Jump to content
The Education Forum

Robert Harper

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Robert Harper

  • Rank
    Experienced Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http//: www.RobertHarper.net

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Rotterdam, Netherlands
  • Interests
    JFK, the arts, Bach

Recent Profile Visitors

504 profile views
  1. Robert  Harper

    Why was JFK assassinated but Trump has not been?

    I think this is one important distinction. When I started a thread using the James Douglas term about Trump, I was insinuating such a topic without actually mentioning it ( a version of the unspeakable?). During his first months in office I started to grasp what it might have been like with JFK when an intelligence agency was working against him. Of course, JFK had the CIA FBI and the military against him; Trump has the military and the CIA with him and the FBI against. There is a pattern in the disruption of administrations with the other Government agencies. Carter didn't have the CIA protecting him and might have sandbagged him with a flop helicopter rescue; the MSM (CIA Mockingbird) was against him and every night spoke of how many days the hostages were being held; On the internatiuonal scene, Begin was working to elect Reagan and an October surprise which was completed to assist that goal. When Nixon started working around the Joint Chiefs, they started the Radford/Moorer affair which purloined Kissinger material and the CIA had 4 assets breaking into Watergate. Ford was a product of the power structure, as was Bush I, Bush II and Reagan, while Obama and Clinton accomodated them, rather than fight them. When intelligence agencies are against you--JFK, Nixon and Carter, you don't last. The Trump saga is ongoing; but he has aligned himself witht the forces within the power structure, with one exception- the FBI. he doesn't seem to be as threatening to the status quo as was JFK, Nixon or Carter.
  2. Robert  Harper

    Trump and the Unspeakable? Part II

    Thanks Paul for this. Much of this post reminded me of the artwork by Mark Lombardi, described in a book Interlock (2014) subtitled: Art, Conspiracy and the Shadow Worlds of Mark Lombardi. He started making a beautiful series of interweaving circles connecting names associated with the S&L Scandal of the 1980's; many of them intersected with George W.Bush. His purpose was to illustrate connections so that one can proceed studying the ramifications. I have long been interested in the Crichton-McLendon and the 488th in Dallas. I am not as familiar with De Vosjoli, Brandtetter or Skorzeny, though I intend to spend some time this weekend on them. The Angleton/Gladio/Rome nexus has always been disturbing, and Lemnitzer at NATO is an addendum of that which is not insignificant. The message you send is an important one - that things connect and that none should be ignored. A fellow member here, Doug Caddy, wrote me when I first joined, not to be discouraged by few or no comments; that the important thing was getting down the thoughts for others to read (or not to read) and that is sufficient. Keep truckin'.
  3. Robert  Harper

    The Tippit Case in the New Millenium

    Just linked by Bart K- As discussed in my essay Gerald Hill and the Framing of Lee Harvey Oswald (here), there is very good reason to believe that DPD Sgt. Gerald Hill framed Oswald for the murder of DPD officer J.D. Tippit by pretending to remove the gun most likely used to kill Tippit (WCE 143) "
  4. Robert  Harper

    Trump and the Unspeakable? Part II

    Most recently , as Joan Mellen discovered, Clay Shaw was a "highly paid"CIA assest. Helms and Shaw lied under oath about this. Shaw was on the Board of Permindex. Permindex was owned by CMC of Rome, which was founded by a Hungarian Jew named George Mandel who had deep connections with Israel and the Mossad. The Stern family funded Clay Shaw’s defense. The Stern family owned WDSU radio and TV stations in New Orleans (which broadcast Oswald's "interview") and prior to JFK’s assassination, they ran stories on Lee Harvey Oswald denouncing him as a member the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. They did not tell the people of New Orleans that this was an FBI front group. This gave Oswald the cover of being a Leftist while spying on American liberals. The Stern family was heavily invested in the NUMEC nuclear plant in Pennsylvania, which was the source of Israel’s first nuclear bomb. The London Jewish Chronicle denounced President Kennedy’s UN delegation position that displaced Palestinians had the right to return to the land that Israel had illegally taken from them during the 1948 war. The Jewish Chronicle published this in London on November 22, 1963. So, as a response to David Joseph's objection, I don't think anything has been shown to "debunk" these queries about Israel's possible participation in any US government intelligence operation. Information was withheld; the "unspeakable" was not mentioned. I also draw attention to recent comments by Noam Chomsky who reminds us that sometimes it can appear to be the tail wagging the dog, but such can be another form of a false flag. It is the dog that gets the money and gives the money. Who benefits, Chomsky asks, from this unspeakable exchange about Israel? The 10 million a day for "defensive use weapons"and other needs, go to the people making the planes and tanks and missles and bullets. There is a LOT of money in that business. Tha'st why there are so many middle men involved in arms transfers; that's why the scheme in Iran Contra used the US intelligence apparatus which used the Israeli apparatus, to give arms to the Iranians, and then bill the US again. No wonder there was 2 trillion "lost"at he Pentagon on 9/11. Nothing should be off limits when searching for truth. My reference earlier in this thread to the Nazi influence in America's ruling class is not incidental to the concept of the unspeakable. Operation Paperclip (2014) relates how certain Americans - including John McCloy and Allen Dulles of the Warren Commission, brought Nazi scientists to America along with Nazi intelligence officers, so that America could make use of their "ability" to make rockets and their"insights" into the communists. Not much attention was paid to their morality or their decision making process regarding moral judgment. It was "economic" self-interest of the half-baked variety -- concern for the economic gains guided by the "invisible hand" of the marketplace, yet devoid of any concerns for the underlying principle of exchange - the moral evaluation by the "impartial spectator" of any action. When people think of economic security or econmic upheavals, it is not unwise to think of Adam Smith's two imaginary friends from the 18th century: the behind-the-curtain-hand and the sitting-out-front-neutral-spectator. Is it any surprise that Eichmann's division was called "The Economic Department of the SS?"
  5. If it wasn't so possible, one would think it too chilling to see it as deliberate. But arranging to have her husband's head shot off inches from her, makes all things possible- including arranging someone to film it or someone to leave a message or a sign.
  6. Robert  Harper

    The Tippit Case in the New Millenium

    Joseph--do you think Oswald would have kept a gun there? I don't. I've rented a room in a place with no lock on the room. I saw that house and it had 10 renters. I don't believe for a second that there was not snooping and I think Oswald would know that. I don't know how he got the gun he had, but I just doubt it was kept on Beckley.
  7. Robert  Harper

    Trump and the Unspeakable? Part II

    I was leaving some time for David Josephs to re-comment on my comment to his post, since I respect him and his work on this Forum. I was unsuccessful in trying to message him before I comment again. This thread is meant to reflect upon - and memorialize - some aspects of James Douglas's "unspeakable"that might apply to the Trump years. His current envoys to the Middle East, Jared and Ivanka are - in Norman Finklestein's quip - the Ken and Barbie of American diplomacy. Dolls generally don't speak, and those that do, have a string that's pulled enabling them to do so. Mordecai Vanunu was the original whistleblower. In 1986 he told the world that Israel had nuclear weapons and published photos of the secret Dimona works in the British press. He said Prime Minister Ben Gurion ordered the assassination of JFK because the President opposed Israel’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. Ben Gurion resigned in protest over JFK’s Israeli policies. Vanunu also wrote a letter in 1997 saying that there was even a link between the assassination of Kennedy and Israel’s launching of the 1967 war.Vanunu was kidnapped through a ruse by Mossad, and spent 11 years in solitary confinement for his speaking of the unspeakable. To this day he is not allowed to meet with foreign visitors, nor to speak publically. Along these lines it is pertinent to recall Congressman's Paul Findlay's comment from 25 years ago: "in all the words written about the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Israel's intelligence agency, the Mossad, has never been mentioned, despite the obvious fact Mossad complicity is as plausible as any of the other theories." It shouldn't surprise anyone that he was attacked feroushly by the Lobby and did not return to Congress. The other 534 members got the message and pretty much have kept to it since (with one or two exceptions). Journalist Andrew Cockburn has stated: “There has been since almost the earliest days of the Israeli state and the earliest days of the CIA a secret bond, basically by which Israeli intelligence did jobs for the CIA and the rest of the American intelligence. You can’t understand what’s been going on with American covert operations and the Israeli covert operations unless you understand that. (Dr. Syed Mujahid Kamran 2017): "The conflict between JFK and Israel was simple, even though the JFK-Ben-Gurion correspondence, that contained evidence of this conflict, was not declassified for at least three decades after JFK’s assassination. Parts of it were kept classified even after a lapse of over four decades. There is nothing in this correspondence that should have been kept secret for so long. The correspondence reveals very clearly that JFK wanted to find out about the activities that were going on at the nuclear reactor that had been secretly built at Dimona. JFK wanted to ensure that Israel would not become a nuclear power. Perhaps the real reason for the concealment of this correspondence was to prevent the American people from becoming cognizant of Israel’s secret nuclear program. Such an awareness on the part of the American people would certainly have, at that time, led to cutting off of much needed American aid to Israel. The real beneficiary of this delayed declassification was only Israel. A deeper reason could be that had the public known of this correspondence, Mossad would have been, along with the CIA, a real suspect in the JFK assassination." Avner Cohen and William Burr have written on this topic and Jim DiEugenio has referenced them. A review of the film JFK, referred to it as "the Kosher Version" which 10 years ago or 30 years ago, I would have thought absurd. Oliver Stone was a truth-seeker, and to me, has always had a halo affixed to him for his work on that film alone. How many works of art have had a political punch like that one? Lincoln thought that Uncle Tom's Cabin had. Thomas Paine maybe with Common Sense? To Kill a Mockingbird? Catch-22? Grapes of Wrath? The list isn't that long. But since the premiere of JFK, I've read books on Angleton and on counterintelligence; we've had the disclosures of JFK and Ben-Gurion letters; we've had historians reviewing JFK's actions against colonialisms of all kinds. We now have information that Angleton - who was in charge of the the Israeli division of the CIA also had organized crime attachments (John Whitten testimony to both House and Senate) that ran deep. We learned in Jefferson Morley's book, that Israel has two monuments to Angleton; and we have learned drip-by-drip of the connections Angleton had with the fascist Gladio and P-2 in Italy. It was Angleton, who took over from Whitten, the CIA "investigation" of Lee Harvey Oswald. We have since learned that the producer of the film, Arnon Milchan, was a long time Mossad asset who has recently boasted of his friendship with the guiding light of the Dimona project Shimon Peres, as well as his own participation in the acquisition of the nuclear material. Indeed after reading The Zhivago Affair (2014) subtitled: The Kremlin, the CIA and the Battle over a Forbidden Book and Who Paid the Piper (1999) subtitled: The CIA and the Cultural Cold War, I no longer approach works from any studio or publishing house, without wondering if - and to what extent - the CIA as America''s propaganda tool, is involved. False flags can be placed in artworks as well as in newspapers or on ships. This speculation doesn't demean Stone, nor diminish his accomplishment; rather it is meant to illustrate how writers on the NY Times, Washington Post or The Nation magazine likely didn't know of the absence of an impartial spectator in their exchange with their employer. It certainly was an "invisible hand" that moved the market of ideas post WW II, but it was a greedy and slippery and tax deductable hand as well. - .
  8. Robert  Harper

    Trump and the Unspeakable? Part II

    "unspeakable" has a long tradition in history. In 1824, on this day May 17, the publisher John Murray decided to destroy the manuscript of Byron's memoirs (which he has been given to publish) because he (and a couple of others) believed they would damage Byron's reputation. All of a sudden, Byron's truth is tossed out in favor of Murray and pals. Anyone hear echoes of Dulles & his pals? A tangential thought relating to this thread topic, evoked memories of my first encounter with Trump and the concept. Watching the first big debate of the Republican Primary during the 2016 election, - with about 12 candidates, senators & governors and all the usual suspects and Trump was center stage. First question to him is by a woman who asks about his comments about women being fat or stupid or ugly or something. In the midst of the question, I recall thinking - how will he answer this? Deny the use of such terms? attack fake news that reports it?Pontificate on the #MeToo rights of women? - and while these thoughts brew, Trump interrupts to say --- No No! No! that was just about Rosie O'Donnell. I burst out laughing as did much of the audience. Why that response from him or me or the audience? Never a good idea to analyze a laugh; but that one begged for one. It was shockingly hurtful and insensitive; it went right at the claim of the reported quote, and it completely upset our mental preparation for the expected pontificating on "values". That he also managed to divert the question itself was a result of the laugh. Things that are unexpected can make us laugh; what we expect at any given time can be evaluated, in some ways, by the laughs they produce.On another thread, there was a discussion of Lenny Bruce opening his act after JFK's death. He handled the unspeakable of that day with a response that got a laugh. JFK would get a laugh - and he got many - by embracing the topic raised, facing it with wit or a succinct evaluation. I don't recall any political laugh generated by an interruption that manged to simultaneously deflate the impact of an accusation, acknowledge a truth within it, and at the same time, insult and demean an individual. Maybe Andrew Jackson pulled something like that off - he was around at the time publisher Murray decided that some things about Lord Byron were "unspeakable," but one has to go that far back I think, to find it in American politics.
  9. Robert  Harper

    Trump and the Unspeakable? Part II

    The attached link is an example of "the unspeakable" in the United States, today. No wonder for the past 30 years no one speaks about it; they never hear about it, and if they do hear about it, it's from a few media companies or a "passionate" statement from one of the American PR folks, formally known as members of Congress. Others are from numerous tax-exempt "Think Tanks" and "Agency for the Advances or (fill in) or any PAC). The reporter is right- these pictures do not appear in main American Media .A teenager shot in the head for running around at a protest? A mother jailed because she showed the video of her daughter getting slapped? The daughter, a teenager, gets jailed for slapping the face of an occupying military enforcer? Eventually, this too shall pass. The recording of Rodney King caught business as usual in the USA in many, many places.The internet will change that, but it takes time and resistance to the control of access. John and Robert Kennedy's murder was "solved" within 48 hours. One was blamed on a "communist" and the other a "Palestinian"; 9/11 was "solved" in 24 hours, blamed were the" terrorists." What gets heard, who gets heard? Who is part of the racket? What is so unspeakable? No Americans have ever seen the images posted here on the main stream media and yet their leaders and PR Congress regurgitate the same stupidity. How can one justify the the stupidity of the comments regurgitated by the pimps of the warfare Lobby? Why is America supportive of this? In less than 10 minutes this video offers a combination of the topics recently brought up these threads threads. This Executive action (opening of the Embassy; the Obama Inauguration); and, at the same time, the unspeakable occurs with Operation Cast Lead or Operation Kill the Protesters. https://israelpalestinenews.org/noura-erakat-articulately-and-compellingly-summarizes-the-palestinian-cause-memorize-this/
  10. Robert  Harper

    Trump and the Unspeakable? Part II

    Thank you for this translation. It can be absorbed easier, if one is unfamiliar with any writings on Gladio or P-2, by watching the Italian film Il Divo (WIKI: The Celebrity or more literally The Divine, from latin divus, god) , a 2008 Italian biographical drama film directed by Paolo Sorrentino. It is based on the figure of former Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti. The killing of Moro is not widely known in America (no surprise there) but it is a sad, brutal act, pinned on others("the communists") by an infiltrator ( "nazis-like") because the "communists(= "terrorist"?) might get elected. Pope Paul VI, wept for his friend.
  11. Robert  Harper

    The Tippit Case in the New Millenium

    Thanks again for this. Not unrelated (I hope) is the attached video. (note 4 hrs later: It is unrelated enough to take off, but I don't know how to do it) In my book, this is someone with a little more experienced, and a camera, but he still gets the SANDY SERRANO AWARD, given to those whose instinct tells them to resist tyranny. (note: If you do watch-- 3 different paid law enforcers participate in "the investigation" plus another shows up with a dog; 3 have cameras - video and still, and use them in a cam-warfare with the citizen--who is already identified by a current license plate. Taxpayers pay for this: one is each associated with an auto, guns, training, pension, health insurance. Lawfare prevails.
  12. Robert  Harper

    Trump and the Unspeakable? Part II

    from May 15 issue of The Intercept: (#2 House Dem)"Hoyer has sided not only with the Israelis, but also with the Trump administration, which on Monday quashed a resolution calling for an independent inquiry into the killings in Gaza. On Tuesday, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, said Israel acted with “restraint” in its response to Palestinian protesters. She walked out of the room when the Palestinian delegation spoke. Hoyer, the minority whip, was referring to a threat he claimed Israel faces from Hamas. But it was unarmed civilian protesters, not militants, who Israeli soldiers targeted on Monday, killing at least 58 people and injuring 2,771 others, according to the Palestinian Health Ministry." Imagine law enforcers in the American South in the 1956 using snipers to kill unarmed demonstrators against segregation. When dogs, fire hoses and batons were used, outrage was evoked. The killing of 3 young men caused an uproar. Who was "right" and who was "wrong" got clarified by their actions. Now 60 years later, leading American pols support such a notion -- claiming that the occupier has to "protect its borders" by killing women and children and unarmed civilians. In addition of course, the official borders of Israel do not exist; the borders described are their version of what constitutes their border. from Seymour Hersh's The Samson Option (1991): The Presidents's apprehension about the Israeli bomb was undoubtedly a factor in his surprising appointment of John McCone to replace Allen Dulles as CIA director in the wake of the Bay of Pigs debacle. There was every political reason not to appoint him: McCone not only was a prominent Republican but had spoken out against the White Houses's much-desired test ban treaty with the Soviet Union. Arthur Schlesinger writes that Kennedy, obviously sensitive about his preference, invited McCone to a private 2 hour meeting....There is no public record of what the two discussed, although Ben-Gurion's latest annoying letter had arrived only days before and the Soviet Union had announced the resumption of nuclear testing, ending the informal US-USSR moratorium. In any case, McCone subsequently told Walt Elder, his executive assistant in the CIA, that Kennedy had complained to him about the fact that he was "getting all sorts of conflicting advice on the whole range of nuclear issues," including the Israeli bomb..... What Kennedy did not tell his Ambassador(in Greece) was that inspection rights to Dimona were at stake. That message was personally relayed to Ben-Gurion by Meyer Feldman, who was dispatched in August to inform the Israeli government of the sale (Hawk airplane sale)and what Jack Kennedy wanted in return. ... Ben-Gurion took no chances: the American inspectors - most of them experts in nuclear reprocessing-would be provided with a Potemkin Village and never know it....a false control room was constructed at Dimona, complete with false control panels and computer-driven measuring devices that seemed to be gauging the thermal output...there were extensive practice sessions in the fake control room....In Abe Feinberg's view, Kennedy's unyielding demand for an inspection had left Israel with no option: "It was part of my job to tip them off that Kennedy was insisting on this. So they gave him a scam job." In other words, America's "best Ally" lied to them. Ben-Gurion resigned in May 1963. Following JFK's murder, Israel resumed testing and faking all through the Johnson and Nixon years. Is is any wonder when the world asks why other countries must adhere to rules ignored by Israel? I also wrote in another thread, that the terrorist Shamir - who became Prime Minister(as did fellow terrorists Begin and Sharon) - said that the murder of Swedish diplomat Count Bernadotte who was sent to head negotiations over Jerusalem was "justified, because "Jerusalem was worth a life." Well, 60 years on and we are seeing how many lives Jerusalem "is worth." I think it's an open question whether or not the Mossad assisted in the planning or murder of JFK. If the Bloomfield papers are ever opened to the public, maybe more will be known to deflect or support such notions. I have also read Matteson's book How Denial and Deception Armed Israel(2016). Among tidbits the following: "What Einstein,Oppenheimer and Teller, the three of them are Jews, made for the United States, could also be done by scientists in Israel for their own people....The triumvirate of Ben-Gurion, Peres, and Bergmann drove the Israeli nuclear weapons program...The coincidence between truth and myth is not accidental--Ben-Gurion designed it that way." David Josephs - If you are referring to the book Final Judgment by Michael Piper Collins (1993), I might remind you that that book - like the Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy by professors Mearsheimer and Walt (2007) were widely condemned as the "a" word by the same people who attacked the Goldstone Report. In a silence encouraged society it is always wise to preface any remark about them, by first distancing oneself from their image even before addressing their information or conclusions. This is a form of the unspeakable, and as history has shown, such leads to bloodshed.
  13. I deliberately used the term - "unspeakable" - that James Douglas made concomitant with JFK's murder - as a reference to those topics that are not spoken about in public. I found it appropriate in the MSU proceedings about Mr. Nasser, because it involved the breaking of trust and the abuse of authority which was sheltered by the silence such situations evoke. Very few people and practically no media outlet questioned the Warren Commission results. Mark Lane had to have his books published in Canada and France to be heard. For many years, the very notion of a coup d'etat was suppressed; many were concerned that the USA would look like a "Banana Republic." In Trump and the Unspeakable? post, I wanted to explore the ways other agencies in the government work to support or undermine the Executive. I offered Joseph DiGenova's take on the current investigations and included in a later post, a synopsis of the origin of the Congressional Hearings that began to decipher some of these unspoken-about-activities by individuals in certain agencies of the government. These Hearings lead to investigating any involvement of the government in the deaths of JFK or MLK. No one knows what the current investigation authorized by the Congress will reveal - or lead to. However, on the day when there are reports of 60 dead Palestinians - including children and journalists - following the Trump decision to unilaterally place the American Embassy in what the world regards as "occupied territory," one is forced to wonder how this will reverberate. There is a natural inclination to wonder what, if anything, is "unspeakable" about this laissez faire attitude about the deaths of civilians in land occupied by an alleged ally. Executive actions and violence are often intertwined. When Clinton was being investigated by Congress, he bombed Iraq; right before Obama was inaugurated, Israel killed 1300 civilians in occupied Gaza including 500 women and children while it razed over 11,000 homes. No Israeli civilians were killed; one home was partially damaged. Why so little attention to when these incidents occurred? Why has this not been a subject of discussion in Congress and the public? Why did Governor Cuomo sign a bill prohibiting commerce with any company who joins the boycott against the Israeli occupation? Didn't it used to be the other way round? South Africa was successfully boycotted by many in the free world for it's racist occupation of land and criminal abuse of the indigenous people. Why is such an effort now considered "bad?" Has Israel been made critic proof by attacking those who bring up the subject? This is one of the premier "unspeakable" topics in America today. One of the ways the "unspeakable" defends its presence in government, is by having shils attack any counter view. We have seen in other threads comments by Harvey and Morales and Pawley and many others, that JFK was guilty of "treason" for not using violence when they thought it proper. Richard Goldstone - an esteemed South African jurist who was Chair of the Kosovo tribunal ( as well as a Jewish Zionist) chaired an investigation into the attack on Gaza. When his report came out, saying, among other things, that the UN should urge the Security Council to refer the matter to the International Criminal Court, the ubiquitous Alan Dershowitz called him a "traitor" and Shimon Peres called him " a small man, devoid of any sense of justice." The morally challenged PM, Netanyahu, said that the Goldstone report "was a kangeroo court against Israel." Remember when Curtis LeMay referred to "Munich" when JFK wouldn't bomb Cuba? Well, the Knesset Speaker Rivlin warned that the report would "usher in a new era in Western civilization, similar to the one we remember from the Munich agreement." If one were to use a Hitler analogy discussing the assault on Gaza, who are the "Jews" and who is "Hitler?" During JFK's presidency, no one ever spoke of the disagreement with Ben-Gurion about JFK's desire to limit Israeli nuclear production. When a whistleblower in Israel exposed the truth to the world in 1986, he was kidnapped by the Mossad and held in solitary confinement for 11 years. This wasn't spoken about. One hears of Snowden as a "traitor" and Ellsburg as a "traitor" because each placed - echoing the Nuremberg principles - his conscience above the dictates of government. When the fierce attacks on Richard Goldstone became unbearable for him, he wrote an Op-Ed piece distancing himself from what his own committee had produced. It didn't enhance his reputation as an honorable jurist, but no matter - that was enough for the US Senate to vote to reject the investigation's findings, and Goldstone was again allowed back into the tribe. Is this the sort of morality we want? If International law is ignored on this case, will it be ignored in other cases? Once Johnson became president, Israel developed the bomb without acknowledging it, and attacked the USS Liberty, killing 34 Americans while trying to create a "false flag" attack that would force the US into the War with Egypt. This became the only American attack of a ship never fully investigated by the US Navy. This was done by an ally.Why? When George Bush #41 ran for president, no one spoke of his family's past. I didn't know about Prescott Bush and his being the banker of the Union Bank that supplied Hitler until forced to close by the FBI in 1942. There was no discussion about "Operation Paperclip" which brought Nazi war criminals to America by McCloy and others, rather than have them hung or recruited by Russia. This was not spoken about. The use of Nazis was unspeakable. The connection of America's ruling class with the Nazis was unspeakable. In 2001, President Bush announced a "war on terror"--the result was akin to having a war against anger - a never ending war against those who are against whatever empire abuses the US - or Israel - engages in. History books in America tell of the displacement of the indigenous tribes roaming the land, as does the Australian books about their efforts to cleanse the land of those who lived there. When Israel--according to international law - occupies another country and prohibits the realization for self determination of those inhabitants- indeed, terrorizes them and humiliates them, while caging almost 2 million people in an "outdoor prison" in David Cameron's words, why is it not talked about? The Trump national security people seem averse to the UN which was created after two devastating world wars. The US and Israel ignore the jurisdiction of the UN Criminal Court. Why? Whenever a vote occurs in the UN general Assembly about the Palestine-Israel issue, the vote is usually around 160 to 4. Within the 4, are the US and Israel. Who is the moral authority here? Is the rest of the world wrong? Why is that gulf not spoken about? Currently another topic has been unspeakable--the attacks of 9/11. No one questioned the official version. Did some guys in a cave pierce a 500 billion dollar Defense system? How did they do that? Why did a steel building "collapse" that wasn't even hit. Why was that 47 story building not even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report? Don't talk of the unspeakable. Oh, yeah, on the day before 9/11, Rumsfeld announced an accounting loss at the Pentagon of 2 trillion dollars(!!); next day, the accounting offices are all destroyed by....something that hit and pulverized the area. Convenient or random? Was Larry Silverstein lucky - like Abraham Zapruder was lucky? Or was each part of the action? No one talks about it. It's now 17 years post 9/11. At this point after JFK's killing, we had books by Lane,Buchanan, Meagher, Sauvage and others; we had the Clay Shaw trial with Jim Garrison; the House Committee on Assassinations & the Watergate Hearings; we had George Bush installed as head of the CIA and Jimmy Carter was president, running for re-election with hostages in Iran as he became a victim of an "October Surprise" by the CIA. Books about the JFK killing were done not by journalists, but by independent scholars. Richard Popkin was a philosopher, Lane a lawyer. In the 15 years after 9/11, there have been books by a process theologian, David Griffin, by a scientist Judy Wood and by writers Christopher Bollyn, Philip Marshall, Thierry Meyssan and Peter Dale Scott (of course). But why is the topic of government involvement in the tragedy still unspeakable? What are the elements that dictate that a topic shall not be discussed? Why are some topics--but not others--unspeakable?
  14. Robert  Harper


    Not a man of his word either. What keeps him coming back for "jing-jang banter?"
  15. Robert  Harper


    This post manages to be supercilious, gratuitous, and offensive. I saw a recent post from Mr Hagger about his request for info on an LHO bio; a number of members offered some advice. Next post, he complained about not getting one (from others) and that transformed his search into the dictum that there wasn't one complete standard biography OR "the members don't read biographies." Apart from the fallacy of its either/or thesis, it seemed unnecessarily dismissive of the efforts some spent assisting him (Paul Brancato's post says as much). This latest pronouncement from the cavalier mountaintop, serves to demean others while it raises up Mr. Hagger's own intellectual integrity and research purity. We have been warned by the imperious one to be like him; after all, he "doesn't give a rat's ass" about the Kennedy brothers and he likes to avoid "cults." Those who are impressed by this sort of pontificating should continue to read him, I suppose. However, as someone who has been immensely enriched by reading (many of the) posts of this forum, which were placed over a dozen year spread, I find his haughty dismissal of the affection and concern people have for the Kennnedy brothers, presumptuous as well as inaccurate. Members are serious (mostly), original research as well as informed commentary is frequently displayed, and an underlying affection for JFK and concern over the reasons for his death predominates in most of them. I don't think members need to pay attention to Mr Hagger's swagger; he put this subject all in CAPS because...well, you know, it's IMPORTANT and he's IMPORTANT.