Nathaniel Weyl Dies

[David Richardson]

Apropos US and European political spectra, I wrote this input for a blog we've been running for two groups of students on each side of the Atlantic:

The 'red shift' in US Politics

I'm writing this partly for the benefit of my students, who might not understand what I see as one of the fundamental differences between US and European politics, and partly to see what the Americans reading this blog think about the point of view I'm about to expound!

In astronomy, the red shift is the way that the light from stars appears to shift towards the red end of the spectrum as it is received by astronomers on Earth (enabling them to see how far away the star is). In US politics, 'red' equals 'right' and 'blue' equals 'left' … which is the exact opposite of political colours in the rest of the world, where 'red' equals socialist or communist, and 'blue' equals conservative.

'Liberal' is also a word which confuses Europeans. In Europe there are lots of Liberal parties - but they're all to the right of centre. In general, they were founded in the 19th century, before working people had the vote, nearly always with the aim of achieving freedom of speech in societies which were either monarchies or authoritarian states (or both, like Prussia). When the working class formed their own trades unions and political parties, the Liberal parties moved right. The political term in Europe which most nearly corresponds to the US 'neo-conservative' is 'neo-liberal' (called 'nyliberal' in Swedish).

In European terms, if you're not on the right, then you'll be a socialist, a social-democrat or a communist. If you're a liberal, then you're on the right. And in many ways the US Democratic Party looks and feels like a party of the right, rather than a party of the left, despite the fact that European political leaders who run left-wing parties will invite the Democrats in and say nice things about them. So … when even a leader who is as right-wing as Tony Blair is talking about his vision of society, he's starting from a position a long way to the left of even the most left-wing US politician.

The United States used to have parties and political movements on the left - even in European terms. Eugene Debs received 4 million votes once as the candidate to the Socialist Party of the USA (you can find out more at http://www.eugenevdebs.com/). The reason why demonstrators outside the White House have to walk around in circles, rather than standing still originates from the actions of the IWW and Joel Hillström, from Gävle in Sweden (better known in the USA as Joe Hill) - their website is at http://www.iww.org/.

A general from Laclede, MO, John Pershing, played a large role in crushing the left - by commanding the US Army to shoot strikers in the early 1920s. The Pinkertons were also crucial (see an account of the strike at Homestead Mill at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carnegie/sfeature/mh_blue.html). And then there was Joe McCarthy …

So … one way to look at an election in Europe is that voters get to choose between left and right. A way to look at an election in the USA is that voters get to choose between right and further right! Is this how you Americans see it?

Could you envisage a time when the winner of a US Presidential election is an African-American divorced woman who doesn't go to church, had an abortion at the age of 18 and an illegitimate baby at the age of 20, and who advocates a Canadian style of socialised medical care? If not, why not?

[Ron Ecker]

In US politics, 'red' equals 'right' and 'blue' equals 'left' … which is the exact opposite of political colours in the rest of the world, where 'red' equals socialist or communist, and 'blue' equals conservative.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

David,

Are you referring to the red and blue colors that the TV networks use on election night to denote which states are carried by the Democrats and which states are carried by the Republicans? I thought that that was the invention of some TV producer (with other producers then copy-catting), not something in common use in U.S. politics. (I don't even know which party is red and which is blue; I paid little attention on election night last November because I knew that the fix would be in.)

In my experience, Communists have always been called "reds" in the U.S., as in the Red Menace. Liberals in general are similarly called "pinkos" by those on the right. Conservatives passing "blue laws" are "bluenoses." Granted this may change (or perhaps already has), given the power of TV and its election-night red and blue maps. And I can understand why the TV talking heads would call the Democrat-won states the "blue" states, to avoid offending them with the traditional "red" (Communist) label. The PNAC and corporate TV pretty much rule in today's America.

Ron

[David Richardson]

Are you referring to the red and blue colors that the TV networks use on election night to denote which states are carried by the Democrats and which states are carried by the Republicans? I thought that that was the invention of some TV producer (with other producers then copy-catting), not something in common use in U.S. politics. (I don't even know which party is red and which is blue; I paid little attention on election night last November because I knew that the fix would be in.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, that's right. The on-line newspapers my students read refer to 'red states' and 'blue states', and the terminology seems to have made it into the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, etc. It's really confusing for Europeans - as is the idea that 'liberals' are on the left, since, as I wrote, 'liberal' is a right-wing party in many European countries.

In Denmark, for example, the party called Venstre (which is the Danish for Left) is a right-wing party (the left-right division comes from the places the different groups sat in the pre-French Revolution 'parliament' in France). Venstre was originally one of the 'free speech', 'universal right to vote' parties in the 19th century, when there weren't any trades unions or socialist parties. As soon as that niche was taken, though, Venstre joined the people of the same social class as them on the right. The left-wing version of Venstre is called Radikale Venstre …

[James Richards]

A general from Laclede, MO, John Pershing, played a large role in crushing the left - by commanding the US Army to shoot strikers in the early 1920s. The Pinkertons were also crucial (see an account of the strike at Homestead Mill at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carnegie/sfeature/mh_blue.html). And then there was Joe McCarthy (David Richardson)

David,

Pershing certainly had a way about him.

James

[Mark Stapleton]

I believe the Israeli GOVERNMENT was involved.

Mark,

Do you base that on the presence of Rabin in Texas, on Vanunu's recent claim, on the evidence in the book Final Judgment, or on all of the above?

In any case, I just found out today that the Chinese did it. But Tim will be gratified to know that Castro was also involved. It's in Volume 26, pp. 407-409 (CE 2946).

This confirms the suspicion I've always had about E. Howard Hunt's alibi that he went to a Chinese restaurant in DC on 11/22/63. Now what made him think of a Chinese restaurant? It all falls into place!

The clincher would be if that cheap shipping casket that the body arrived in at Bethesda was found to be Made in China.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/w...Vol26_0222a.htm

Ron

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ron,

I base my conclusion on a number of things, some of which you mention. I've never read Michael Collins Piper's book but I would like to some day.

IMO, the best way to approach this maddening conundrum is to ask "Who benefitted?" as Donald Sutherland's character did in the film. When you think about it, it's only the benefactors who are going to go to all the trouble of killing the President, with all the baggage and maintenance involved in a plan of this magnitude. It's so much work. Now, I believe there were four major benefactor groups, namely;

1. LBJ. The person with the most to gain--survival. He's the lynchpin. Without LBJ, there's no hit because you can't risk having a genuine investigation--hell, there's a lot of smart lawyers out there.

2. MIC. They gained a war in Asia. A result sufficiently lucrative to warrant going to a bit of trouble to secure.

3. Texas oil. Gained an indefinite reprieve on the ODA and they've got their man in the White House (Jackpot!)

4. Israeli Government. Gained a large increase in military aid and ended JFK's insistence on inspections at Dimona. As above, two birds with one stone (or about five bullets). As with LBJ, one could argue that their survival hinged on JFK's speedy departure. You've probably read that David Ben Gurion once stated that JFK's stubborness on the Dimona issue threatened Israel's survival. Also, they gain a great friend in LBJ. During the Suez crisis, he argued strongly against the U.S. imposing sanctions against Israel, which were being planned. LBJ's coverup of Israel's 1967 attack on a U.S. intelligence gathering ship, USS Liberty, which killed 34 U.S. servicemen is one of the most bizarre historical events I have ever researched. You have to go to the internet to research this one because there is not much about it on the public record. Why is that?

These four groups, or an amorphous amalgum thereof, planned the crime. Also, all four have form. I believe LBJ was involved in the murder of Henry Marshall and others and the other three have all assassinated before. There's much more to say, of course, but that's basically it.

Do you agree with that scenario?

[Ron Ecker]

Certainly Israel benefited, but it didn't have to participate. What role did it play? I suppose Israel could have helped finance it (using U.S. foreign aid money). In fact I believe Echeverria in Chicago mentioned getting Jewish money, but I think that's generally assumed to be a reference to Lansky gangsters.

[Tim Gratz]

Merely because someone benefits from someone's murder does not mean they participated in it, for goodness sake!

Not everyone with a motive to kills another person.

If you are going to talk about who benefited, you omitted the CHIEF beneficiary (Fidel, whose life was saved and whose regime was saved from the second invasion being planned by RFK).

Plus, of course, the Mafia.

Since all of these forces did not, obviously, work together in one grand conspiracy it follows that not every group that benefited was part of the conspiracy.

[Mark Stapleton]

Certainly Israel benefited, but it didn't have to participate. What role did it play? I suppose Israel could have helped finance it (using U.S. foreign aid money). In fact I believe Echeverria in Chicago mentioned getting Jewish money, but I think that's generally assumed to be a reference to Lansky gangsters.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ron,

The answer to your question is that I don't know what role they played but they were major beneficiaries and there is some circumstantial evidence, IMO, pointing to Jerusalem. Don't you think it's a strange coincidence that Ben Gurion resigns in July '63, telling friends he's exasperated with JFK's hardline approach to Dimona and that he's a threat to Israel's security and four months later JFK's dead? Mossad is the most efficient and savvy of intelligence agencies, whose involvement may not be noticed by those unfamiliar with the way they operate. Didn't Gerry Hemmings once state that he found out in the late '60's that Mossad knew about the assassination in advance? As you say, Rabin was reportedly in Dallas (I think it was his wife who mentions this) and the connection with Ruby's Jewish background is a point to remember. He was proud of his heritage and, according to some researchers, had often stated that people discriminated against him because of it. Throughout his life he was getting into scraps with anyone who made derogatory comments about his race. Ruby, IMO, was definitely involved in the plot to kill JFK, as well as his role in silencing Oswald.

Until your post, I was unaware of Echevarria's comments concerning Jewish money. That is interesting. He is one individual who has always interested me because of that incident, described elsewhere on the forum, when a Chicago CIA officer was ordered by HQ in Washington to return all documents relating to Echevarria immediately and not discuss him with anyone.

The problem with this aspect of JFK research is that it is a very sensitive issue and genuine research efforts can be mistaken for a witchunt directed against a race which has had its fair share of suffering throughout history. This may be why it doesn't recieve the focus that other, less productive lines of inquiry receive. Research on the Israeli Government's possible role should just be regarded as an attempt to solve the JFK riddle, similar to research efforts by others into the role of the Governments of Cuba, the Soviet Union, South Korea and the United States.

[Ron Ecker]

Mark,

I would think that the plan to assassinate JFK was already underway by July 1963, when Ben Gurion resigned. If the Mossad was involved in that plan, with the JFK problem for Israel to be solved in November, why would Ben Gurion resign? Why would the Mossad let him? Was it wise for the Israeli government to draw such dramatic attention to a motive for killing JFK, four months before killing him?

I'm not sure what to make of Rabin's presence in Dallas. (I'm sick of coincidences.) He was officially on a tour of U.S. military installations, Fort Bliss (conveniently?) being the last. It is tempting to say that Rabin was in Dallas for the assassination as an observer or invited guest. But if his wife's account is accurate of when they arrived back in Israel (in time to hear first reports of the assassination), Rabin had to have left Dallas the day before (I believe his wife was waiting in New York) or no later than early on the morning of 11/22. So why would he miss the show if that's what he was there for?

A possibility, if one assumes that Israel was involved, is that Rabin played some active role in the final planning, then left before the event, so as not to be around for appearance's sake. But there is no evidence at all of what that role might have been.

Ron

Edited May 14, 2005 by Ron Ecker

[Terry Mauro]

[i also agree with you that one can be a "liberal at heart" and a strong anti-communist.  That I think is also a very good description of John F. Kennedy.

_______________________

I have always been anti-communist and a strong liberal at the same time. Have never seen any contradiction.

I also read all Ayn Rand's works as a young woman and I know that greatly influenced my views re. communism.

Dawn

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I also read all Ayn Rand's works as a young woman and I know that greatly influenced my views re. communism.

I've got all of her books, too. I became fascinated by "The Fountainhead", and proceeded to immerse myself in all of her works, one after the other, back in 1998.

DL often jokes about me being a socialist with leanings toward Ayn Rand philosophies, a contradiction in terms. But now that the paradox of the two ideologies has been brought up, i.e. "anti-communist and a strong liberal...",

I can understand the association from another perspective. Although, I never thought of her life story as anything other than that of a severely oppressed

victim of another form of coup d'etat, I could empathize with her feelings of hatred for the Bolsheviks, and their particular form of barbarism.

Anytime you have persecution or oppression of creativity, whether in the artistic or literary sense of the word, or in the philosphical aspects associated with the study of economics, you have totalitarianism. This is what I believe happened to Ayn Rand's Russia. At least, that's what I gleaned from her writings.

The Bolshevik Revolution ushered in a totalitarian form of communism, similar to the form later embraced by Mao Tse Tung in the P.R.C. with its emphasis on the use of pressure to force conformity from within, for the good of the party.

Here is my dictionary's definition of fascism: n. A one-party system of government in which the individual is subordinated to the state and control is maintained by military force, secret police, rigid censorship, and governmental regimentation of industry and finance.

This is the style of oppression I read into the thread of Ayn Rand's books. Communism, on the other hand, is defined as: n 1. A social system characterized by the communal sharing of goods and services. 2. A theory of social change advocating a classless society, public ownership of almost all productive property, and the sharing of the products of labor. 3. The system in force in any state based on this theory [< F commun common, shared equally + ism]. Totalitarianism, is therefore defined as: Designating or characteristic of a government controlled exclusively by one party or faction, and maintained by political suppression.

Thus, to avoid the use of the "f" word to actually summize Ayn Rand's description of the kind of life she was forced to live under the Bolsheviks' regime, I've taken the liberty of using the totalitarian description, instead. On the other end of the spectrum you have what is called a Plutocracy: n 1. A wealthy class that controls the government, hence a government by the wealthy [<GK. ploutos wealth + krateein to rule].

Sounds like "the beltway" gang, to me.

[Terry Mauro]

Certainly Israel benefited, but it didn't have to participate. What role did it play? I suppose Israel could have helped finance it (using U.S. foreign aid money). In fact I believe Echeverria in Chicago mentioned getting Jewish money, but I think that's generally assumed to be a reference to Lansky gangsters.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ron,

The answer to your question is that I don't know what role they played but they were major beneficiaries and there is some circumstantial evidence, IMO, pointing to Jerusalem. Don't you think it's a strange coincidence that Ben Gurion resigns in July '63, telling friends he's exasperated with JFK's hardline approach to Dimona and that he's a threat to Israel's security and four months later JFK's dead? Mossad is the most efficient and savvy of intelligence agencies, whose involvement may not be noticed by those unfamiliar with the way they operate. Didn't Gerry Hemmings once state that he found out in the late '60's that Mossad knew about the assassination in advance? As you say, Rabin was reportedly in Dallas (I think it was his wife who mentions this) and the connection with Ruby's Jewish background is a point to remember. He was proud of his heritage and, according to some researchers, had often stated that people discriminated against him because of it. Throughout his life he was getting into scraps with anyone who made derogatory comments about his race. Ruby, IMO, was definitely involved in the plot to kill JFK, as well as his role in silencing Oswald.

Until your post, I was unaware of Echevarria's comments concerning Jewish money. That is interesting. He is one individual who has always interested me because of that incident, described elsewhere on the forum, when a Chicago CIA officer was ordered by HQ in Washington to return all documents relating to Echevarria immediately and not discuss him with anyone.

The problem with this aspect of JFK research is that it is a very sensitive issue and genuine research efforts can be mistaken for a witchunt directed against a race which has had its fair share of suffering throughout history. This may be why it doesn't recieve the focus that other, less productive lines of inquiry receive. Research on the Israeli Government's possible role should just be regarded as an attempt to solve the JFK riddle, similar to research efforts by others into the role of the Governments of Cuba, the Soviet Union, South Korea and the United States.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He was proud of his heritage and, according to some researchers, had often stated that people discriminated against him because of it. Throughout his life he was getting into scraps with anyone who made derogatory comments about his race.

Since when did Judaism become a race? I thought there were only three: Negro, Caucasian, and Asian, aka: Negroid, Caucasoid, and Mongoloid.

[Harry J.Dean]

Certainly Israel benefited, but it didn't have to participate. What role did it play? I suppose Israel could have helped finance it (using U.S. foreign aid money). In fact I believe Echeverria in Chicago mentioned getting Jewish money, but I think that's generally assumed to be a reference to Lansky gangsters.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ron,

The answer to your question is that I don't know what role they played but they were major beneficiaries and there is some circumstantial evidence, IMO, pointing to Jerusalem. Don't you think it's a strange coincidence that Ben Gurion resigns in July '63, telling friends he's exasperated with JFK's hardline approach to Dimona and that he's a threat to Israel's security and four months later JFK's dead? Mossad is the most efficient and savvy of intelligence agencies, whose involvement may not be noticed by those unfamiliar with the way they operate. Didn't Gerry Hemmings once state that he found out in the late '60's that Mossad knew about the assassination in advance? As you say, Rabin was reportedly in Dallas (I think it was his wife who mentions this) and the connection with Ruby's Jewish background is a point to remember. He was proud of his heritage and, according to some researchers, had often stated that people discriminated against him because of it. Throughout his life he was getting into scraps with anyone who made derogatory comments about his race. Ruby, IMO, was definitely involved in the plot to kill JFK, as well as his role in silencing Oswald.

Until your post, I was unaware of Echevarria's comments concerning Jewish money. That is interesting. He is one individual who has always interested me because of that incident, described elsewhere on the forum, when a Chicago CIA officer was ordered by HQ in Washington to return all documents relating to Echevarria immediately and not discuss him with anyone.

The problem with this aspect of JFK research is that it is a very sensitive issue and genuine research efforts can be mistaken for a witchunt directed against a race which has had its fair share of suffering throughout history. This may be why it doesn't recieve the focus that other, less productive lines of inquiry receive. Research on the Israeli Government's possible role should just be regarded as an attempt to solve the JFK riddle, similar to research efforts by others into the role of the Governments of Cuba, the Soviet Union, South Korea and the United States.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He was proud of his heritage and, according to some researchers, had often stated that people discriminated against him because of it. Throughout his life he was getting into scraps with anyone who made derogatory comments about his race.

Since when did Judaism become a race? I thought there were only three: Negro, Caucasian, and Asian, aka: Negroid, Caucasoid, and Mongoloid.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi, Terry

Yes most Jews are proud to be of the 'Semitic Race.'

Harry

[Mark Stapleton]

Mark,

I would think that the plan to assassinate JFK was already underway by July 1963, when Ben Gurion resigned. If the Mossad was involved in that plan, with the JFK problem for Israel to be solved in November, why would Ben Gurion resign? Why would the Mossad let him? Was it wise for the Israeli government to draw such dramatic attention to a motive for killing JFK, four months before killing him?

I'm not sure what to make of Rabin's presence in Dallas. (I'm sick of coincidences.) He was officially on a tour of U.S. military installations, Fort Bliss (conveniently?) being the last. It is tempting to say that Rabin was in Dallas for the assassination as an observer or invited guest. But if his wife's account is accurate of when they arrived back in Israel (in time to hear first reports of the assassination), Rabin had to have left Dallas the day before (I believe his wife was waiting in New York) or no later than early on the morning of 11/22. So why would he miss the show if that's what he was there for?

A possibility, if one assumes that Israel was involved, is that Rabin played some active role in the final planning, then left before the event, so as not to be around for appearance's sake. But there is no evidence at all of what that role might have been.

Ron

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ron,

One very interesting point you mention in your reply, and one that I have considered often is when did the assassination plan crystallize. We know the meeting from which the Texas trip was announced occurred in June but I don't know if a plan to assassinate JFK had been finalised at this point. Larry Hancock observes on another thread that tracing LBJ's activities starts to become very difficult in October. I believe, like some others, that JFK's signing of the nuclear test ban treaty in August was the last straw for the MIC, which saw them joining in. This IMO, became the green light for all involved to make final preparations. This would point to September and/or October being the critical time in the planning stage. Incidentally, I believe the assassination could never have taken place without the involvement and/or approval of the top brass in the U.S. Military. They would never appreciate being treated like fools.

My point is that David Ben Gurion's resignation occurred before assassination had become a realistic project. The assassination itself was such a work of art, making a cunningly laid ambush look to the world like the work of a lone sniper, with anti Castro Cubans and others there as an overlay, that it seems like the plan was handed over to assassination contractors, who would have to be the world's best.

The conspiring parties must have been confident because JFK had alienated so many powerful groups, that they all provided each other with camouflage.

[Mark Knight]

The conspiring parties must have been confident because JFK had alienated so many powerful groups, that they all provided each other with camouflage

Mark, this alone has been enough to make any serious investigation into the JFK assassination extremely difficult. I believe it was by design, so that the "lone nutters" could ridicule other investigators as being in conflict and disorganized...pretty much the modus operandi of folks like McAdams and Posner.

And, so far, it appears to be working; 40+ years later, we still haven't come up with an exact solution. In fact, drawing in both the PRO-Castro and the ANTI-Castro elements appears to have been a stroke of genius, as far as the sowing of seeds of confusion goes. Wading thru the misinformation/disinformation is difficult enough; add in the conflicting FACTS, and it's a wonder we've accomplished anything at all!

[Mark Stapleton]

The conspiring parties must have been confident because JFK had alienated so many powerful groups, that they all provided each other with camouflage

Mark, this alone has been enough to make any serious investigation into the JFK assassination extremely difficult. I believe it was by design, so that the "lone nutters" could ridicule other investigators as being in conflict and disorganized...pretty much the modus operandi of folks like McAdams and Posner.

And, so far, it appears to be working; 40+ years later, we still haven't come up with an exact solution. In fact, drawing in both the PRO-Castro and the ANTI-Castro elements appears to have been a stroke of genius, as far as the sowing of seeds of confusion goes. Wading thru the misinformation/disinformation is difficult enough; add in the conflicting FACTS, and it's a wonder we've accomplished anything at all!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mark,

Thanks for your thoughts.

The post assassination strategy has been almost as clever as the assassination. The conspiratorial group would have known the official edifice would soon crumble,

hence the group would have considered the cooperation of the major news services as essential. You need only contrast editorial reaction to the official line in Europe with that of America to see evidence of this. Combine Operation Mockingbird with an effluvium of phony suspects, paid LNT writers and Government disinterest and you have established a protective barrier through which genuine lines of inquiry can't be sustained. Devilishly clever.