ГУЛаг Палестины - Лев Гунин

consumption that you advocate slows reaction times and interferes with coordination and

impairs judgment, and therefore invites accidents. Certainly no airline pilot would be

permitted to consume a fraction of your recommended daily intake and still be allowed to

fly, and certainly every driver should recognize that he is putting himself at risk

drinking as much as you advocate. We recognize the damage that your advice may have

inflicted when we take into account that except for infants and the aging, accidents are

the leading cause of death.

The level of alcohol consumption that you advocate interferes with, or makes quite

impossible, difficult mental work. Thus, a university student who follows your advice

and has a couple of glasses of wine with his dinner is finished for the day - he might

as well head out to a pub after that, because he will find his calculus homework quite

incomprehensible. A chemistry professor who follows your advice and has a couple of

glasses of wine with his lunch will find himself making mistakes as he tries to lay out

the electron configuration of aluminum for his class - he had better find some simpler

topic to treat in that lecture if he doesn't want to embarrass himself in front of his

students. A lawyer arguing a complex case who follows your advice and has a couple of

glasses of wine with his lunch will find himself losing the thread of his argument in

court - he had better let his junior take over that afternoon if he wants to maintain

his reputation.

The level of alcohol consumption that you advocate may damage health. The level of

alcohol consumption that you advocate possibly saps energy and depletes motivation,

possibly leads to more time spent in small talk and in television viewing, and less in

productive work and creative effort. Undoubtedly, the level of alcohol consumption that

you advocate promotes outright alcoholism. Yours has been a call based on

pseudo-science to abandon sobriety and embrace intoxication - hardly a direction that

American culture needs to be pushed in.

The French Paradox and The Ugly Face of Freedom were equally flawed. And to return to

the comparison of your 23Oct94 broadcast The Ugly Face of Freedom to your 5Nov95

broadcast The French Paradox, I do see a striking parallel. In both cases, you didn't

know what you were talking about, but stepped forward and talked anyway. Given that you

had not studied the subjects to which you addressed yourself, given that you had not

thought about them, given that you were capable of nothing better than passing along the

most superficial, man-in-the-street, off-the-top-of-my-head conclusions, the truly

remarkable thing is that you would have the arrogance to think yourself worthy of

standing up in front of tens of millions of people and telling them what was your

opinion. Yet that is what you did, and in each case, you got it wrong. Your many

conclusions in these two broadcasts ranged from totally opposite to the truth to totally

unsupported by the evidence. The Ugly Face of Freedom for which you will always be

remembered in the Ukrainian community was wrong and destructive. The French Paradox

which judging from its Internet prominence appears to be your best-remembered broadcast

among your total audience - was also wrong, and also destructive.

A word concerning self-help. If you yourself subscribe to the prescription of drinking

three to five glasses of wine each day, then I would recommend that you attempt to break

yourself of the habit, and substitute for the many hours of inebriation thus avoided

some sober study. Had you substituted for many hours of inebriation the sober reading

of history, you might have spared yourself the fiasco of The Ugly Face of Freedom. Had

you substituted for many hours of inebriation the sober study of scientific method, you

might have spared yourself the fiasco of The French Paradox. Perhaps you have no more

than to look at these two pratfalls in your own career to see how damaging is the effect

of making a habit of indulging in alcohol.

Disclosure would be a step toward restoring professional credibility. As enthusiasm for

your French Paradox broadcasts seems to have its source in the wine industry, and as

your integrity has been brought into question on the matter of The Ugly Face of Freedom,

I wonder if your professional standing would not be enhanced by your assuring 60 Minutes

viewers that you have received no benefits from the wine industry in gratitude for the

increased sales that your French Paradox broadcasts have brought it. The absence of

such an assurance will invite some 60 Minutes viewers to construe your French Paradox

broadcasts more as infomercials than as investigative reporting.

Lubomyr Prytulak

cc: Ed Bradley, Jeffrey Fager, Don Hewitt, Steve Kroft, Andy Rooney, Lesley Stahl, Mike

Wallace.

HOME DISINFORMATION PEOPLE SAFER 1553 hits since 26Apr99

Morley Safer Letter 8 26Apr99 One out of 40 escaped shooting

It looks very much, Mr. Safer, as if on your 60 Minutes broadcast of 23Oct94, The Ugly

Face of Freedom, your chief witness testifying to Ukrainian collaboration with the Nazis

was himself a war criminal of substantial proportions, a former Gestapo agent with the

blood of many on his hands, perhaps much of it Jewish blood.

April 26, 1999

Morley Safer

60 Minutes, CBS Television

51 W 52nd Street

New York, NY

USA 10019

Morley Safer:

I bring to your attention the following excerpt from an article by L. A. Ruvinsky

published in the Ukrainian Historical Journal in 1985:

After the end of the Second World War, the former head of the Lviv

Gestapo, P. Krause, replying to a question put by the writer V. P.

Bieliaev, testified: "If on our side, in the Gestapo, there had not

worked several agents from among the Zionists, we would never have been

able to capture and destroy such a large number of Jews, who were

living under false documents and assumed names." For example, in July

1941, Zionist Simon Wiesenthal, together with 39 other representatives

of the Lviv intelligentsia, found himself in prison. Somehow, as a

result of a "mysterious confluence of circumstances" all the arrested

except for himself were shot, and he was freed. It is not surprising

that after this, this Zionist provocateur became a regular Nazi agent.

Polish journalists have established this as an indisputable fact. That

is why the Hitlerites did not throw Wiesenthal into prison, which he

frequently confirms, but rather sent him there to organize subsequent

provocations. Evidently he was not lying when he said that he passed

through 5 Nazi prisons and 12 prison camps. In any case, it is not

difficult to imagine how many innocent victims are on the conscience of

this impenitent Zionist provocateur. It is such loathsome services for

the Fascist killers that were performed in the Yanivsky concentration

camp, in which people of various nationalities found themselves

Ukrainians, Poles, and Jews.

L. A. Ruvinsky, The criminal conspiracy of Zionists and Fascists on the

eve of, and during the years of, the Second World War, Ukrainian

Historical Journal, 1985, No. 9, pp. 99-109, p. 105, translated from

the Ukrainian by Lubomyr Prytulak.

The above statement, by itself, is certainly insufficient to establish that Simon

Wiesenthal passed the war years as a Gestapo agent. However, it is even by itself

sufficient to lead an investigative journalist to ask Mr. Wiesenthal certain questions:

(1) Was Simon Wiesenthal in fact arrested along with 39 other members of the Lviv

intelligentsia?

(2) Was Simon Wiesenthal the only one of the 40 who avoided execution?

(3) Did Simon Wiesenthal pass through 5 Nazi prisons and 12 prison camps?

(4) How could Simon Wiesenthal have avoided execution, and how could he have passed

through so many Nazi institutions, unless he had agreed to serve as a Gestapo agent?

Had you asked Mr. Wiesenthal any such questions in your 60 Minutes broadcast of

23Oct94, The Ugly Face of Freedom, you would have taken a step toward digging

underneath the surface, a step of the sort that some 60 Minutes viewers have come to

expect as standard from investigative journalists.

I bring to your attention further that the above quotation from Ruvinsky is not the

only reason that we have for thinking that Simon Wiesenthal may have worked for the

Gestapo. Further reasons can be found in my following three letters to Simon

Wiesenthal:

(1) 15Dec94 in which I ask Simon Wiesenthal, among other things, why he kept detailed

notes on the Polish partisans who were sheltering him, and why he allowed these notes

to be captured by the Nazis.

(2) 14Aug97 in which I ask Simon Wiesenthal why the Nazis allowed him, a Jew and

supposedly a prisoner, to keep two pistols.

(3) 28Aug97 in which I ask Simon Wiesenthal why, where other prisoners were shot upon

being recaptured following their escape, he was instead relieved from work and put on

double rations.

It looks very much, Mr. Safer, as if on your 60 Minutes broadcast of 23Oct94, The Ugly

Face of Freedom, your chief witness testifying to Ukrainian collaboration with the

Nazis was himself a war criminal of substantial proportions, a former Gestapo agent

with the blood of many on his hands, perhaps much of it Jewish blood, and who may have

used your interview with him to cast blame on Ukrainians so as to deflect attention

away from his own guilt.

If this blunder of yours is allowed to stand, then it threatens in the end to be

remembered as your chief legacy to 60 Minutes. Would it not be better to finally break

your long silence and by embracing truth to make some attempt to redeem your

reputation?

Lubomyr Prytulak

cc: Ed Bradley, Jeffrey Fager, Don Hewitt, Steve Kroft, Andy Rooney, Lesley Stahl, Mike

Wallace, Simon Wiesenthal.

HOME DISINFORMATION PEOPLE SAFER 979 hits since 15May99

Morley Safer Letter 9 15May99 Who murdered Volodymyr Ivasiuk?

But in the meantime, those who come too near to the truth concerning what happened to

Volodymyr Ivasiuk have been the victims of an unusual number of accidents. One man's

wife unexpectedly hangs herself, another man throws himself from a balcony, still

another drowns, yet another falls under the wheels of a car.... But remember, butchers,

God's punishment will descend even upon you!

May 15, 1999

Morley Safer

60 Minutes, CBS Television

51 W 52nd Street

New York, NY

USA 10019

Morley Safer:

Who Murdered

Volodymyr Ivasiuk?

Volodymyr Ivasiuk is best known as a composer and poet,

author of the widely popular song Chervona Ruta whose first

two lines appear below as he wrote them in his own hand,

which song more than anything else made him beloved

throughout Ukraine, and even beyond the borders of Ukraine.

On top of that, Volodymyr was a man of many talents, having

earned a degree in medicine, and having demonstrated talent

in art, photography, and cinematography.

However, having reached his prime

showing so much promise, it was not

given Volodymyr Ivasiuk to develop his

talents further. He was dead at the age

of 30. To the right is a photograph of

his funeral procession, attended by

thousands of mourners despite the

suppression by the state of the

publication of information concerning

his burial, despite official warnings to

not attend funeral services, and despite

the calling of Komsomol meetings, which

carried mandatory attendance, on the

same day. The magazine Halas, on whose

information I rely in the present

letter, states that Rostyslaw Bratun who

was the first to step forward and speak

at Volodymyr's funeral lost his job two

months later. Words spoken at the

funeral by the Sichko family landed them

in prison.

To the right is a second photograph

showing the statue that was eventually

erected in Volodymyr Ivasiuk's memory.

And just how did Volodymyr Ivasiuk meet

his end? His death certificate which

appears below states that he died on

24-27 April 1979 from mechanical

asphyxiation caused by hanging in a

noose, and attributes the hanging to

suicide.

The details of Volodymyr Ivasiuk's death, however, do not support the official view that

he killed himself:

They waited and searched for Volodya for 24 days. Following the

mysterious disappearance of the composer, the search for him was not

disclosed to the public, the explanation being given that such an

announcement would create a disturbance. However, the mass media are

daily used not only to help locate people, but sometimes even their

pets. [...]

It was not until May 18, 1979 that Volodymyr Ivasiuk's body was

accidentally discovered in the heavy forest near the village

Briukhovych near Lviv.

One couldn't bring oneself to believe it. The parents were allowed to

identify their son only on the following day, even though it was only a

five-minute walk from the apartment where Volodya lived to the morgue;

and the identification was conducted with gross violations of law. The

father was allowed to view the body only after he repeatedly telephoned

the Oblast Procurator threatening to send a telegram of complaint to

the General Procurator of Ukraine. The local authorities eventually

gave in with the exasperated reply: "Take your son home, and look at

him there at least a hundred years!" His death certificate reported

that he died 24-27 April 1979 at the age of 30. The cause of death:

mechanical asphyxiation. Hanging from a noose - suicide. The death

certificate was issued on May 21, 1979, and even back then, a mere

three days after the body had been discovered, without any evidence or