly. At the end of the book though, one sentence immensely disappointed me and made me decide to write directly to you.

On page 68 you wrote that the US global war on terror was "waged in concert with allies such as Russia, its hands bloodied with the Muslims of Chechnya". I take issue with literally every letter of that sentence.

1) First, we now know from the testimony of Sibel Edmonds that not only did the USA not help Russia but, quite to the contrary, the USA fully supported the Chechen insurgency.
2) You make it sound like the wars in Chechnia were wars opposing Russians and Chechens. This is also patently false. There never was a united "Chechen side", not in 1995 and, even less so, in 1999. In fact, I would credit the Chechens of Akhmad and Ramzan Kadyrov with killing at least as many insurgents as the Federal Forces did.
3) You also make it sound like the wars in Chechnia were wars opposing Muslims and, by implication, non-Muslims. This is also patently false. Not only was there always a Chechen opposition to the insurgency, but there were plenty of non-Chechen Muslims in the Federal forces, especially so during the 2nd Chechen war which, after all, began with a Chechen attempt to invade Dagestan where Muslim Dagestanis fought to their death to stop this invasion.
4) Now let's take the issue of whose hands were bloodied with Muslim blood. Do you really not know of the constant violence which was meted out by the government of the independent 'Ichkeria' against its own citizens? Of all people, you should know best how Wahabis treat non-Wahabi Muslims! Do you really believe that when the Wahabis got to power in Chechnia they treated the local Muslims any better than what they have always done everywhere in the past and which your book so well explains? Why is it that when (putatively) non-Muslim Federal Forces kill Muslims this deserves a special mention whereas when (putatively) "Muslims" such as the Wahabis kill (real) Muslims this gets no mention.

Now, you wrote the book in 2002 and you can be excused for not having guessed at that time what Chechnia would look like a decade later. Note by Jan Verheul: this book on Wahabism was published in 2002, and I think that The Saker is writing to the author. I will honestly admit that I also could not have imagined that. Still, I think that now that we see the kind of butchery the Wahabis are yet again engaged in in Syria, and following the disgraceful events which happened in Syria, you might want to ask yourself who the "good guys" and who the "bad guys" really were in Chechnia. I submit to you that what Putin and Kadyrov did is save the Chechen people from the horrors of Wahabism and that this is exactly the situation Assad in now facing in Syria. The only difference is that Putin was always represented by the (US funded) Muslim propaganda as some kind of bloodthirsty monster and Kadyrov as his "puppet".

In conclusion I want to express to you my deep disappointment that a person with your phenomenal culture and knowledge would fall for the "wrong or right - my Ummah" reflex. According to you, the Muslims in Bosnia, in Kosovo and in Chechnia were each time the "good guys" and the victims. As a specialist of the war in Bosnia I can assure you that this is false. The sad and admittedly embarrassing reality is that in all three of these wars the Muslims were used by the US as a tool for its imperial designs, just like the "Mujahedeen" had been in Afghanistan a few decades earlier. In Kosovo, the native Serbian population was ethnically cleansed, replaced by a regime of gangsters and Mafia dons, the USA opened its huge "Camp Bondsteel" at the cost of a barbaric bombing of the entire civilian population of Serbia and Montenegro and now Kosovo is a criminal black hole. Is it not a disgrace for the Muslim world that it blindly sided with the Kosovar drug lords?

Sir, I see Wahhabism as a huge danger for the entire planet. As long as it was a small crazy sect in the sands of Arabia it was ugly and bloodthirsty, but it was limited. But as soon as the (always "brilliant") US CIA cooked up the plan to federate various neo-Wahabi movement into one worldwide movement, which later became known as al-Qaeda, Wahhabism became a danger to us all, but first and foremost to Muslims and, amongst Muslims, first and foremost for the two forms of Islam the Wahabis hate the most: the Shia and the Sufi. Now this is my key point here: non-Wahabi Muslims need all the allies they can get to deal with this nightmare (just look at the situation in Syria as a proof of this). This, however means, that as long as even the most educated Muslims will instinctively stick to a "wrong or right - my Ummah" reflex you will deny yourself these allies.

Critics of the US and EU policies point at the logical absurdity of using military forces to destroy Wahabis in Mali while at the same time arming the same forces in Syria. I agree, this makes no sense. But what of the mainstream Muslim stance of supporting Wahabis in Chechnia or Bosnia while opposing them in Syria or Egypt? How is that less absurd?

In which country today do we see truly large numbers of Sunni Muslims live with the state protecting them from the Wahabis? In which country does the state have as its declared and official policy to support and defend traditional Sunni Islam against Wahabism? Which country has for the past two years played a key role in not letting the Wahabis over-run Syria? Finally, which is the ONLY major country to have ALWAYS opposed Wahabism, everywhere and at all times, regardless of the pretexts for war?

Russia, of course. The very same Russia you accuse of having Muslim blood on its hands.

This is factually wrong and this is morally wrong too. Finally, it is self-defeating and country-productive as it offends Russians like myself who refuse the Western canard that "all Muslims" are a threat to "our" civilization and that there is a clash of civilization happening.

I, Sir, believe that what Russia did in Chechnia was not "killing Muslims", at least not deliberately or because of their Islam, but killing many truly evil Wahabi thugs and this is why so many Chechen commanders changed sides and are now deeply grateful to Putin. Putin did not try to shed Muslim blood any more than Assad tries nowadays in Syria. When faced with a violent, vicious, bloodthirsty and aggressive insurgency fully paid for by the Gulf states and supported politically by the USA Putin and Assad simply did the only thing which could save their country, including its Muslim population: they ruthlessly pursued and physically destroyed the Wahabi-run insurgency. I submit to you that all non-Wahabi Muslims owe them a great debt of gratitude.

Thank you for taking the time to read this letter and thank you again for an outstanding book.

Kind regards,

xxxxxx xxxxxxx
(Florida)

This is the reply I got:

Dear Mr. xxxxxxx,

There is much that I could say in response to your comments, but I have decided not to expend the effort. After all, you describe yourself as "a specialist of the war in Bosnia." I don't know what your credentials are in this respect. Having visited Bosnia both before and after the genocidal war waged against the Muslims,  talked with the survivors and bereaved of Srebrenica,  seen the soccer fields of Sarajevo turned into cemeteries, prayed in the ruins of mosques destroyed by your fellow Slavs, seen the remnants of the burnt manuscripts of the Orientalni Insitut, talked to some of the women raped by the Serbs ... I find your assurance that it is false to regard the Muslims as the "good guys" and the victims quite simply repulsive. As for Kosova, yes there are gangsters there (as there are in your much cherished Serbia), and I can appreciate the fact that Russian mobsters will not welcome the competition. In Chechnya, yes, much of the opposition is Wahhabi-oriented,and the North Caucasus has not produced anyone even remotely comparable to Imam Shamyl of blessed memory,  but does this justify the destruction of Grozny, the staged bombings used by Putin to justify the second Chechen war, or the numerous crimes reported by journalists such as Politkovskaya whom the Kremlin found it necessary to assassinate?

Your notion of a diabolical US-Wahhabi alliance against Muslims is at the very best curious. As for Russia being the protector of Muslims to whom a debt of gratitude is owed, are you try to make me laugh? 

You are disappointed that I have fallen prey to the "wrong or right - my Ummah" reflex. Plainly what you are suffering from is an advanced case of Pan-Slavism. 

I have already written more than I intended. This correspondence is now at an end.

At this point on, I knew that it was futile to try continue a discussion with my correspondent did not want to have, so my reply was short:

Dear Sir,

Though I am disappointed by the lack of substance in it, I thank you for your reply.

And, Sir, *all* the inhabitants of Bosnia are Slavs, including Muslims.  As for Pan-Slavism, that silly idea died roughly 200 years ago :-)

Kind regards and all the best,

xxxxxx xxxxxxx

My hope in publishing these exchanges today is to at least set the stage for future discussions, especially with my Muslim readers, about these wars.  Why?  Because as long as the AngloZionists can divide us they will also rule over us.  In France, for example, the Zionist lobby is making truly immense efforts to set the French Muslims against the French Latin Christians because they know that as long as these two groups fight against each other, they themselves will be safe and in control.  The French author Alain Soral says that what is taking place is a war between the "Old Testament" world (Judaism and Protestantism") against the "New Testament" world (Latin and Orthodox Christianity) and that the key strategy used by the Empire is to set Christians against Muslims.  As you probably know, I have a big problem with the notion that Latin and Orthodox Christianity are on the same side, today's events in the Ukraine only prove the opposite, but this is irrelevant here: Soral's religious education is, frankly, sub-minimal (he considers himself a non-believing "cultural Catholic"), but his political acumen is world-class and what he says about France is absolutely true: the plutocratic elites are now in a complete panic because they see that the "stem French" (local, Latin Christian French) against the "branch French" (first or second generation Muslim immigrant) are joining forces against the Zionist domination of France and that this alliance has a huge potential.  Likewise, in Russia, we now see that the strongest and most determined defenders of Russia are the Chechen people (speaking of which: Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov has declared that just as his special forces have killed Doku Umarov, they will hunt down and catch Dmitri Iarosh, "dead or alive - either way is fine by me" said Kadyrov).  As for the Resistance on a global scale, we see today that it is lead by Russia (Orthodox, Muslim) then China (Confucianist, Taoist, Buddhist), Iran (Muslim), Syria (Muslim, Christian) and Hezbollah (Muslim).  The Empire, of course, tried hard to set Russia against Islam (Chechnia: failed), China against Russia (failed), Islam against Orthodox Christianity (Bosnia, Kosovo: success), Islam against China (in progress), Sunni against Shia (Syria: in progress), Christian against Shia (Lebanon: in progress), Islam against Latin Christianity (France: failed), Sunni against Shia (Iraq: success), Sunni against Shia (Iran: failed), Sunni against Shia (Bahrain: success),  Muslim against Christian (Indonesia: in progress), Muslim against Christian (Mali, Sudan: success), etc.  This list is incomplete - but I think the point I want to make is clear: the Empire has had a stunning success in using Muslims literally as cannon fodder to fight against its enemies.  It is, I submit, therefore absolutely vital for Muslims worldwide to realize this and to refuse to be further lied to.  The real enemy of Islam is exactly the same as the real enemy of Christianity: the AngloZionist Empire.  Sayyid Qutb did see the real nature of the Empire, as did Malcom X.  The real heir of their thought today are not al-Qardawi and degenerate rulers of Saudi Arabia, but people like Sheikh Imran Hussein, Ramzan Kadyrov and Hassan Nasrallah (whose Hezbollah party includes only Muslims, but whose military resistance includes Christians).

What happened to the Serbian people is a grotesque injustice and nothing short of an abomination.  It was also the precursor of what happened to the people of Libya and Syria and the Serbian people, now more than ever, have a moral right to have the truth finally be said about their plight.  Furthermore, those of us who are determined to resist the Empire need to learn from our mistakes, if only to avoid repeating them in the future.  This is the purpose of this post today and I hope that it will be understood by those who will read it.

The Saker

329 Ukraïne's nazi's are USA's friends.

This blog:

Life is simple if you believe that there are only 100% good guys, and 100% bad guys or movements. ( Manicheïsm)  For most people a 100% bad movement is Hitler's Nazism. 

I don't have the time to elaborate on the subject, but I want to hint at a few facts here. 

Below you will find an article (Seven Decades... by mr Rosenberg.) that proves that the USA's Republican Party always had very good relations with Ukraïnian people who once fought together with Hitler. 
Rosenberg: 'Shame on the Republicans, to have friends who once were Hitlers buddies.' 

But when Communism is a life threatening World Power, it is not a bad idea to ally with locals ( people born in the Ukraïne, but now living in the USA. ) who know that country very well and also hate the Communists. 

So, maybe it was a matter of 'these necessary dirty hands' that one has to make in order to defend his country. Let's give the Republicans the benefit of the doubt, and use this information to understand better how politics work.

And how about these Ukraïnian fascists? Are they 100% bad people? 
Well, I have the impression that they are still very very angry and brutal. On youtube you will find many video's to prove that.  They look ferocious too. 
How did they get to be so angry? 
For that we must go back into history. 
Around the year 1500 the Polish noblemen ( Schlachta) and Clergy ( Roman Catholocs) became  more and more powerful. In the next 300 years their 'empire' grew to invlude Lithuania and a big part of the Ukraïne. 
How did they get to be so rich and powerful? 
Simple:  They invited all the jews who were expelled from Western Europe ( 1492: Spain, etc etc. ) to come to Poland.  
Not as outcasts or peddlers, but as Arendars:  a person who leased a property from the Schlachta or Clergy for 3 years. This could be a farm, a brewery, a windmill, a court of justice,  a village or even a complete province.  The people living on the farms were include in the lease and treated like slaves. 

So these jews entered Poland and almost overnight became the direct bosses of the Polish people. They even had the courts in their power, as they simply leased that too. They would send Polish slaves to be put on the stake  ( a wooden pole is put in the anus and will come out of the body near the shoulders. It must be done in such a way that no vital organs are hurt, so that the victim will die after many days, and not immediately) for petty crimes. 

Even the rabbi's warned that this would create a huge hatred from the polish farmers, a hatred that would one day come back to the jews. 
You can read all about it in Nicholas Lysson's essay: Holocaust and Holomodor.   

The revenge came in 1648:  the Khmelnitsky uprising. 
K. killed about 250.000 jews, but much more Polish collaborators of the Schlachta.

But, as we read in Paul Johnson's book 'The History of the Jews', jewish students do not study history. They only remember all the pogroms that they suffered from.  
So the 1648 uprising ( which was completely understandable and well deserved, of course) became one of the incentives for tha bad treatment of the Ukraïne under Communist regime. 
The deliberate killing of 6 to 10 million Ukraïnians by starvation in 1932 and 1933 was seen by the Ukraïnians as a jewish revenge for the Khmelnitsky uprising. It was done by the Russians, by the comunists, but above all: by the jewish Russiand, the jewish communists, the jewish cheka. 

You can read about that at Slezkine ( 2005) and Solzhenitsyn ( 200 years togehter). 

So it is not really strange that when Hitler entered Ukraïne, that most Ukraïnians were happy to take revenge on Russian and Jewish people in the Ukraïne. 
The Jews have been very very influential in the USSR untill 1948.  But even now, during this 2014 Coup, we see that Jewish oligarchs are very powerful.  
The amazing thing is now that these nazi-like and antisemite-like Svoboda and Right Power groups are working together with Jews or half jews ( like Yatsenyuk).  I can only explain it because they both need each other to take over the land, and both think that they will be able to drive out the other party in a later stage. 

Here is the article that shows the close cooperation between Ukraïnian Nazi's and the Republican Party in the USA:  
   

Seven Decades of Nazi Collaboration: America’s Dirty Little Ukraine Secret.  ( Original Article) 

An interview with Russ Bellant, author of “Old Nazis, the New Right, and the Republican Party.”

By Paul H. Rosenberg, March 18, 2014.

Share

Print

Yaroslav Stetsko, an OUN leader during World War II, meets George H.W. Bush.

As the Ukrainian crisis has unfolded over the past few weeks, it’s hard for Americans not to see Vladimir Putin as the big villain. But the history of the region is a history of competing villains vying against one another; and one school of villains—the Nazis—have a long history of engagement with the US, mostly below the radar, but occasionally exposed, as they were by Russ Bellant in his book Old Nazis, The New Right And The Republican Party(South End Press, 1991). Bellant’s exposure of Nazi leaders from German allies in the 1988 Bush presidential campaign was the driving force in the announced resignation of nine individuals, two of them from the Ukraine, which is why he was the logical choice to turn to illuminate the scattered mentions of Nazi and fascist elements amongst the Ukrainian nationalists, which somehow never seems to warrant further comment or explanation. Of course most Ukranians aren’t Nazis or fascists—all the more reason to illuminate those who would hide their true natures in the shadows…or even behind the momentary glare of the spotlight.

Your book, Old Nazis, the New Right, and the Republican Party exposed the deep involvement in the Republican Party of Nazi elements from Central and Eastern Europe, including Ukrainian, dating back to World War II and even before. As the Ukrainian crisis unfolded in the last few weeks there have been scattered mentions of a fascist or neo-fascist element, but somehow that never seems to warrant further comment or explanation. I can’t think of anyone better to shed light on what’s not being said about that element. The danger of Russian belligerence is increasingly obvious, but this unexamined fascist element poses dangers of its own. What can you tell us about this element and those dangers?

The element has a long history, of a long record that speaks for itself, when that record is actually known and elaborated on. The key organization in the coup that took place here recently was the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists [OUN], or a specific branch of it known as the Banderas [OUN-B]. They’re the group behind the Svoboda party, which got a number of key positions in the new interim regime. The OUN goes back to the 1920s, when they split off from other groups, and, especially in the 1930s began a campaign of assassinating and otherwise terrorizing people who didn’t agree with them.

As World War II approached, they made an alliance with the Nazi powers, they formed several military formations, so that when Germany invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941, they had several battalions that went into the main city at the time, where their base was, Lvov, or Lwow, it has a variety of spellings [also 'Lviv']. They went in, and there’s a documented history of them participating in the identification and rounding up Jews in that city, and assisting in executing several thousand citizens almost immediately. There were also involved in liquidating Polish group populations in other parts of Ukraine during the war.

Without getting deeply involved in that whole history, the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists to this day defend their wartime role, they were backers of forming the 14th Waffen SS Division, which was the all-Ukrainian division that became an armed element on behalf of the Germans, and under overall German control. They helped encourage its formation, and after the war, right at the end of the war, it was called the First Ukrainian division and they still glorify that history of that SS division, and they have a veterans organization, that obviously doesn’t have too many of members left but they formed a veterans division of that.

If you look insignia being worn in Kiev in the street demonstrations and marches to the SS division insignia still being worn. In fact I was looking at photographs last night of it and there was a whole formation marching, not with 14th Division, but with the Second Division, it was a large division that did major battle around the Ukraine, and these marchers were wearing the insignia on the armbands of the Second Division.

So this is a very clear record, and the OUN, even in its postwar publications has called for ethno-genetically pure Ukrainian territory, which of course is simply calling for purging Jews, and Poles, and Russians from what they consider Ukrainian territory. Also, current leaders of Svoboda have made blatantly anti-Semitic remarks that call for getting rid of Muscovite Jews and so forth. They use this very coarse threatening language that anybody knowing the history of World War II would tremble at. If they were living here, it would seem like they would start worrying about it.

Obviously these people don’t hold monopoly power in Ukraine, but they stepped up and the United States has been behind the Svoboda party and these Ukrainian nationalists. In fact the US connections to them go back to World War II and the United States has had a long-standing tie to the OUN, through the intelligence agencies, initially military intelligence, and later the CIA.

Your book discusses a central figure in the OUN, Yaroslav Stetsko, who was politically active for decades here in America. What can you tell us about his history?

Yaroslav Stetsko was the number two leader of the OUN during World War II and thereafter. In 1959, Stefan Bandera, who was head of the OUN, was killed and that’s when Stetsko assumed the leadership. Stetsko in 1941 was the guy who actually marched into Lvov with the German army June 30, 1941 and the OUN issued a proclamation at that time under his name praising and calling for glory to the German leader Adolf Hitler and how they’re going to march arm in arm for the Ukraine and so forth. After the war, he was part of the key leadership that got picked up by the Americans.

There’s a number of accounts I’ve seen, at least three credible up reports, on how they were in the displaced person camp, the Allied forces set up displaced persons camp and picked up tens of thousands of these former allies of Hitler from countries all over the East, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania – there weren’t Polish collaborators I think most people know the Germans heavily persecuted and murdered millions of Polish residents – but Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, and so forth, Belorussia. They had them in these camps they built and organized them, where the Ukrainians were assassinating their Ukrainian nationalist rival so that they would be the undisputed leaders of Ukrainian nationalist movement, so they would get the sponsorship of the United States to continue their political operation, and they were successful in that regard. So when Bandera was out of the picture, Stetsko became the undisputed leader of Ukrainian nationalists.

The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists in 1943 under German sponsorship organized a multinational force to fight on behalf of the retreating German army. After the battle of Stalingrad in ’43 the Germans felt a heightened need to get more allies, and so the Romanian Iron Guard, the Hungarian Arrow Cross, the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and others with military formations in place to assist came together and formed the united front called the Committee of Subjugated Nations and again worked on behalf of of the German military. In 1946, they renamed it the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations, ABN. Stetsko was the leader of that until he died in 1986.

I mention this in part because the OUN tries to say well during the war we fought the Germans and the communists. The fact of the matter is that they were the leadership of this whole multinational alliance on behalf of the German the last two years of the war and in the war thereafter. All the postwar leaders of the unrepentant Nazi allies were all under the leadership of Yaroslav Stetsko.

What happened when Stetsko, and others like him from other German allied forces came to the United States?

In the United States, when they came, his groups organized ‘captive nations’ committees, they became, supposedly, the representatives of people who are being oppressed in Eastern Europe, the Baltic countries, by the Soviet. But they were, in fact, being given an uncritical blank check to represent the voices of all these nations that were part of the Warsaw Pact when in fact they represented the most extreme elements of each of the national communities.

The Captive Nations Committee in Washington DC for instance was run by the person who headed the Ukrainian organization of nationalists, that was true in a number of places. In my hometown area near Detroit as well, they played a major role. In the early 50s, when they were resettled in the United States, there was at least 10,000 of them that were resettled, when you look at all the nationalities. They became politically active through the Republican national committee, because it was really the Eisenhower administration that made the policy decision in the early 1950s, and brought them in. They set up these campaign organizations, every four years they would mobilize for the Republican candidate, whoever it would be, and some of them like Richard Nixon, in 1960, actually had close direct ties to some of the leaders like the Romanian Iron Guard, and some of these other groups.

When Richard Nixon ran for president in 1968, he made a promise to these leaders that they would if he won the presidency he would make them the ethnic outreach arm of the Republican National Committee on a permanent basis, so they wouldn’t be a quadrennial presence, but a continuing presence in the Republican Party. And he made that promise through a guy named Laszlo Pasztor, who served five years in prison after World War II for crimes against humanity. He was prosecuted in 1946 by non-Communist government that actually had control of Hungary at the time. There was a period from ’45 to ’48 when the Hungarian Communist Party didn’t run Hungary. They were the ones who prosecuted him. He had served as a liaison between the Hungarian Nazi party and Berlin; he served in the Berlin embassy of the Hungarian Arrow Cross movement. This is the guy that got picked to organize all the ethnic groups, and the only people that got brought in were the Nazi collaborators.

They didn’t have a Russian affiliate because they hated all Russians of all political stripes. There were no African Americans or Jewish affiliates either. It was just composed of these elements, and for a while they had a German affiliate but some exposure of the Nazi character of the German affiliate caused it to be quietly removed, but other [Nazi] elements were retained.

Your book was researched and published in the 1980s. What was happening by that point in time, after these groups had been established for more than a decade?

I went to their meetings in the 1980s, and they put out material that really make clear who they were there 1984, one of their 1984 booklets praised the pro-Nazi Ustashi regime in Croatia, and these Ustashi killed an estimated 750,000 people and burned them alive in their own camp in Croatia. And here they are praising the founding of this regime, and acknowledging that it was associated with the Nazis, and it was signed by the chairman of the Republican National Committee. You couldn’t make this stuff up. It was just crazy.

I interviewed the Kossack guy, he showed me his pension from service in the SS in World War II, and how he was affiliated with free Nazi groups in the United States, and he was just very unrepentant. These are the umbrellas that were called ‘Captive Nations Committees’ by these people that Stetsko was over, and was part of, too. The Reagan White House brought him in, and promoted him as a major leader and did a big dinner—[UN Ambassador] Jeane Kirkpatrick was part of it, George Bush as Vice President, of course Reagan—and Stetsko was held up as a great leader., And proclamations were issued on his behalf.

When Bush was running for president in 1988, Bush Senior, he came to these basically one of the leading locations of the Ukrainian nationalists in North America, which is in just outside of Detroit, a suburb of Detroit to their cultural center, and one of their foremost leaders in the world is headquartered out of their, at the time, he got Bush to come there and they denounced the OSI and Bush just shook his head, he wouldn’t say anything about it.

The OSI was the Offices of Special Investigations, it was investigating the presence of Nazi war criminals in the United States, and deporting those that were found to have lied on their history when they applied to come into the United States after the war. They had deported a number of people from all over the United States. They had a lot of open investigations, and all these émigré Nazis were trying to bring all the political pressure they could to stop these investigations, including the Ukrainian nationalists ones.

So they denounced them, the OSI investigations, in front of Bush, Bush nodded his head, but he wouldn’t say anything because he didn’t want to sound like he was sympathetic to the Nazi war criminals, but at the same time he didn’t want to offend his hosts by disputing the issue with them. So, the issue of World War II was still being played out over four decades later, in the politics of the presidency, and unfortunately Bush and Reagan continued to be on the side that we tried to defeat in World War II.

What was the response when your book came out, with all this information? How was the information received, and what was the political reaction?

Prior to the book’s publication, Washington Jewish Week had done a story about some of the ethnic leaders of the Bush campaign and their history, like denying the Holocaust, or being involved with these émigré Nazi groups. They named a couple of them that weren’t part of the Heritage Groups Council, but they were part of the Bush campaign.

Then when I published the book, it brought out a lot more names, and the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Boston Globe did stories on them. It got to the point where when reporter from the Philadelphia Inquirer would call them about one of their ethnic leaders of the Bush campaign the standard response was he’s no longer part of the campaign, and they’d say that almost as soon as the name would get mentioned. So that they would call that person, and I’ll give the example of Florian Galdau, he was, he ran the Rumanian Iron Guard in New York City. He had wartime record. [Romanian Archbishop Valerian] Trifa himself was implicated in the mass killing of Jews in Bucharest in 1941, I believe. Galdau’s record is clear, because when Trifa was prosecuted he was one of the people targeted by the Office of Special Investigations, and he was forced into deportation in the 1980s, but in those records, they identify Florian Galdau is one of his operatives, so his history is known, except apparently to the Bush campaign.

So when he was identified by the Philadelphia Inquirer, they immediately said he wasn’t part of it, so the Philadelphia Inquirer called Florian Galdau, and he said, “No, I’m part of it. They never said anything to me. As far as I know I’m still part of the campaign.” And that was the pattern.

The Republican National Committee said after the election that they were going to put a blue ribbon committee together and do an investigation of the charges in my book. I was never contacted, nobody affiliated with the book project, the publisher wasn’t contacted none, none of the sources I worked with was contacted. And after about a year, with nobody raising any issues or questions about it they just folded it up and they said well we have not had the resources to investigate this matter.

I did publish an op-ed in the New York Times about two weeks after the election was over, and I think that was the last time anybody said anything publicly about it that got any kind of forum. I think they were allowed to just die and wither away, that is those leaders. The Republican idea was probably to bring in another generation of people who were born in the United States as these émigré’s died off, but they never did anything about this history that Richard Nixon had bequeathed them with. The Reagan White House had really made deep political commitments and alliances with them, they didn’t want to look like they turned their back on them; and Bush wanted them for his reelection campaign, so he wasn’t going to turn his back on them either.

If you want an anecdote, I know that 60 Minutes was working on a piece that Bradley’s team was working on, and Nancy Reagan herself called the executive producer and said that we would really like it if you would wouldn’t do this story, and they killed it. Because, basically, it’s not just about Nazis and the Republican national committee were Nazis in the White House, it inevitably raises the question of who are they how did they get here, who sponsored them and it goes back to the intelligence agencies at that point. And some people don’t like treading there, if it’s tied to an intelligence agency, they prefer to just stay away from the subject. So, some people at 60 Minutes were frustrated by it, but that’s what happened. I think that they were able to effectively kill the story when people tried to cover it. They were able to persuade news managers to not delve into it too much.

What’s happened since you wrote your book, and most of the World War II generation died off? What have the OUN and its allies been up to since then that we should be aware of?

Once the OUN got sponsored by the American security establishment intelligence agencies, they were embedded in a variety of ways in Europe as well, like Radio Free Europe which is headquartered in Munich. A lot of these groups, in the ABN were headquartered in Munich under the sponsorship of Radio Free Europe. From there they ran various kinds of operations where they were trying to do work inside the Warsaw Pact countries. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, a number of them moved back into the Ukraine as well as the other respective countries, and began setting up operations there, and organizing political parties. They reconstituted the veterans group of the Waffen SS, they held marches in the 1990s in the Ukraine, and organized political parties, in alliance with the United States, and became part of what was called the Orange Revolution in 2004, when they won the election there.

The prime minister was closely allied with them. They worked with the new government to get veterans benefits for the Ukrainian SS division veterans, and they started establishing the statues and memorials and museums for Stepan Bandera, who was the leader of the OUN, and who I should say was despised by other Ukrainian nationalists because of their methods, because they were extreme and violent toward other rival Ukrainian nationalist groups as well. So Bandera wasn’t a universal hero, but this group was so influential, in part because of its US connections, that if you go online and you Google ‘Lviv’ and the word ‘Bandera’ you’ll see monuments and statues and large posters and banners of Bandera’s likeness and large monuments permanent erected monuments on behalf of Bandera so they made this guy like he’s the George Washington of the Ukraine.

That government was in power until 2010, when there was another election, and a new regime was elected with a lot of support from the East. Ukrainian nationalist groupings around the Orange Revolution were sharply divided against each other, and there was rampant corruption, and people voted them out. The United States was very aggressive in trying to keep the nationalists in power, but they lost the election. The United States was spending money through the National Endowment for Democracy, which was pumping money into various Ukrainian organizations, and they were doing the same thing in Russia and many other countries around the world as well. We’re talking about many millions of dollars a year to affect the politics of these countries.

When the occupations came in Independence Square in Kiev late last year, you can see Svoboda’s supporters and you can hear their leaders in the parliament making blatant anti-semitic remarks. The leader of the Svoboda party went to Germany to protest the prosecution of John Demjanjuk, who was the Ukrainian who was settled in the United States, who was implicated as a concentration camp guard in the killing of innocent people. The German courts found him guilty and Svoboda leadership went to Germany to complain about convicting this guy. The reason they said they didn’t want any Ukrainian tainted with it because they live a lie that no Ukrainian had anything to do with the German Nazi regime, when history betrays them, and their own affiliations betray them. But they don’t like that being out there publicly, so they always protest their innocence of any Ukrainian being charged with anything, regardless of what the evidence is.

Your book was an important revelation but was not alone. Your book notes that Jack Anderson reported on the pro-Nazi backgrounds of some of the ethnic advisors as far back as 1971, yet when your report came out almost two decades later, everyone responded with shock, surprise, and even denial. What lessons should we draw from this history of buried history? And how should it influence our thinking about the unfolding crisis in the Ukraine?

I don’t believe it’s ever too late to become familiarized and educated about the history of this phenomenon both the wartime history and our postwar collaboration with these folks. There were a number of exposés written about the émigré Nazis. There was a 1979 book called Wanted and it did a number of case stories of these people being brought in to the United States, including the Trifa story. Christopher Simpson did a book called Blowbackthat discussed the policy decisions, it’s an incredible book. He’s a professor at American University and he did years of research through the Freedom of Information Act and archives, and got the policy documents under which the decisions were made to bring these folks together, and not just into the United States but to deploy them around the world.

Like my book, it didn’t get the attention it deserved. The New York Times book reviewer was negative toward the book. There are people that really don’t want to touch this stuff. There’s a lot of people who don’t want it touched. I think it’s really important for people who believe in openness and transparency and democratic values, who don’t want to see hate groups come back to power in other parts of the world to know what happened.

There’s not very many Americans that really even know that the Waffen SS was a multinational force. That’s been kind of kept out of the received history. Otherwise people would know that there were Ukrainian Nazis, Hungarian Nazis, Latvian Nazis, and they were all involved in the mass murder of their fellow citizens, if they were Jewish, or even if they were co-nationalists that were on the other side of the issue of the war. They were just mass murderers, across Eastern Europe. And that history, those facts aren’t even well-known. A lot of people didn’t even know this phenomenon even existed.

I think all Americans have a responsibility to know what their government is doing in the foreign policy in Europe as well as elsewhere around the world, as well as Latin America as well as Africa. Since our policy was to uphold apartheid in South Africa why weren’t Americans challenging that more? They began challenging that in the 80s, but the apartheid regime was run by the Nazi party. They were allied with Germany in World War II, they were the Nationalist party and they took power in 1948 and the United States backed that for decades. We backed the death squads in Latin America, even though they massacred tens of thousands of people – 30,000 people in Chile alone. Americans aren’t being attentive to what their government is doing abroad, even though it’s been doing done with their tax dollars and in their name, and I think we just have a general responsibility.

I went to these meetings, I went to these conferences, I went over a period of years. I met with them directly, most of the people I wrote about, I met with them personally or in group meetings. People can’t afford to do that on their own, timewise, but there’s enough literature out there they can read and pursue it, they will get enough enough of a handle to get what the real picture is, to demand change. I’m not totally partisan in this, but I think the Republican Party was extreme on this, but the Democrats folded and didn’t challenge this when they knew it was going on.

There is an old Roman poet that once said truth does not say one thing and wisdom another. I’m a believer in that. Tell the truth and wisdom will follow.

Paul H. Rosenberg is a columnist for Al Jazeera English and Senior Editor for Random Lengths News.