______________________________________

1. Maxwell's murder, Union Treaty, Moscow Coup of 1991 - from Gordon Logan. From: Gordon Logan Date: 04/12/06 06:19
 

Gordon Thomas claims that Maxwell had been a channel for the plotters, who wanted to use Tel Aviv to put pressure on the Bush administration to accept the coup. Since Thomas' brief was to discredit my account of the coup it is to be expected that he would put in something to suggest that the coup was being prepared long before 6th August, which is when Kryuchkov gave the first order to Grachev for drafting the documents. It is certainly true that acceptance from Washington was one of the plotters' concerns. The problem with Thomas' account is very simple. If the Bush administration (or the Israelis for that matter) had decided that they preferred Yeltsin and Gorbachev to the KGB and Kryuchkov, then they would have blown the gaff to Yeltsin and Gorbachev. In fact, they had already done so in Berlin in June, via Bessmertnykh. That's to show what a blockhead Thomas' ghostwriter is.

As regards your questions about the killing of Maxwell, it must be known that the Markov murder, which was an MI6 masterpiece, became a massive liability when the Russians found out in late 1984 how the British had tricked them. This led to a very unexpected visit by British Foreign Secretary, Sir Geoffrey Howe, to Sofia in early 1985. The cynical deception of Markov's widow and the exploitation of her grief came home to roost with a vengeance and provided the Russians with a perfect opportunity for blackmail (kompromat in Russian), since they were in a position to create a PR disaster for the Foreign Office. The blackmail has continued to this day, and there is good evidence that it influenced FCO policy on Bosnia between 1992 and 1995.

From leaks in the Bulgarian press between September 1991 and February 1992, it is obvious that Maxwell had been given evidence of the British involvement in the Markov murder, and that the evidence could be used for two things: 1) getting the coup plotters off the hook and 2) getting money from both the Russians (in return for the favour) and the British (in return for an undertaking to keep the Markov evidence out of the world media. Thus we know that MI6 did it, and we can be sure that the killing of a top sayan by a foreign service made the Israels very unhappy, since the killing was a shocking precedent, given the Zionists' extremely ambitious plans for the New Jewish Century.

Regarding Hitler's being a puppet, I am referring to the way that the Warburg family financed Hitler from 1928, when the Nazi Party was sinking. Apparently this caused dissension within the Warburg family. I also find the Red Symphony account to be very convincing. It describes how Hitler was raised up by the Rothschild/Warburg clan as a fighting cock for the Second World War, which was inevitable lost by Germany, since it was impossible for the Germans to beat both the Soviet Union and the United States.

Gorbachev promoted the coup because he had underestimated Yeltsin's power after the coup, and had become increasingly uncomfortable with the hard liners. He thought that Yeltsin would be easier to handle than the hard liners because he would be dealing with one man, and a drunk at that. It is clear that the Americans had brought the two enemies together after the June 'Constitutional Coup' in the Supreme Soviet, when Pavlov and Kryuchkov had launched a move to reduce Gorbachev's powers. It was I who triggered the so-called Constitutional Coup and the file shows how it was done. The tip off took place in Berlin at a discrete meeting between James Baker and Alexander Bessmertnykh.

The coup was triggered prematurely ("The Provocation of the Century" is how it's referred to in Moscow) and Kryuchkov was a nervous wreck (the file shows precisely why) who admitted afterwards that he had no plans ready. The Union Treaty appeared mysteriously in a Moscow newspaper on the Friday, and is believed to have been planted by Yeltsin in order to help Kryuchkov to persuade the dupes of the GKChP to sign up. Even with the copy of the newspaper, Kryuchkov had his work cut out to persuade them to sign. For example, Bezsmertnykh refused and even the leader Yanaev was reluctant. I presume that Gorbachev had sent the draft treaty that he had been working on from Foros for publication. Yeltsin had called Gorbachev on the 14th August and would have signalled that the coup was on, he could have asked Gorbachev to fax him the draft.

Clearly, any account of the coup must explain what is meant by the 'Provocation of the Century' since so many of those involved have used the expression. That is the difference between the Russian accounts and the Western accounts - both are censored, but the Russian account is less censored.

2. Union Treaty, Moscow Coup of 1991 - from Gordon Logan.
From: Gordon Logan Date: 04/12/06 08:00
 

As regards the role of the Union Treaty, it clearly played an important part in the provocation. The important point is that Kryuchkov's motivation on August 6th and on the Wednesday was very different from theirs. Events in Bulgaria had driven him, not the Union Treaty. It should be noted that the signing of the Union Treaty was to be followed on August 26th with a State of Emergency voted by the Supreme Soviet, which meant that the Centre would remain in control with a new repressive apparatus.

The Moscow Coup is a complicated matter and the material has simply not been available in English. It is no accident that nothing of substance has been published about one of the most important events of the twentieth century. The standard account is simple and easy to remember, like all disinformation. The truth is complicated, not easy to remember, but explains a lot of things.

As regards the Mossad version of Maxwell's murder, it is strange that Mossad cooperated with Thomas to the astonishing extent that they did, and then denied what he wrote. Why was that? Because it was a fairy tale. People were meant to remember the fairy tale and ignore the denial.

3. Gordon Thomas & Mossad - Frederick Töben to Gordon Logan
From: info@adelaideinstitute.org Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 04:37:52 +1030
 

Dear Gordon Logan
I have just read your item and have placed it on our website at
Talking about politics without talking about the Jews is absurd and follow link at
http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/2006December/contents_articles.htm

My interest stems from your comment about Gordon Thomas who addressed the AFP/TBR conference in Washington in 2003.
He was the dinner speaker - and as he laid it on that he had access to Mossad's files for two years, he described the head as a fearsome man, I feared him, you would have feared him."
I interjected, "I wouldn't fear him."
Thomas: "Then you're a better man than I..."
Töben: "Why should I fear him?"
Thomas: "You want to take over? You want to take over?"
That was the end of Thomas - and most participants gained the impression that this man who has written 20 best sellers with a million print run each is a mere committee man who appends his name to the books..
Any comment on this?
Fredrick

4. Gordon Thomas & Ostrovsky - Gordon Logan reply to Frederick Töben
From: Gordon Logan Date: 04/12/06 15:22
 

Dear Fredrick,
I found a documentary of yours very enlightening when I downloaded it last year. The lies about the 'holocaust' are staggering really.

As to Thomas, I only managed to download the first minute or two of his talk. He started with the old BS about the Israelis warning Bush before 9/11. Nothing about who put the bombs in the WTC of course. The Americans couldn't do it because it would have been impossible to keep two hundred sappers quiet. It would have leaked even before they got started. So they had to use the Israelis. I enjoy Thomas' books because I like to tease apart the truth and the lies. There is enough truth to make them worth reading, but there are always a lot of whoppers. His style is suspiciously similar to Ostrovsky. I've just sent a few paragraphs to PM showing that Ostrovsky's still on active duty. It's quite obvious really. The political analysis is completely phoney. Furthermore not even the Maxwells believe his story about Maxwell's death. Betty is still terrified of MI6 rather than Mossad.

Incidentally it is very significant of Mossad's interest in the shooting of Pope John Paul II in 1981 that Thomas was required to write a book. The mssing card in the pack is Michael Ledeen, who had to escape to Israel after he was fingered by Pazienza at the trial of the Bulgarians. The trial had to be stopped after the (heavily censored) evidence had been heard. On the next morning Agca pretended to be mad. Ledeen was Pazienza's alter ego and a channel to both Al Haig and Tel Aviv. Ledeen walked and Pazienza is still in prison. I don't know how a charlatan like Thomas was invited to the AFP meet. I would have thought he would have been laughed out of court. He looks like a heavy drinker from the photos.

Thank you for posting my stuff.

5. Ostrovsky on Maxwell's murder - Gordon Logan replies
From: Gordon Logan Date: 04/12/06 14:15
The pages from Ostrovsky's book are a pleasure to demolish and indicate that he is an active intel officer. Firstly, as regards the Maxwell family, they don't believe the Ben Menashe/Ostrovsky/Thomas nonsense. It is clear from Thomas' book that they fear MI6, not Mossad, in spite of over a decade of fairy stories (p. 204-5).

The political analysis on the quoted pages (284-287) of Ostrovsky's book are an obvious spoof. For example, who would believe that just after the First Gulf War there was any danger of an alliance between the Arabs and the US that would endanger Israel. Iraq had been smashed, Saudi Arabia, with thousands of tanks on its doorstep, had been whipped into paying for a war that April Glaspie had started (she is still incommunicado) and the Saudis faced a decade of budgetery crisis with oil hovering between eight and ten dollars a barrel, while at the same time being forced by America's Zionist bankers to underwrite the US federal debt. Egypt was (and is) run by a famous puppet, Mubarak, and has no hard assets to attract Uncle Sam, other than pyramids. So much for Arab 'power' in the middle of 1991.

Even Gordon Thomas (p 212) doesn't believe Ostrovsky's story about the Adriatic meeting in Maxwell's yacht between Mossad and the KGB. Suffice it to say that there was no way at that time (when Bush was about to lose an election because of sayan Alan Greenspan) that Mossad could guarantee a) Bush support and b) that Gorby wouldn't be tipped off. Mr. Ostrovsky gets his books published and there are no signs of danger to his life. He has an open door to the New York Times and is interviewed by the mass media. Mr Ostrovsky is obviously an active officer. He owes us all a sincere apology, but with Kol Nidre how could we know it was sincere?

Incidentally, I can't get anything published in spite of the fact that I've had inquiries from known writers such as Robert Eringer and Jeff Stein. The last attempt to kill me was this year. SO GO FUCK YOURSELF, OSTROVSKY, YOU LYING BASTARD! GO BACK TO ISRAEL WHERE YOU BELONG, as Michael Ledeen did when he was fingered by Pazienza in the attempt to kill John-Paul II. Since you're so smart, why don't you write a few lines proving that the Khazars killed Diana and forced MI6 and the British royal Family to carry the can. That would be an elementary 001 exercise for the reformed Zionist you claim to be.

I'll help you:
1. It's easy to prove that MI6 knew about it but regarded it as a damage control operation,
2. read Joe Vialls
3. read Nick Davies and presto another Mossad killing.

Robin Cook is even easier, he was murdered by a Gerard Klein right under everybody's nose. Just to help you, Lord Levy rushed off to Tel Aviv for six meetings after Cook's death, all at the height of the holiday season. (Suspicious MPs had Levy's appointments book posted on the FCO website.) In case you don't know who Levy is. He's the pop group manager who replaced Cook in 1999 after Tel Aviv told Blair that they wanted to deal with a Jew, rather than a goy who'd forgotten his knee pads. Cook had dared to object to the obscene treatment of the Palestinians by your bosses in Tel Aviv. Is that enough, you lying rat, Mr. Ostrovsky?

[Peter, I've no objection if you make the above conform to your editorial policy. But Ostrovsky really is a bastard who needs to be rudely exposed. Any self respecting spook could do what I've done with every page of his book, I'm sure. The 'kidon magic', my ass. Does he admit that Mossad provided the sappers that placed the explosives in the WTC?]

Peter Myers comments:
I do occasionally swear myself, in private. But I think that, in public debates, strong language has the opposite effect from that intended. Rather than strengthening the user's case, it weakens it, because the resort to such language suggests that the user has run out of reasoned argument.

I'm not making that claim in this case - as I write this, I have only skim-read what you have written (I often only get to read these bulletins thoroughly AFTER they have gone out, when I print some of them off).

6. "Hitler, whom we now know to have been puppet."
From: Gordon Logan Date: 04/12/06 14:15

> From: Gavin Oughton Date: 02/12/06 01:09> quote "Hitler, whom we now know to have been puppet." > Really! I've heard the rumour, but have seen no proof > of Hitler being a puppet! Set up perhaps, but that's hardly a puppet!

A short answer to Mr. Oughton:
To what I wrote earlier I would remind Mr. Oughton that the Head of the Abwehr, Admiral Canaris, who Kim Philby was ordered by MI6 not to kill during the Spanish Civil War, was working against Hitler. He notably saved the British from Operation Sealion. A dictator at war whose military intelligence chief secretly supports the enemy is called in good English a 'puppet'. All the more so when he was also financed by his enemies, the Warburgs and Wall Street. That Hitler was a Zionist asset is, I believe, clear.. I first heard about the real Canaris years ago from a Bulgarian military intel officer who knew a great deal about the intel interface between the Axis and the Allies.


Peter Myers replies:

Gordon,
Even if the Warburgs helped Hitler get into power, it does not follow that he was their puppet. He himself was unaware of that Jewish funding. It does not imply fore-knowledge of all he would do when in power, and it could have been motivated by a desire to get at Stalin (via a German attack) - see below.

Your mention of Wall Street suggests Antony Sutton's book Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler. In that book, Sutton discusses the booklet called Hitler's Secret Backers, by "Sidney Warburg". So I see Sutton coming through your argument here. Sutton wrote another book Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution. A third book in the trilogy was Wall Street and FDR. Sutton's facts are important, but he immerses them in a Laissez-Faire "spin". I believe that one must separate the two. He equates Bolshevism, National Socialism, and FDR's New Deal as being equally bad Socialist systems, all established by the Bankers.

In the last 30 years, the Privatization & Deregulation of economies, using arguments and equations like Sutton's, have reversed those earlier Socialist systems. We now blame Bankers for setting up the Tax Haven network to enable the rich to dodge their social responsibilities. Sutton sees these Bankers funding rival Socialist systems and playing them off against each other (via war) to achieve a Hegelian synthesis - a desired outcome.

I have a web-page on Sutton at http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/sutton.html

But I think it a bit far-fetched to say that the outcome of World War II was predetermined. More likely, is the view that Stalin had disrupted their plans (they were Trotskyists). To bring him down, they backed Hitler.

Hitler's Secret Backers, by "Sidney Warburg", like the statements attributed to Ravoksky in the booklet Red Symphony, attests that Western financiers gave money to Hitler to help him get into power. Red Symphony is at http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/red-symphony.html; Hitler's Secret Backers is available at http://www.omnicbc.com. Sutton shows no awareness of Red Symphony.

In Red Symphony, "Rakovsky", interrogated by Stalin's agents in 1938, states that the reason for this was that these Jewish bankers, having established Bolshevism, had found it stolen from them by Stalin, a "Bonapartist" akin to Napoleon (p. 36).

The bankers were trying to promote International Communism, Trotsky being their man; Rakovsky himself was in their camp. But Stalin was promoting National Communism. That system had to be brought down, so that International Communism could be restored. The means of bringing it down, was by assisting the rise of Hitler. But, it says in the commentary part at the end of Hitler's Secret Backers, they did not think that Hitler would implement his rhetoric about excluding Jews. They disagreed with the anti-German boycott inaugurated by the New York Zionists, and felt that this induced Hitler to institute harsh measures against Jews.

In Hitler's Secret Backers, the bankers' motives are stated as being, not connected with Trotsky, but anger at France for its insistence on continued German repayments to it in Gold, as per the Treaty of Versailles. These payments were keeping Germany paralysed, and with it the European economy.

Sutton accepts this motive. But it could be argued - if the booklet be genuine in some way - that this is merely the excuse the bankers told to their courier, "Sidney Warburg". Even so, Sutton agrees to the closeness of Trotsky to the bankers' hearts, in his book Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution.

In Red Symphony, Rakovsky states that Jewish Bankers gave money to Hitler to help him get into power (p. 36), knowing that he would attack the Soviet Union (as laid out in Mein Kampf). These donations were anonymous; Hitler had no idea that the source was Jewish Finance. In keeping with the strategy of Revolutionary Defeatism, Stalin would fall, upon losing the war, as the Tsar had fallen after losing World War I, and Trotsky would be restored to power (p. 36).

They later changed their minds because Hitler's destruction of the Soviet Union would mean (they decided, after seeing him in power) not the restoration of Trotsky, but the abolition of Communism altogether; whereas their aim was to keep Communism going. Despite this switch, they still hoped to erase the Stalinist "National" variety: "we shall succeed in taking it over and then converting it into real Communism" (p. 37).

The interrogator says to Rakovsky, "if your defeatism and the defeat of the USSR has as its object the restoration of Socialism in the USSR, real Socialism, according to you - Trotzkyism, then, insofar as we have destroyed their leaders and cadres, defeatism and the defeat of the USSR has neither an objective nor any sense. As a result of defeat now there would come the enthronement of some Führer or fascist Tsar." (p. 11). Rakovsky agrees with this assessment; the Moscow Purges thus provides a rationale for the bankers' change of plan.

In keeping with this change, Rakovsky says, they want Stalin to propose to Hitler the partition of Poland. As a result, Hitler would find himself at war with the West, and eventually in a war on two fronts. In the late 1930s, Trotsky was a fugitive. After writing The Revolution Betrayed in Norway in 1936, it was published in 1937, Trotsky was forced to leave Norway, and found refuge in Mexico. See http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/trotsky.html

Pressure from Stalin persuaded most governments to refuse him entry. Even the United States, with Roosevelt in power, shut its doors.

This would cast doubt on Red Symphony's claim that Roosevelt and Trotsky were leading figures in the same conspiracy. However, the US Government wanted to maintain diplomatic relations with the Soviet Government, especially since Hitler was in power in Germany.

Two years after the alleged interrogation in Red Symphony took place, Stalin had Trotsky murdered, ensuring that no restoration could occur. Whilst Trotsky's murder is well known, Stalin's murder is covered up, because it involves Jewish politics:

 http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/death-of-stalin.html

There are two anachronisms in Red Symphony. It says it is a record of interviews which took place in 1938, but mentions the World Bank, p. 24, which was not established until 1944. However, the League of Nations had predecessor organisations:

 http://www.princeton.edu/~sbwhite/un/leagwebb.html

Red Symphony points out that Point 6 of Wilson's 14 Points welcomed the USSR into "the society of free nations", and offered it assistance, thus undermining the "White" side during the Civil War.
Red Symphony says the Jewish financiers promoting "real" Communism (not Stalin's Bonapartism) are "Spinosists", followers of the natural mysticism of Baruch Spinosa. This is a reformulation for our times, of Jewish religious philosophy; Hegelianism is a vulgarised version of it. Spinoza established the atheistic variant of the Jewish religion:

 http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/spinoza.html.


7. Peter Myers: Sakharov, Golitsyn and East-West Convergence towards World Government.
This is a summary of my webpage
http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/convergence.html

Andrei Sakharov's explicit plan for Convergence to World Government is the core piece of evidence in Anatoliy Golitsyn's book New Lies For Old. But Golitsyn, instead of regarding Sakharov as a dissident and threat to the Soviet regime, sees him as a "false dissident", a puppet of the authorities.

Golitsyn has Gorbachev enacting out Sakharov's plan, with the West falling for a "fake" dismemberment of the Soviet Union. The Sino-Soviet Split, according to Golitsyn, was a carefully-orchestrated illusion. This would include the military clashes on their border in the late 1960s, China's opening to the West, and the war between China and Vietnam (a Soviet ally) in 1979. All fake, according to Golitsyn. Golitsyn and his followers in the West still refer to the Soviet Union as an on-going entity. Surely the US troops in Afghanistan must finally prove this theory wrong?

Golitsyn's Ideas Are Being Taken Up in the United States
This is from http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue08/perestroika_02.htm

- the same website which hosts Antony C. Sutton's books for download, e.g. http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/best_enemy/index.html

>>Leninists Still Leading by William F. Jasper.
This is part two of an interview by William F. Jasper, senior editor of THE NEW AMERICAN, with Christopher Story, editor of Soviet Analyst, an intelligence commentary, and editor of The Perestroika Deception by Anatoliy Golitsyn, the Soviet defector and author of New Lies for Old. The interview was conducted August l& 1995 in the Presidio, San Francisco, outside the headquarters of the Gorbachev Foundation/USA.

Q. According to Anatoliy Golitsyn, "glasnost, " "perestroika," and the reforms and upheavals we have been witnessing in the '[former" Soviet Bloc represent controlled events which form part of a "Grand Strategy" rehearsed and planned decades ago. Could you explain the meaning of the phrase "strategic deception ?"

A. Golitsyn makes clear throughout The Perestroika Deception that the personalities on the stage of the so-called "former" Soviet Union are all secret members of the Communist Party, KGB officers, members of the huge Komsomol network numbering over 50 million, or members of the nomenklatura - or, at a lower level, druzhiny (vigilantes), who are used for staged demonstrations, televised provocations, and street events. …

Q. Describe the Soviet "convergence" strategy.

A. This is the central objective towards which the secret Leninist revolutionaries are working. Their purpose has been to dismantle overt Communism, to establish apparently "normal" relations with the West, to remove travel restrictions so that large numbers of their agents would be accepted into Western societies, and to "cooperate" with the West - in parallel with the West dropping its antagonistic stance, dismantling its military power, collectivizing its security arrangements, and signing bilateral and multilateral treaties and accords with the "former" Soviet Bloc.
But the West does not understand that these Leninist revolutionaries intend that "convergence" is to be achieved on their (Communist) terms, not on ours. The Leninist meaning of "convergence" is that the West is to "converge" towards the Communists, contrary to the naive belief of Western policy-makers and political establishments.<<<

Golitsyn garbled the story.Golitsyn shows no understanding of the nature of the Stalinist-Trotskyist rift. Stalin was a Clinton - a non-Jew at the head of a secretly Jewish government - who took power from the non-theistic Jews around him, and gradually restored it to Russians. For that, he and the USSR have been dumped. If you ever attend Trotskyist meetings, you'll see how they hate Stalin, loathe him, write him out of history. Stalin's murder of Trotsky, and the subsequent murder of Stalin by the Jewish faction, attest to the reality of the conflict.

The One-World movement is clearly based in the West; its Trotskyist, Fabian and Zionist wings are dominant in the West today.The Trots and Fabians supported the USSR when it came to evicting Europeans from their empires. Both have promoted Free Trade (Capitalism) to destroy the economy of nation-states - that's why our Economics faculties are dominated by "Thatcherites". The Greens, Trots etc see themselves as coming to power after the end of nation-states (perhaps after a war).

Through Stalin, the Zionist-Trotskyist-Fabian one-worlders lost control of Communism in the USSR - the Russians refused to be dominated. So they decided to try to draw the USSR back into a One World Civilization controlled from the West. Gorbachev took the bait. Gorbachev had to sell Perestroika to the hardliners back home, to the Stalinists still present. Hence his portrayal of it being orchestrated from Moscow, control remaining in Moscow etc.

H.G. Wells laid out the scenario for drawing the USSR back in, in his book The Shape of Things to Come: http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/hgwells.html.
He called his movement The Modern State Movement; the following is from p. 320 in the hardback – London, Hutchinson & Co., 1933, and p. 363 – in the paperback, Corgi books, New York, 1979:

"The method of treaty-making and a modus vivendi was already in operation in regard to Russia. There indeed it was hard to say whether the Communist party or the Modern State Movement was in control, so far had assimilation gone. And the new spirit in the old United States was now so 'Modern' that the protests of Washington and of various state governors against the Controls were received hilariously. Aeroplanes from Dearborn circled over the capital and White House and dropped parodies of the President's instructions to dissolve the Air and Food Trust of America. All over that realist continent, indeed, the Controls expanded as a self-owned business with a complete disregard of political formalities. But the European situation was more perplexing." Of course, H.G. Wells was not really running it - he just thought he was.

Summary
The usual Convergence theory comes via Anatoliy Golitsyn. An ex-Soviet agent, he claimed that Convergence was a Soviet plot. The evidence I have accumulated shows otherwise. It shows that Jews had gradually lost control of the Soviet Union; that there was a genuine non-Jewish Communism there, just as there was in Poland during the 1980s: http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/poland.html. I believe that Golitsyn got the story wrong because he received it second-hand.

Convergence, my material shows, was a movement by Jews –Trotskyists and/or Zionists – to REGAIN control of the USSR by returning it to its Trotskyist period. At the same time, they would impose Trotskyist social policies in the West, including the destruction of the family:
http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/engagement.html. This is the gist of David Ben Gurion's prediction of how the world would be in 1987: http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/bengur62.jpg. To shift the USSR from "Stalinism" to "Trotskyism", they had to loosen the screws; in the process, they lost control there.


8. Camping out in Uzbekistan - from Eric Walberg
From: eric walberg <walberg@lycos.com> Date: 01/12/06 04:59
A hike in the mountains http://geocities.com/walberg2002/uzb/mtns1.html A travel piece about a hike with a Russian guide in the Tien shan mountains of Uzbekistan. We were forced to cut the trip short and enter the nature reserve when we ran out of water. We were caught by the gruff, but it turns out very personable, Tajik official, leading to a stiff fine and a fine friendship. Horseback riding in Chatkal nature reserve http://geocities.com/walberg2002/uzb/mtn.html

A description of a 4 day horseback trek through a nature reserve in Uzbekistan with the Tajik official. Gives a look at the extreme poverty but resilient and healthy mountain Tajik culture.
 

_______________________________

Peter Myers, 381 Goodwood Rd, Childers 4660, Australia ph +61 7 41262296
http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers

Mirror: http://mailstar.net/index.html