Jump to content
The Education Forum

James DiEugenio

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About James DiEugenio

  • Rank
    Super Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

17,174 profile views
  1. JFK had planned on visiting Sukarno in 1964 and there is strong evidence that what he wanted to do was to defuse that whole Malaysian Konfrontasi that was looming and would be part of the reason for the masterful coup against Sukarno in 1965. In a kind of Pacifica, Democracy Now leftist twist, Kirk always tries to lower the debate into a kind of mudslinging contest on this issue. I said two things: first, there is a definite attempt to smear the Kennedys and JFK's presidency in the MSM. I stand by that. And if you want to ignore the connections I drew in the essay that is fine. But they are there, e.g. Loomis and Hersh. And just look at Thomas Reeves' membership in this group: https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Badger_Institute Kirk tries to confuse the issue by saying that there is money involved. Well duh! Everyone knows that Hersh got in the high six figures, maybe a million for his hatchet job--but to me that just shows the two are intertwined. Thomas Reeves got another book contract for another right wing mission after the Kennedy book. The right is very much better organized for these kinds of endeavors. To show another example, Discovery Channel sponsored the excruciatingly bad specials that the late Gary Mack hosted on the JFK murder. Five years later, on the 50th of RFK and 55th of JFK, here they come on the careers and lives of JFK and RFK, another very bad one. https://kennedysandking.com/reviews/cnn-disservices-history-american-dynasties-the-kennedys The second thing I said in that essay was that this kind of double barreled attack is so omnipresent that its effective. Its brought down the percentage of the public that thinks the Warren Commission is wrong by about 20 percent since its high point in the mid nineties. It has not quite done the same with the public and JFK's presidency, but there is a miasma now. It goes like this: he might have been a good president, but geez he was also taking LSD trips with Mary Meyer etc. Its baloney but its there and so you have to clear it away to get to the point. I agree on the larger issue with WN. The bigger picture is to control the range or spectrum of debate. And I have to admit, its been pretty successful. When you get presidents like Clinton and Obama, and HRC as a candidate, its not very inspiring. Hopefully Ocasio Cortez, Pressley and the sisters club in the House will do something to break the mold. At least she's trying: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-primary-house-democrats_us_5bf0e5f6e4b07573881f184a
  2. Thanks gentlemen. What Payette is doing is conflating two essays of mine. One I wrote back in the late nineties, "The Posthumous Assassination of John F. Kennedy" ( which is in the anthology The Assassinations) and the present one on the Kennedys and civil rights. They are indirectly related. As per the thesis of the first one, I am even more convinced today than I was then that it is correct. That is because there has been even more evidence adduced in that regard. In one of the reissues of his book Of Kennedys and Kings, Harris Wofford revealed that he had a hard time finding a publisher for that book because they wanted him to spice it up with sex stories about JFK. He said he could not do that since even though he had been with the guy for two years, he never saw any evidence of that. So he ended up going with a university press. Also, I had the privilege of meeting the best researcher there is on this topic. She exposed the whole David Heymann hoax and she is busy constructing a web site on her discoveries. With what she has collected, it turns out to be not what I wrote about but, in some ways, even worse than that. The smear the Kennedys effort is really an industry in which the participants regularly communicate with each other, even to the point of exchanging research assistants. So much for Payette's "sloppy research". How can anyone label a book as abominable as Sy Hersh's as "sloppy research"? There were too many instances where Hersh knew the matters he was dealing with stunk to high heaven, but he proceeded anyway. I also do not understand how one can write two books on JFK, totaling about 1000 pages, and somehow not note the importance of Edmund Gullion. But Robert Dallek did so. Again, I do not see that as an accident. As per this essay, it fits into my previous thesis in the sense that I find it hard to believe that in producing a book on JFK and ciivl rights, that somehow Mr. Levingston missed all the matters that I managed to find. And that he somehow could not assemble a chart like the one I did at the end of part 3, listing JFK's achievements in comparison to FDR, Truman and Ike. That chart shows that Kennedy achieved three times as much in the field, in about 1/9 the time. Or that, as I showed in part 2, it simply was not realistically possible to get a civil rights bill through congress in 1961 or 1962. Which vitiates the main tenet upon which both the Bryant and the Levingston books are based. The evidence I amassed there was available to both writers. They ignored it. For that reason, I do not consider it an accident that they ignored it. Not when you are writing a book on the subject. Finally, the traditional reasons given for why JFK does not score higher in those historian votes on best presidents is that he was only in office for something less than three years. Therefore, the record he produced is not as clear or as pronounced as say FDR or Eisenhower. That is, of course, a defensible position. But I would argue that 1.) Its not very courageous, and 2.) Its kind of lazy. Considering the fact that Kennedy was only in office for three years, the achievements he did have were considerable--and I noted that in this current essay. In fact when one compares his civil rights record with his predecessors, its more than considerable, its admirable. Secondly, it is possible to put together the outlines of what Kennedy was driving for in certain areas, for example, in his foreign policy and in economics. And scholars who are not as lazy and not as weak kneed have done this e.g. Donald Gibson in the latter, and Robert Rakove in the former. But their books, unlike Hersh and Dallek, are not endorsed by the likes of Time magazine or the New York Times. Again, I do not consider that an accident.
  3. Let me comment on something that the acute WN noted earlier. It is truly incredible that by the Gilded Age, when most of those sickening confederate monuments went up, Robert E. Lee was being hailed as some kind of a great hero throughout the land, and US Grant was being caricatured as a sodden, drunken fool, tripping over himself in the White House. I think this can only be understood with regard to that phenomenon I wrote about at the end of Part 1, the cover up that was snapped on in both the mass media and in academia. Except in this case, I think the Dunning School of book writing was really more guilty. But nevertheless, it caught on. I also blame this continued imagery on that inflated mediocrity Ken Burns and what he did with his long series on the Civil War. I thought it was outrageous that he gave so much more screen time to that confederate apologist Shelby Foote and his whole Lost Cause spiel. Someone counted the instances he was on versus everyone else, it was not even close. Burns made Foote a millionaire because it greatly boosted the sale of his books. Geez. I really think this is one reason the MSM liked that series. Someone said, why don't they construct a statue of Lee whipping his slaves and put it on display at UV? I would actually think it better to put up a dual statue there, outside the law school of both Kennedys with King. Won't happen, even though RFK went to that law school. In fact, it would never even get out of the gate I would wager.
  4. The only answer to that question I have is two fold and resembles Ron. 1. In congress, LBJ was very close to Richard Russell. As I noted, he saw what happened to his mentor as a result of Jim Crow in the south. Russell, who had national aspirations, could not make headway in the north and west because of the issue. LBJ then reversed course in 1957 in order for a prospective run at the White House in 1960. 2. As Clay Risen shows in his book The Bill of the Century, LBJ really did not have a big role in the 1964 act. He deferred to JFK and then RFK after Dallas. But the fact that it started under him as VP and ended under him at POTUS meant that he could not now turn back. Especially after he told the country he was going to continue with Kennedy's policies. (Which as WN notes he did not on Vietnam.) But civil rights was much more immediately visible, what with Selma etc. But its really unfortunate, when you read part 4, what LBJ did with the War on Poverty. I mean, I think the Kennedys looked at that as being the continuation of the failed Reconstruction of 1865-76. And with Dave Hackett and RFK's wonderful idea about the CDC's it may have succeeded. I will say this, without Vietnam, and with JFK campaigning on the issue in 1964, I do not think what did happen, would have happened. That is, the anti war demonstrations and racial rioting breaking the USA apart and giving us Nixon.
  5. James DiEugenio

    CAPA - "Last Living Witnesses" - Dallas Nov. 15, 2018

    Larry: What happened to the film of the doctors that was shown during the mock trial? Is that going to be broadcast on cable or network?
  6. James DiEugenio

    Book Excerpt-Fred Litwin

    If this is an example of Litwin's book, then what a waste of trees. And it explains why no one is buying it. And why Parnell likes it. That excerpt is nothing but a collection of discredited anti Garrison cliches that are older than the hills. There is not one sentence based on any of the remarkably important documents that the ARRB has already released on the subject. Garrison raided gay bars? What a howler. Garrison raided the B girl drinking saloons, and he did it quite effectively. Because they sold watered down liquor in a cheap hustle for sex and booze. He deliberately did not use the police, since they protected the scam. No one had ever done anything that effective against this kind of vice charge. All prior attempts had been half hearted or had failed when they raised too much controversy. No one thought Garrison would keep it up in the face of that. But he did. In one night Garrison arrested 33 people. In two days he shut down nine clubs. It went on for months. Garrison hired completely new people who would not be recognized by the patrons of the clubs. Litwin completely misses the point of how this impacted Garrison's search for Bertrand. Garrison did so much economic damage to the Quarter that people who knew that Bertrand was Clay Shaw would not tell him so. Therefore, when Lou Ivon now told him that this was probably why they were not getting any cooperation, Garrison decided not to be on the searches anymore. So now they did get some people to talk to them about who Bertrand was. Today, there are now fourteen witnesses on the record who certify that Shaw was Bertrand. You can find them in Bill Davy's book, or in the second edition of Destiny Betrayed. (pp. 210-11) Litwin's book, if this is an example, is another cover up book.
  7. But I look at that Ron as the failure of Eisenhower and Nixon to support the decision. I mean can you imagine that they just left those poor kids in Prince Edward County with no schools? And one of the big problems Kennedy had there was the fact that Eisenhower had appointed guys like Haynsworth to the Fourth Circuit. See, Kennedy could work with the Fifth Circuit, but it was harder in Virginia. If you recall, when Nixon started enacting the Southern Strategy, Haynsworth was one of the guys he tried to get on the Supreme Court. The idea that JFK had to actually create an entire school system for those kids in Prince Edward is kind of incredible. But that is how almost pathologically prejudiced their leaders were. (Meanwhile Thurmond is having an illegitimate child with an Afro American woman.) The other thing is: Why did the networks not expose these awful things? I mean these were startling stories that had great visual and dramatic value. Where was NBC or CBS? Its not like their reporters did not want to do these stories. ABC had a guy, Jim Wooten, who was so inspired by RFK's visit to Mississippi that he wrote a story about it and kept it in his jacket pocket the rest of his career. This is what RFK talked to Tom Hayden about in 1967, TV time, something he was going to push for. Which is probably why Hayden was seen sitting alone in a pew at St Patrick's weeping at Kennedy's requiem mass. One of the things I learned while doing this research is just how nutty the pathology of the south was, and how it was allowed to grow and fester because the Republican Party deserted its ideals upheld by Lincoln. (As Andrej said, this probably impacts on the attitude of the Dallas authorities toward the FJK case) And how the Supreme Court and several presidents did absolutely nothing about it. I mean, how about that picture with Coolidge and those Confederate veterans? In fact, this research was so disturbing that I was reminded of the fate of Iris Chang after her book on Nanjing.
  8. Agree on both points Paul. McCloy did not complete the deNazification process in Germany. And then he and Dulles imported all those Gehlen guys into US intel. Terrible decision. In the south, once Sumner and Stevens passed on, and Hayes agreed to that deal, it was all downhill for generations. This is why the south fought so hard against Brown vs Board. The more I learn about the Eisenhower/Nixon regime, the worse they get. See, they really created that huge mess for Kennedy to eradicate. But it was actually worse since they tacitly were in sync with the south, which Truman was not. That is why Truman made those tough speeches against Ike in 1952. If you read Newman's second volume, and you read these essays, man Eisenhower had a really good press for way too long. I mean how along can you float on the interstate highway system and your farewell address. And BTW, when JFK tried to pass a modest voting rights act in 1962, Ike says its unconstitutional! That is like saying the 15th amendment is unconstitutional.
  9. I should have replied more specifically to W. N. I have no idea why Hayes would be such a sucker. If that is what it was. But that was just a terrible decision since it betrayed Lincoln, and the Republican party. From then, with the help of Grant's appointees to the Supreme Court, the GOP became the party of business, and as I noted, they expanded the 14th amendment for corporations as they reduced it for the freedmen. The whole thing about corporations having the rights of persons etc. The other thing about the canonization of Lee, I totally agree with that. Never understood it. Why not build a statute of him whipping his slaves? And this is why I never liked the Ken Burns series about the civil war. To give that whole Lost Cause crap so much time with the foremost apologist for it, Shelby Foote,, that was just not excusable. Burns made Foote a millionaire. But then of course, he did the same thing with his series on Vietnam. He actually tried to say there was something noble about it, as he softened just how bad it really was. I mean three presidents contemplated using atomic weapons there: Ike, LBJ and Nixon. Did Burns bring that up? Heck no. And to never mention NSAM 263 and what Kennedy did to see it through a reluctant cabinet? But anyway, this is getting some nice complements from people who were bamboozled by the MSM assault. Hopefully it will have some kind of effect.
  10. Yes it does Joe. There are some thing I disagree with him about, but I think his book is state of the art on the Tippit murder and is a good antidote to Dale Myers. Joe did a lot of research on the police force and got some interesting interviews to give us some insight into that mentality.
  11. I should add, I wrote this for the reasons I stated above, because the MSM was trying to distort the record. Which is why I went after those four guys. But once I got to part 3, I began to think that hey, this would provide good motivation for the cops in the south, specifically, Dallas to do what they did in this case. If we recall, Kennedy made his national address on TV in June, just five months before the assassination. And then he got behind the March on Washington, which was just three months before the assassination, and that was nationally televised also. So yes Andrej, that would have impacted the case down there in Tarrant County.
  12. Thanks Andrej. My short answer is yes. I mean take a look at how Joe McBride analyzes the Dallas police force and how many Klan guys were in it. Also get a load of what Joe says about Bill Alexander.
  13. Thanks Ron and and W. N. The Tulsa Massacre was really frightening. I mean they went after those people because they were middle class! Just like in Ocoee Florida they had the audacity to want to vote! And the Supreme Court and all those presidents made it worse. As per LBJ, as the Risen books proves, he converted maybe one vote in 1964. That was really JFK and RFK who got that bill passed, with help from Humphrey and Kuchel on the GOP side. I thought the most interesting thing I discovered was the whole episode about the War on Poverty not being LBJ's idea, but he tried to pass in off as if it was. And then he screwed it up by dumping Dave Hackett who had been working on it for three years! And RFK warned him what would happen without Hackett. And then, as RFK predicted again, America started to burn in 1965 with Watts. And it went on until 1968. And that gave Reagan and Nixon their opening to crack the Democratic coalition, along with Vietnam of course. It really makes me sick that we went from JFK, to Johnson, and then Nixon. Its like Dwight Macdonald said, "Its rather discouraging when your Dump Johnson movement works and then you get----Nixon."
  14. Joe, I deal with that in parts 3 and 4. Kennedy understood that he would now lose the south. In fact, RFK offered to resign in November of 1963 since he now appeared too far out there on the issue. When the Kennedys faced off against Wallace at Alabama, that was nationally broadcast. To save a repeat of what happened at Ole Miss, Katzenbach had to give in to Wallace, and let him have his speech, since he had assembled 895 state and local police there against 3000 troops. Contrary to popular belief, that was not worked out until that morning. The Kennedys did not know what Wallace would do until then. In fact, RFK thought they might have to shove the two students through the furthest door, which is in that film Crisis. But Wallace said after that he had now turned the south against the Democratic Party for at least a generation. It was really a tragic situation, since as i described in Part one, all the previous presidents refused to confront the problem..Some of them, like Wilson and Taft, made it worse. And Nixon and Eisenhower did next to nothing even though they had the Brown decision in their laps. So it all fell to JFK. At the end of part 3, I put together a chart showing what he achieved versus what his three predecessors did. He did about three times as much as all of them combined in about 1/7 the time.
  15. This essay is part of the phenomenon I call the Posthumous Assassination of JFK. I have been working on this for a long time, going back to the nineties. The idea is to kill the man's image and reputation and somehow that will take the sting out of his assassination. The MSM goes to amazing lengths on this subject e.g. Sy Hersh, the late John Davis, Thomas Reeves, Collier and Horowitz. I figured with this being the 55th anniversary of JFK's death, plus the fiftieth of his brother and King, they would do something like that with respect to President Kennedy and civil rights. Well, they did. Here is my reply: https://kennedysandking.com/reviews/the-kennedys-and-civil-rights-how-the-msm-continues-to-distort-history-part-1