Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Sign in to follow this  
Paul Rigby

The Minority of One on the assassination of JFK

Recommended Posts

December 1963 – Number 49 (Volume 5, No 12)

M.S.Arnoni, “The Assassination,” special one-page editorial insert between pp.12-13

January 1964 – Number 50 (Volume 6, No 1)

M.S.Arnoni, “Who Killed Whom and Why,” pp.1, 12-13

Eric Norden, “The Death of a President,” pp.16-23

“From Readers’ Letters: The Assassination,” p.30: David B. Lord; Mrs. Alice G. Harris; Silas Walter Adams; & A.B.Billing.

February 1964 – Number 51 (Volume 6, No 2)

M.S.Arnoni, “Redemption through Accession,” p.4

M.S.Arnoni, “Two Widows,” pp.4-5

Bertrand Russell, “From Readers’ Letters: The Assassination,” p.22

March 1964 – Number 52 (Volume 6, No 3)

M.S.Arnoni, “Mr. Warren’s Prerogative,” p.2

“From Readers’ Letters: ‘Death of a President,’” p.22: G.A.Campbell; Frank Fodor; Harold Silverman; Robert S. Lynd; and Mrs. Betty Sobel.

April 1964 – Number 53 (Volume 6, No 4)

M.S.Arnoni, “An Open Letter to Chief Justice Earl Warren,” pp.1-2

First appeared as a paid advertisement in the NYT of 2 March 1964

M.S.Arnoni, “The Investigation,” p.4

“From Readers’ Letters: Comments on TMO’s Open Letter to Chief Justice Earl Warren,” pp.22-24: Thomas F. Stanton; Schuyler Van Rensslaer; Mortimer May; Joseph Deretchin; Richard Stephen Abrams; Zenida St. George; H. Hilton; Mrs. Jindra Barkin; Arlene Carmen; William L. Patterson; Paul Fisher; David R. Collens; Charles P. Forbes; Franklin L. Werner; Ruth E. Bassin; and Maxwell Geismar.

May 1964 – Number 54 (Volume 6, No 5)

M.S.Arnoni, “A Verdict or Propaganda?,” pp.4-5

“From Readers’ Letters: The Assassination,” p.22: C.K. Stedman; Alice Herz; Leon E. Walters; Bert Fowler; Dr. Ralph Holloway; and Howard E. Marston.

June 1964 – Number 55 (Volume 6, No 6)

M.S.Arnoni, “Ripe for the Report,” p.5

Robert E. Feir, “From Readers’ Letters: The Assassination,” p.30

Bernard E. Galitz, “From Readers’ Letters: The Assassination,” p.30

July 1964 – Number 56 (Volume 6, No 7)

M.S.Arnoni, “Awaiting the Report,” pp.4-5

Victor Harvey, “From Readers’ Letters: World Press on the Assassination,” p.23

September 1964 – Number 58 (Volume 6, No 9)

M.S.Arnoni, “How Strong is the Junta?,” pp.1, 11-15

Bertrand Russell, “16 Questions on the Assassination,” pp.6-8

October 1964 – Number 59 (Volume 6, No 10)

Cedric Belfrage, “Four Assassinations: One Pattern,” pp.18-19

November 1964 – Number 60 (Volume 6, No 11)

M.S.Arnoni, “The Report,” pp.2-3

M.S.Arnoni, “A Commentator Fights a Reporter,” p.5

Mark Lane, “The Warren Report: A First Glance,” pp.6-8

Harold Feldman & Vincent J. Salandria, “From Readers’ Letters: Considine’s Story,” p.22

James Silver, “From Readers’ Letters: Tippit’s ‘Invitation,’” p.22

December 1964 – Number 61 (Volume 6, No 12)

Mrs. J.M.Thompson, “From Readers’ Letters: Warren Commission’s Real Assignment,” p.42

A Physicist, “From Readers’ Letters: The Impossible Trajectory,” p.42

Herry E. Beller, “From Readers’ Letters: Stone’s Day of Atonement,” p.43

February 1965 – Number 63 (Volume 7, No 2)

J.R.Keisler, “From Readers’ Letters: An Assassin’s Motive,” p.22

Bernard Edwin Galitz, “From Readers’ Letters: The ‘Unfact’ of the Assassination,” p.22

March 1965 – Number 64 (Volume 7, No 3)

Harold Feldman, “Fifty-one Witnesses: The Grassy Knoll,” pp.16-25

Lillian Castellano, “From Readers’ Letters: Oswald Censored,” p.30

April 1965 – Number 65 (Volume 7, No 4)

Mark Lane, “Who is Jack Ruby?,” pp.8-11

May 1965 – Number 66 (Volume 7, No 5)

Sylvia Meagher, “Readers’ Letters: Oswald – a Patsy?,” p.31

November 1965 – Number 72 (Volume 7, No 11)

Thomas C. Fiddick, “What Ruby Did Not Tell,” pp.15-16

February 1966 – Number 75 (Volume 8, No 2)

T. Gurney, “From Readers’ Letters: Cause-and-effect,” p.29

March 1966 – Number 76 (Volume 8, No 3)

M.S.Arnoni, “Dallas Revisited,” pp.5-6

Victor J. Salandria, “The Impossible Task of One Assassination Bullet,” pp.12-18

April 1966 – Number 77 (Volume 8, No 4)

Victor J. Salandria, “The Separate Connally Shot,” pp.9-13

May 1966 – Number 78 (Volume 8, No 5)

Wm. S. Chichester, “From Readers’ Letters: Assassination Studies,” p.31

Mrs. Gene Birch, “From Readers’ Letters: Assassination Studies,” p.31

June 1966 – Number 79 (Volume 8, No 6)

Sylvia Meagher, “A Psychiatrist’s Retroactive ‘Clairvoyance,’” pp.25-27

Marguerite C. Oswald, “From Readers’ Letters: The Warren Report,” p.29

H.L.Hummel, “From Readers’ Letters: The Warren Report,” p.29

J.R.Keisler, “From Readers’ Letters: The Warren Report,” p.29

July-August 1966 – Number 80-81 (Volume 8, No 7-8)

M.S.Arnoni, “The Relevance of an Inquest,” pp.8-9

Sylvia Meagher, “On ‘Closing Doors, Not Opening Them’ or The Limits of the Warren Investigation,” pp.29-32

September 1966 – Number 82 (Volume 8, No 9)

M.S.Arnoni, “Between Two Assassinations,” p.6

Sylvia Meagher, “How Well Did the ‘Non-Driver’ Oswald Drive?,” pp.19-21

Maggie Field, “From Readers’ Letters: Research on the Assassination,” pp.38-39

October 1966 – Number 83 (Volume 8, No 10)

Sylvia Meagher, “Oswald and the State Department,” pp.22-27

Stephen Barber (Sunday Telegraph, London), “Kennedy Assassination,” p.32

December 1966 – Number 85 (Volume 8, No 12)

Harold Feldman, “The Johnson Murder Charge,” pp.21-22

January 1967 – Number 86 (Volume 9, No 1)

M.S.Arnoni, “A Dead Brother is No Brother,” p.

E. Martin Schotz, Susan Schotz, Robert Flynn, Jane Flynn, Steven Kuromiya, Gerald Herdman, Julia Hodges, Carol Goldstein, “From Readers’ Letters: Who Killed Kennedy?,” pp.30-31

J.B. Gibson, “Governor Connally and Assassination Inquiry,” p.31

February 1967 – Number 87 (Volume 9, No 2)

M.S.Arnoni, “Any Road That Leads to the White House (A tragicomic play in many acts by Robert F. Kennedy),” p.7

M.S.Arnoni, “Jack Ruby Cheats History,” p.8

D. Howard Ady, “From Readers’ Letters: Who Really Killed Kennedy – And Why?,” p.29

Margaret Juliano, “From Readers’ Letters: Robert Kennedy’s Intention,” p.30

March 1967 – Number 88 (Volume 9, No 3)

Sylvia Meagher, “Post-Assassination Credibility Chasm,” pp.21-22

April 1967 – Number 89 (Volume 9, No 4)

M.S.Arnoni, “An Assassination’s Retroactivity,” p.9

Lesley Woolf Hedley, “MacBird Flies Low,” p.26

Bernard Edwin Galitz, “From Readers’ Letters: Warren Skeptics Vindicated,” pp.28-29

Edward Schindeler, “From Readers’ Letters: The Kennedy Ethos,” p.29

Arnold S. Daniels, “From Readers’ Letters: Who Said That Jack Ruby Said?,” pp.29-30

May 1967 – Number 90 (Volume 9, No 5)

Mrs. Lee Dresh, “From Readers’ Letters: LBJ’s Supporters,” p.29

June 1967 – Number 91 (Volume 9, No 6)

Sylvia Meagher, “After the Battle, the Book,” pp.25-27

September 1967 – Number 94 (Volume 9, No 9)

Sylvia Meagher, “From Readers’ Letters: BR and TMO,” p.31

October 1967 – Number 95 (Volume 9, No 10)

M.S.Arnoni, “Garrison and Warren: Anything in Common?,” pp.11-12

November 1967 – Number 96 (Volume 9, No 11)

Jim Garrison, “From Readers’ Letters: Jim Garrison Knows Himself to be Right,” pp.22-23

December 1967 – Number 97 (Volume 9, No 12)

Connor Cruise O’Brien, “Veto by Assassination?,” pp.16-18

Harold Feldman, “From Readers’ Letters: Garrison and Warren – Anything in Common?,” p.29

Maggie Field, “From Readers’ Letters: Garrison and Warren – Anything in Common?,” p.29

Sylvia Meagher, “From Readers’ Letters: Garrison and Warren – Anything in Common?,” p.29

Penn Jones, Jr., “From Readers’ Letters: Garrison and Warren – Anything in Common?,” pp.29-30

Leo Sauvage, “From Readers’ Letters: Garrison and Warren – Anything in Common?,” p.30

March 1968 – Number 100 (Volume 10, No 3)

Ruth Jacobs, “From Readers’ Letters: Why Kennedy Went to Texas,” p.31

June 1968 – Number 103 (Volume 10, No 6)

Sylvia Meagher, “Two Assassinations,” pp.9-10

July-August 1968 – Number 104/5 (Volume 10, No 7-8)

Sylvia Meagher, “Wheels within Deals: How the Kennedy Investigation was Organised,” pp.23-27

Sylvia Meagher, “From Readers’ Letters: A Garrison Victim,” p.30

September 1968 – Number 106 (Volume 10, No 9)

M.S.Arnoni, “Of Demonologists and Eunuchs,” pp.8-9

Sylvia Meagher, “Three Assassinations,” pp.13-16

Connor Cruise O’Brien, “How Many Conspiracies?,” p.16

November 1968 – Number 108 (Volume 10, No 11)

Alfred John Ferrari, “Kennedy Assassinations and Political Detours,” pp.7-9

Griscom Morgan, “From Readers’ Letters: Between Two Kennedy Assassinations,” p.22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is important to keep in mind the restrictive political and journalistic climate when The Minority of One bravely began publishing articles questioning the government versions of President Kennedy's murder. In those early months after the assassination it seemed that they (and The Nation) were the only ones asking the important questions. It's hard to imagine the pressures facing the editor Arnoni as he courageously published articles and essays giving rise to the first generation of American researchers. Other than these two publications, it was largely left to the European press to begin casting doubt on the official story.

Here are two groundbreaking articles that appeared in the January, 1964 issue.

Who Killed Whom and Why

Dark Thoughts About Dark Events by M S Arnoni

http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/history/wc_peri...hom_Arnoni.html

Death of a President by Eric Norden

http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/history/wc_peri...ent-Norden.html

Both authors demonstrate remarkable prescience. Almost fifty years later, their words are still important.

Thanks to Paul for compiling the list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is important to keep in mind the restrictive political and journalistic climate when The Minority of One bravely began publishing articles questioning the government versions of President Kennedy's murder. In those early months after the assassination it seemed that they (and The Nation) were the only ones asking the important questions. It's hard to imagine the pressures facing the editor Arnoni as he courageously published articles and essays giving rise to the first generation of American researchers. Other than these two publications, it was largely left to the European press to begin casting doubt on the official story.

Here are two groundbreaking articles that appeared in the January, 1964 issue.

Who Killed Whom and Why

Dark Thoughts About Dark Events by M S Arnoni

http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/history/wc_peri...hom_Arnoni.html

Death of a President by Eric Norden

http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/history/wc_peri...ent-Norden.html

Both authors demonstrate remarkable prescience. Almost fifty years later, their words are still important.

Thanks to Paul for compiling the list.

Thanks for those links Paul and Michael, and Ken,

I knew Ken Rahn was good for something.

BK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for this link. It is almost unbelievable that this was written so shortly after the assassination!

And for some of us this is a little bit scary: "the assassination itself is probably a mere prelude to an historical tragedy the scope of which is not yet discernable. "

Who Killed Whom and Why?

Dark Thoughts About Dark Events

M.S. Arnoni, The Minority of One, January 1964

All speculation about the forces behind the shocking murder of the late President John F. Kennedy and about its political repercussions suffers from a severe limitation; for while any analysis must aim to embrace the whole epos, the assassination itself is probably a mere prelude to an historical tragedy the scope of which is not yet discernable. Another problem for the analyst is the border line between the believable and the unbelievable in the mind of the public. This border line is set by national biases to a far greater extent than by actual objective judgment of facts, events and likelihoods. What Americans reject as inconceivable developments culminating in the assassination is largely based on mental preconditioning. The popular view of the American body politic as a free and democratic set-up responsive to the spontaneous wishes of the majority lulls many people into rejecting without examination any theory predicated on sinister schemes within the power structure. The distance and strangeness of foreign peoples enable Americans to recognize and even to exaggerate the degree of cynicism involved in the internal power struggles of other countries, especially if they happen to be hostile toward those countries. No tale of intrigue ever sounds too wicked to American ears if the setting is the Kremlin, or some Latin American palace. But when it comes to America, well, we know we are “basically” the most decent and democratic of nations, and that shadowy deeds probable elsewhere are impossible here; and that even if they do occur, they are exceptions, dark spots on an otherwise innocent national record.

This prejudice is a virtual guarantee against penetrating popular inquiry into the facts behind the assassination of President Kennedy; yet it is probable that the truth here is in direct proportion to its unacceptability by the popular American mind, and that its sinister nature is far more marked than Americans can imagine of the American Establishment. It is no coincidence that the foreign press, including the friendly foreign press, was immeasurably more ready than newspapers here to treat the assassination as an outcome of a possible political plot within high echelons of effective American power.

Hundreds of circumstances and details pertaining to the killing, the suspected assassin, the assassination of the assassin, the behavior of the Dallas police, etc., etc., will give rise to a whole new field of literature. Scores of books will be written over decades, pointing out the incompatibility of accounts which are now being taken at face value. This literature will be justified by the truism that the closer we are to historic events in place and time the more difficult it is to perceive the truth about them.

In spite of all these disadvantages, the political observer cannot subdue his urge to theorize and speculate. Man’s intellect includes a blind stubbornness about admitting ignorance; and we often pretend to know best that about which we know least, as witness religion.

Thus, on the assumption—not necessarily correct—that we can already discern some major implications of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, we can choose between the theory that the President fell victim to a lone maniac, and the theory that his murder was carried through by an organized conspiracy.

The theory of the lone killer seems less feasible when one considers the perfectly smooth machinery of the assassination, plus the obvious glibness with which the authorities in Dallas came up with a quick and popularly acceptable solution of the case. Indeed the local head of police seemed eager to close the case in spite of the distinct possibility that it has not yet been opened. Serious questions arise. Why were the Dallas police so eager falsely to link Lee Harvey Oswald with leftist groups and causes? Why was it made possible for Jack Ruby to kill him? Did anyone help Oswald to establish a biography which would seem to link him both to the shooting and to an expedient political motive for it? Did anyone help him to get to Mexico when he went there in late September, and to apply there for both Cuban and Soviet visas? Under what circumstances was Oswald hired, so short a time before the Presidential visit, to work at the warehouse from which the fatal shots were allegedly fired? Was the trajectory of the fatal bullets consistent with the geographic relation between the target and the window from which the shots were allegedly fired? Did the public announcement of the route of the Presidential party give Oswald enough time to plan, prepare and place himself within the range of the target? If not, from whom did Oswald learn the route before it was publicly announced? Who knew the route before a public announcement was made of it? Why was Lee Oswald allowed to leave a building surrounded by police, and from which the U.S. President had been shot, merely upon establishing that he was employed in it? As it is now clear that Oswald was not connected with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, what motivated him to make statements prior to the assassination which would enable the police to link him with that organization after the shooting? Was Lee Harvey Oswald a walking corpse, a fall guy, doomed even before the assassination to die? And if so, did he die after fulfilling an assassin’s role, or only as a decoy? Was the assassin condemned to death by the very people who assigned him to shoot? If so, when did the execution take place—with the shooting of Lee Oswald, or with the shooting of Dallas Patrolman J.D. Tippit? The first reports of the murder of Patrolman Tippit also related that a Secret Service man had been wounded; since then, nothing has been heard about that Secret Service man. What was his relation to Patrolman Tippit; and is it possible that the two were shot in a duel between them?

These and many other questions remain unanswered; but this does not necessarily mean that the answers are not known in Washington’s upper echelons of power. On the contrary; if those in high circles had no answers at all, vigorous investigations would have been undertaken immediately, and many secrets exposed. The clues provided by the contradictions in the initial accounts are so voluminous that any swift and sincere investigation would undoubtedly penetrate the veil. If the assassin had acted all alone, or if he represented an insignificant group of fanatics, the formidable investigative machinery of the authorities could soon pick up the threads, without leaving us in the dark for even this long.

Edited by Peter McGuire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for this link. It is almost unbelievable that this was written so shortly after the assassination!

And for some of us this is a little bit scary: "the assassination itself is probably a mere prelude to an historical tragedy the scope of which is not yet discernable. "

Who Killed Whom and Why?

Dark Thoughts About Dark Events

M.S. Arnoni, The Minority of One, January 1964

How Strong Is the Junta?

By M.S.Arnoni

The Minority of One, September 1964, [(Vol 7, No 9), 58)], pp.1, 11-15

To follow, the first page and a third of one of the very best pieces written in the year following the coup:

The United States is the site of a titanic power struggle, which has already cost it the life of one President, constantly endangers the life and Constitutional powers of a second, the incumbent, President, and may deliver the country to the whims of a military-industrial cabal, whose effective power even now brings to naught many a Constitutional provision. Concealed at this struggle remains from public view, it is nonetheless involves a constant danger of civil war, in which various services and units of the U.S. military would combat each other. This is not a struggle between “ins” and “outs”; the two competing camps are integral parts of the United States power structure. Their competition is for hegemony and as long as it is not resolved, each of the two contenders has to reckon with the existence and the factual veto power of the other. This state of affairs accounts for the fact at the present juncture the United States Government lacks the effective power to make decisive moves in world diplomacy.

The challengers of the Constitutional government are an aggregate of powerful forces within the executive and legislative branches as well as in private industry. Specifically, they include such organizations as the Central Intelligence Agency, the U.S. Air Force and identifiable defense contractors. In Congress, the insurrectionists are so strong that on many important issues, and especially on arms procurement, the Government has repeatedly lost out to them. The cabal made concentrated efforts to influence the Presidential elections in 1960; in 1964, it is actually presenting its own candidate, Barry M. Goldwater, and hopes with him to capture the rest of the government as well as the cloak of Constitutional legality.

The junta controlling the insurrectionist forces is so power-entrenched that for years it has been blackmailing the White House and other echelons of the Constitutional power hierarchy into silence concerning the life-and-death struggle behind the scenes, President Johnson, even while offering determined resistance to the junta, does not dare openly to complain about its existence and activities. The U.S. Chief Justice, while investigating the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, does not dare to tell the truth about it to this generation. Congress does not dare to turn down procurement requests of the junta even when they are made over the heads and against the explicit recommendations of the Administration. The Administration’s reorganization plans for the armed services and for the intelligence agencies have been repeatedly over-ruled by the junta. Both the Administration and the armed forces are dangerously infiltrated by the insurrectionists. In most instances, the Administration’s effective power does not suffice for the removal of these infiltrators, General Curtis E. LeMay, the Chief of the Air Force, being the most notable and frustrating case in point. In fact, General Curtis LeMay is one of the principal leaders of this rebellious junta.

Even though the allegations made here are the result of conjecture and speculation, the margin of error seems to be limited to detail, the specific composition of the junta and its specific undertakings; the actual existence of a wide rebellion in the ranks of the Administration and outside its immediate framework is presented as evident fact. Then, too, it is probable that in this conjecture there are more errors of omission than errors of statement.

The warning of the ‘military-industrial complex,’ which President Dwight D. Eisenhower sounded in his farewell address, remained something of a solitary voice in the maze of official U.S. pronouncements, but the concern which prompted it was more than shared by John F. Kennedy. Even before he had taken office, he had a study conducted with the view of asserting civilian authority over the military. The panel was headed by Senator Stuart Symington and included Clark M. Clifford, Kennedy’s liaison aide with the retiring Eisenhower Administration, Thomas Finletter, one-time Air Force Secretary, Roswell Gilpatric, one-time Air Force Under-Secretary and attorneys Fowler Hamilton and Max Leva. The report of that study group was published around the middle of December, 1960, and made the following main recommendations:

* All defence funds would be appropriated directly to the Secretary of Defense, who would have authority to spend them as he saw fit.

* Service chiefs would report directly to the Secretary of Defense; the separate departments of the Army, Navy and Air Force, with their various Secretaries, Under Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries, would be abolished.

*The Joint Chiefs of Staff would be replaced by a Military Advisory Council made up of senior officers who would be permanently separated from their respective services. The council would be headed by a Joint Staff Chairman, who would be principal military adviser to the President and the Secretary of Defense.

* Individual services would maintain their identity but would be subordinate to three separate commands: a Strategic Command, responsible for the strategic missions of all-out nuclear war; a Tactical Command, responsible for all limited war operations; a Defense Command, responsible for all continental defense missions. (Time magazine, December 19, 1960.)

Undoubtedly, the enforcement of these recommendations would suffice to bring an end to the virtually sovereign status which the military had gained and to re-establish its subordination to civilian authority. But it was precisely this potential effect which doomed the plan from the outset. President Kennedy knew how strong Congressional support of the military was and had no illusions about his chances to have curtailing legislation approved. Even Eisenhower’s reorganization plan for the Pentagon, nowhere nearly as radical and sweeping as that of the Symington panel, remained unrealized despite the fact that Congress had approved it as far back as 1958. With Carl Vinson, the traditional defender of the war industry interests, as chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Symington’s recommendations would not stand a chance; the Congressman thought even Eisenhower’s reorganization plan to be much too extreme.

Aware that a frontal attack on the usurped position of the military establishment could not be successfully undertaken, John F. Kennedy, upon becoming President, tried to curtail the military by gradual measures. By the middle of 1961, the controversy over the open participation of the brass in right-wing political activities had reached its point of culmination. President Kennedy gave his unqualified support to Senator J. W. Fulbright’s campaign against the military sponsoring radical right-wing speakers, conducting “freedom” and Cold War seminars and otherwise participating in political propaganda directed to the armed forces as well as the civilian population. During a press conference on August 10, 1961, President Kennedy stated:

“The United States military, due to one of the wisest actions of our Constitutional founders, have been kept out of politics, and they continue their responsibilities, regardless of changes of Administration.

The problem always is how can the military remain removed from political life and how can civilian control of the military be effectively maintained…(The New York Times, August 11, 1961).”

How indeed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2007 at 5:34 PM, Michael Hogan said:

It is important to keep in mind the restrictive political and journalistic climate when The Minority of One bravely began publishing articles questioning the government versions of President Kennedy's murder. In those early months after the assassination it seemed that they (and The Nation) were the only ones asking the important questions. It's hard to imagine the pressures facing the editor Arnoni as he courageously published articles and essays giving rise to the first generation of American researchers. Other than these two publications, it was largely left to the European press to begin casting doubt on the official story.

Here are two groundbreaking articles that appeared in the January, 1964 issue.

Who Killed Whom and Why

Dark Thoughts About Dark Events by M S Arnoni

http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/history/wc_peri...hom_Arnoni.html

Death of a President by Eric Norden

http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/history/wc_peri...ent-Norden.html

Both authors demonstrate remarkable prescience. Almost fifty years later, their words are still important.

Thanks to Paul for compiling the list.

These links didn't work for me on my phone so am refresing/redirecting them.

The comment of Michael Hogan regarding the prescience of them is spot on. The MS Arnoni article has remarkably renewed relevance. The second By Eric Norden contains reports from the first minutes, hours and days after the assassination containing details and accounts which I have never heard and which were subsequently changed. Both were published in January of 1964.

http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/WC_Period/Pre-WCR_reactions_to_assassination/Pre-WCR_reactions_by_the_left/Who_killed_whom_Arnoni.html

 

http://22november1963.org.uk/norden-death-of-a-president-part-1

 

 

Edited by Michael Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did Rahn take these down or are those links just dead?

 

I agree, The Minority of One article were very acute pieces of political analysis, unmatched by anyone else at that time.  

Eric Norden is the guy who interviewed Jim Garrison for Playboy, one of the best, if not the best interview Garrison ever gave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×