Mark Stapleton

You have no idea how to confront the growing danger of Islamofascism...

This ain't the Islamofascism forum, Slithery.

It is when—

No, it isn't, ever. How far do I have to dumb this down to get it where you can find it?

Ashton Gray

Ah, yes. These are the type of threads Brendan and his fellow members of "Team America" like to interrupt. (Their headquarters are inside Mount Rushmore you know).

That's because a thread like this has the potential to make serious progress in this case.

As for the pivotal question of who in the White House extended the Texas trip by a day in order to squeeze in a motorcade, I don't know but I would suggest LBJ as a leading candidate. I've read that in the weeks leading to November 22, when it aqppeared that JFK may have been wavering, LBJ was quite insistent on the Texas trip going ahead as planned. (Sorry, I can't find the reference but I'll try to dig it up).

I cannot understand why people are motivated to discuss this issue. What was Len Colby's objective in starting this thread? He was clearly intent in stirring up trouble. He has a record of this. At the sametime, the Holocaust clearly happened. If we want to discuss conspiracies, maybe we should concentrate on the roles played by the UK, USA and the Soviet Union in allowing it to happen.

I would have thought that the current Israeli foreign policy that has the support of Bush and Brown is a more important issue to discuss.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7495

Stirring up trouble (and getting Sid Walker branded as a dangerous fanatic) was precisely Len's motivation for starting this thread. However, this has backfired badly, IMO.

Sid has been branded a bigot, a fanatic and an intellectual fraud, charges which I believe are without foundation. He has responded to critics with courtesy, civility and even encouragement, using reason and logic to support his arguments. Part of the fascination here is that this type of debate is so rarely conducted...anywhere. Owen, while sometimes resorting to name calling, is a fine debater and thinker.

A very interesting debate. Thanks, Len.

Mark,

It really [expletive deleted] me off that you are showing up so intellectually dishonest in all this. It doesn't [expletive deleted] me off nearly as [expletive deleted] much as having to spend my [expletive deleted] time dealing with this. I guess if you all got ahold of Len your problems would be solved and all the niceties of Sid's in-context [expletive deleted] wouldn't be a problem. And it's real helpful of John to breeze in here, express his blase' attitude towards something as important as has already been discussed in this [expletive deleted] thread, just as he expresses his blase' attitude towards the Watergate playground kids (who are now having to venture out beyond their chosen field, because nobody gives a [expletive deleted] about Watergate or what they're trying to sell in the sandbox). I don't trust a single [expletive deleted]one of ya anymore, but some things are worth fighting about. If John was paying attention to anything besides what precious [expletive deleted] Ashton has to say, he'd know where this thread originated and why it's directly related to Sid's views about what's going on right now and about 9/11, and what he's had to say in the past. So I'll see ya in about another [expletive deleted] week when I've had to spend still more of my [expletive deleted] time coming up to "answers" to Sid's "relevant" posts....

Not really sure why you're so pissed off but I won't be losing any sleep. I've never been a fan of joining lynching mobs, especially when I don't think Sid has said anything to deserve it. Len, Owen and yourself have an opinion about Sid's views and I have mine. It's funny that you seem so pissed off because I haven't fallen into line on this. The holocaust argument, which Owen seems determined to focus on, is an argument I'm not very keen about debating. I'm less inclined to challenge the historical record on this than Sid. On some of the wider issues, I think they are worth debating. Who's scared of debate?

I cannot understand why people are motivated to discuss this issue. What was Len Colby's objective in starting this thread? He was clearly intent in stirring up trouble. He has a record of this. At the sametime, the Holocaust clearly happened. If we want to discuss conspiracies, maybe we should concentrate on the roles played by the UK, USA and the Soviet Union in allowing it to happen.

I would have thought that the current Israeli foreign policy that has the support of Bush and Brown is a more important issue to discuss.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7495

Stirring up trouble (and getting Sid Walker branded as a dangerous fanatic) was precisely Len's motivation for starting this thread. However, this has backfired badly, IMO.

Sid has been branded a bigot, a fanatic and an intellectual fraud, charges which I believe are without foundation. He has responded to critics with courtesy, civility and even encouragement, using reason and logic to support his arguments. Part of the fascination here is that this type of debate is so rarely conducted...anywhere. Owen, while sometimes resorting to name calling, is a fine debater and thinker.

A very interesting debate. Thanks, Len.

Also, you can get a better idea of Len's features in his avatar by tilting your head to the right.

Yes, I agree. The further right, the clearer it becomes.

I notice this thread has been busy – and I’m grateful to all moderators for providing the space for what is, I believe, an important discussion.

I’d also like to thank those participants who have made interesting points backed with ‘must-read’ references – and most importantly, have argued strongly for the principle of free speech.

While the subject matter under discussion - both historical and contemporary - is important in its own right, I believe free speech IS the key issue here.

On numerous occasions in the run up to the Iraq Invasion of 2003, mainstream commentators and politicians referred to the experience of the 1930s, urging us not to repeat the mistakes of Chamberlain’s “Appeasement”. So, we should reflect on the past and its contemporary relevance. That’s one reason, in my opinion, why this forum occasionally sports excellence. It serves a cluster of well-informed participants with an interest in both past and present – and allows discussion to roam across both.

Now, please bear with me while I develop a line of thought…

There are a lot of Zionists in the world, and many of them hold quite different views about many things.

All believe there should be some manner of Jewish State in the Holy Land (they are Zionists, after all) but there are many differences within Zionist ranks.

Some abhor and criticize the way Israel has treated the Palestinians and responded to their opposition. Others do not.

Some believe that Israel should take a more conciliatory line towards Palestinians – others do not.

Some believe that Palestinians are an ‘inevitable enemy’ because their culture has become poisoned by terrorist ideology – others do not.

Some believe that Palestinians are genetically inferior – others do not.

Some believe that non-Jewish people should enjoy equal rights within Israel – others do not.

Some believe that Palestinians are part of an ‘Axis of Evil’ that extends across the Arab/Moslem world – others do not.

Some believe that Palestinians are inherently dangerous because of their (mostly) Moslem religion – others do not hold this view.

Some believe that Palestinians smell bad. Other’s don’t.

Some deny th4e existence of a ‘Palestinian people’. Other’s don’t.

Some believe that Palestinians mainly left the Holy Land voluntarily in 1948 – others believe that they were driven from the land.

And so on, and so forth.

I happen to disagree with all of these folk in one key respect, because I don’t believe there should be a ‘Jewish’ State in the Holy Land at all. I hold the view that there should be a single, pluralistic State in that region, with a one-person one-vote democracy – at least as long as the rest of the world is organized into nation States as well. A distinctively ‘Jewish’ State, in my opinion, was a great mistake and it increasingly appears that there are going to be serious dangers and problems for the world as a whole as long as it persists. In that respect, I agree with the Iranian President. Israel should be “removed from the pages of history” (to translate the Farsi more accurately than the mischievously incorrect translation “wiped off the map” – see HERE)

Such notable intellects as the late and lamented Edward Said held this same view. Today, in my opinion, Israel Shamir expounds it most articulately. It was the majority view in international Jewry itself until the middle of the 20th century. Some orthodox and secular Jews hold the same anti-Zionist view to this day.

Back to the varying views of Zionists. I agree with some of them to some extent. I vehemently disagree with others.

To give a couple of obvious examples, I agree with those Zionists who believe the Palestinians should get a (much) better deal) in respect of that particular view. It doesn’t mean I agree with everything else they say – I don’t!

I disagree with those Zionists who believe that Palestinians are genetically or ‘spiritually’ inferior when compared to Jews. I think they are completely wrong about that. I may also disagree with them about lots of other topics – yet still be able to find some areas of common ground. We might both agree, for instance, that Jerusalem is a beautiful city. I believe that in some cases, even such limited agreement can be an important basis on which to build dialogue.

I would not seek to ban the free expression of ANY of these views. They all, in my opinion, deserve an airing, however much I dislike them.

What about views I find both irrational and obnoxious? Why not seek to ban them? How about banning expression of the view that Palestinians are genetically and / or spiritually inferior to Jews. How about banning the view that Palestinians (and Arabs in general) are pre-disposed to ‘terrorism’?

The reason IS reason. Let's call it The Enlightenment 101.

Although, in my opinion, some views are plain silly and do not stand up to scrutiny if fairly considered, I am confident that the evidence will weigh against them – and that in a fair public debate, the truth will out. As I really do believe what I claim to believe – I have enough confidence to put it through the scrutiny of open debate.

But what if, in open, fair and rational debate, the proposition that Palestinians are genetically inferior to Jews began (unexpectedly) to gain ascendancy? Would I then support censoring these views – views that I find not only deeply unpleasant, but also believe could be ‘dangerous’ in the sense that they appear to be gaining ground and may be used to justify discriminatory policies of which I disapprove?

The Enlightenment tradition says no. I should not seek to censor these beliefs, however obnoxious I find them. Truth is truth. In the unlikely event that these propositions are accurate, better we all know all we can about the topic and deal with the consequences.

Of course, the concept of truth and its relationship to belief is complex. For one thing, majority beliefs on different issues can and do change over time. Perhaps the real question is how to maximize the prospect that truth-based beliefs will prosper over time?

Socrates and his intellectual successors claim that the answer is through full, open and fair debate. Such debate offers the best chance that the community will discover the truth, in time, later if not sooner. Of course the majority view at any one time may be incorrect – and that may become apparent in a future time. But free, open and fair debate is not only most likely to lead to the truth being recognized in the present. It also provides the best safeguard that mistaken majority beliefs will be corrected as time goes by.

I accept there is an alternative view – the view that people cannot be trusted to know the truth about certain matters and the consequential view that free and open debate about these matters should not be permitted. But I strongly disagree with that view.

As soon as one entertains the view that censorship is necessary in relation to certain topics – one must accept the need for censors. But who is to do decide what’s banned – and on what basis?

Once the expression of certain beliefs is made a criminal (or banning) offence, a further step looms. Discussion about the very basis on which the offending views are banned must also be prohibited– lest the banned beliefs be voiced within that discussion. This is no theoretical imagining. It’s actual practice in various trials underway in Germany this very year, most notably the trials of Ernst Zundel and Germar Rudolf, both deported from the USA to face trial for their beliefs in a land where those beliefs are illegal (without a murmur, as I recall, from Amnesty International). In Zundel’s case, his chosen defense lawyer was banned from the court – and even risked imprisonment – for attempting to explain her client’s beliefs to the Court and argue their rationality. His beliefs are viewed, under current German law, as inherently indefensible. Truth is no defense. This is downright Kafkaesque. Not only are historical views subject to legal sanction - one may not even seek to explain or justify them!

I’ve tried to establish why I would never try to censor the views of any Zionists – even those with whom I disagree. I agree with Voltaire. I might loathe views, but I defend the right of others to articulate them. I trust that the truth will out – in full and fair debate. I welcome knowing the truth and don’t believe that I – or my fellow citizens – should be shielded from it. Now I’ll go further. If someone seeks to censor information or views, it makes me suspicious. Why seek to ban debate on topics over which – they claim - the truth is blatantly obvious?

I’d like to consider the reverse case.

Non Zionists and anti-Zionists also hold a plethora of beliefs and opinions. Some think the middle east is a never-ending source of strife and trouble; others don’t. Some believe in UFOs. Others don’t. Some believe in global Jewish conspiracies. Others don’t. Some believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. Others don’t. Some believe the current official narrative of Jewish suffering during the Second World War. Others don’t. Some believe that the Chinese are the greatest threat to world peace – others disagree. Some claim that England should have won the 2006 World Cup. Others don’t. And so on and so forth…

I’ve deliberately mixed up a few beliefs there, some of which may seem ludicrous, some upsetting, some bizarre, others irrelevant or trivial. Some topics may seem unworthy of discussion on the grounds that the truth, in that case, is ‘obvious’. But which topics – and who decides? On what rational basis should one take the decision not only to disparage a belief – but to seek to ban it?

A general strategy employed by Zionists, in my experience, having observed the functioning of several politically oriented internet forums and keeping an eye on media from several western countries, is to sew division in the ranks of opponents. It makes sense to do this if one’s key goal is to promote a given version of the truth as opposed to ascertaining the truth. Sadly, I have found that trait to be true of most of the Zionists I have encountered in cyberspace and elsewhere.

The key thing has been establishing that some views are utterly and totally beyond the pale, There appear to be two of these at present – but in theory at least, the list may vary over time. The first is doubt about the veracity of the current official narrative of Jewish suffering during World War Two. The second is belief that Jewish power and influence within key sectors of the economy such as the mass media is disproportionate and that collusion occurs between powerful Jewish individuals and between some Jewish organizations such as AIPAC, the ADL and The Mossad..

Anyone who expresses these beliefs is portrayed as a willful purveyor of lunatic and malicious falsehoods. It is typically alleged that because they raise questions the answer to which is already ‘obvious’ - and because their only possible motive for doing so is irrational hatred - they should be excluded from mainstream discussion, including many internet forums. It is often further alleged, by way of explanation, that these ‘deniers’ must be Nazis, or more accurately ‘neo-Nazis’, because only individuals on the far right wing of politics, with a fondness for white supremacism, hold these views (although the pesky Moslems and Arabs are increasingly catching the ‘disease’).

I deny these propositions. I don’t believe they are true. Furthermore, I believe they are used, systematically and repeatedly, to exclude many critics of Zionism and entire subject areas from mainstream discussion. This has served the Zionist cause well – but has distorted and caused damage to the discourse of the community as a whole. It has led to grave injustices. Perhaps worst of all, it has created a false ‘center’ for public opinion, by shifting the argument towards the Zionist cause. If perceived pro-Zionist extremism is permitted and openly expressed, but perceived anti-Zionist extremism is banned and hounded out of the public domain, the ‘center of gravity’ of the debate shifts in a Zionist direction. Nice trick.

The strategy employed by Zionist also makes use of the principle of “guilt by association”.

It’s not just a matter of removing someone like Michael Collins Piper – from mainstream discourse on the basis of his alleged ‘neo-Nazi’ tendencies. (His books are never reviewed by the mainstream media. He’s never gets invitations to be a TV talking head. He is harassed on talkboards such as this).

If someone like Sid Walker quotes Mr Michael Collins Piper in Sid’s posts, and refuses to disown MCP when allegations of “anti-Semitism”, “neo-Nazism” etc are made against him – well then, Sid must be an anti-Semite and neo-Nazi also. And if someone like Mr Mark Stapleton stands up for Sid he might want to watch his step as well.

I object to this approach on several levels. First, “guilt by contamination” is a false principle. I may support some of the views of a neo-Nazi (or a Zionist, Communist, Mormon or Atheist) but disagree with others. If I cite – or stand up for – another person, it doesn’t mean I share all their views.

Second, even if we were discussing Hitler (and he, most assuredly, was a real Nazi), I should be able to support some of his views without being branded a Nazi. The simple equation Nazi = Evil was useful war propaganda, but that war is over. Historians need to do better than sort the characters of the past into goodies and baddies, heroes and villains. History was more complex. Hitler may well have done some very bad things in his life, as did Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin. But do we really need to make constant, almost mechanical reference to the fact that we loathe and detest him – like witches issuing ritual curses? Should we feel scared about ever making positive comments about some of the things he did, if we believe we’re speaking the truth? After all, if we’re wrong in making those comments, the truth will out in free, open and fair debate, won’t it?

This approach to argumentation – entailing villainization of certain views combined with guilt by association - offers fantastic possibilities for silencing whole areas of thought. I submit it has been used in this way by Zionists, quite ruthlessly and for a long period of time.

Well, I, for one, refuse to play this game any more. I won’t play by those rules. I will listen to – and read – any sources I choose. I’ll do so without apology. I’ll make up my own mind – then try to speak the truth as best I understand it. I need no “free pass” or “permission” from Zionists or anyone else to do that, and I’m disgusted by the arrogance of Zionists who believe they have a right to grant or withhold such permission.

For reasons I gave in one of my first posts in this forum, I believe the entire notion of “anti-Semitism” an absurd and mischievous misnomer. Now I also want to say that the notion of ‘Holocaust Denial’ is also a deliberate attempt for strategic reasons to create a false category. It is a loaded expression, used as a tool used by Zionist strategists (and their dupes, Zionist and non-Zionist) to stifle discussion about what really happened in World War Two and to disallow reconsideration of events that might undermine simple equations we’ve all learnt by heart from childhood.

I refer to equations such as Nazi = Evil, Hitler = The Devil Incarnate, The Axis = Bad, The Allies = Good, Germans = Elected a Maniac, Jews = Suffering Victims. It’s not that any of these propositions are wholly untrue. They may have elemtns of truth and elements of falsehood. Real historians would be concerned about these nuances. Historians under pressure from Zionist orthodoxy tend to overlook them, for the sake of their careers if for no other reason.

But, I hear some exclaim, the Nazis WERE ultimate evil. Hitler WAS the most evil man ever.

That’s arguable, in my opinion - and should be open to free and unfettered argument. After all, it was American-made nuclear bombs dropped under the orders of an American president that unleashed a nuclear holocaust on Japan, on two separate days in 1945. The Germans, by contrast, in World War Two, eschewed the use of WMDs. It was the British who systematically bombed German cities with ‘conventional weapons’, causing vast numbers of civilian casualities – on a scale far greater than any bombing campaigns conducted by the Luftwaffe. In World War Two, German and Russian lives lost were measured in ten digits – considerably more than the six million claim for Jewish deaths.

The belief that HITLER = UNADULTERATED EVIL mainly draws its strength from the official narrative of Jewish suffering in World War Two. Because Hitler (is alleged to have) ordered the death of millions of Jews – and because he and his followers (allegedly) used gas chambers to carry out this genocidal act – the equation is seen to be correct, inevitable and essential. A moral necessity, indeed! The Allies (Goodies) may have killed lots of people, and some if it wasn’t pretty and involved civilian deaths on massive scale, but they were justified acts of war incidental to the Allies War Effort. The deliberate destruction of Jews for no other reason than that they were Jews, however, was of a different nature. A conscious act of racist genocide!

Now, one might wonder why the Red Cross, which had access to concentration camps such as Auschwitz, apparently never reported on this genocidal frenzy at the time. One might wonder about the logistics and the seeming lack of forensic evidence for mass killings on that scale. One may wonder about the apparent gap, in the archival records, which I understand have failed to turn up any evidence of direct orders from the Fuhrer to carry out the mass gassing of Jews.

But of course, there’s first hand testimony, including testimony from the Nazis themselves at the Nuremburg Trials.

Indeed there was – and now I’ll explain why I use the term “current official narrative of Jewish suffering in World War Two” is more appropriate than The Holocaust (a term that, when I was a boy, was most often associated with the dreaded prospect of nuclear holocaust).

Nazis - such as the former Commandant of Auschwitz - admitted to many things at Nuremburg. They admitted to genocidal gas chambers, slaughtering millions of Jews, and they often sought to pass the blame up the chain of command.

Interestingly, they also admitted to things that now are not part of the current “official narrative of Jewish suffering in World War Two”. There was a confession, for instance, that fat from Jewish corpses was used by the Germans to make soap. The story persisted for some time. I recall being told of this horror in the 1960s.

In 1981, Deborah Lipstadt, who serves these days as one of the chief custodians of orthodoxy for the current official narrative of Jewish suffering in World War Two, wrote that the Jewish soap story had no basis in fact at all. In other words, it had been invented. So much for the reliability of Nuremburg testimony! One might wonder if perchance prisoners were pressurized into making false statements? Tortured? Threats to family? Perish the thought! Brits and Americans would surely never do that!

Here’s another reason why “current” needs to be welded to the term “official narrative of Jewish suffering in World War Two”, a narrative which has been amended over time, inclkuding incoprorpationn of the term 'Holocaust' itself decades after the event…

Around 1990, the official tally of deaths at Auschwitz was reduced by more than half. Millions of deaths were simply sliced off the official figure. Yet as far as I know, the has been no subsequent change to the orthodox figure of “six” million Jewish deaths. As most of the people allegedly slaughtered at Auschwitz allegedly were Jews, how can this be?

I don’t claim – and as I understand their position, I don’t believe that imprisoned Revisionists such as David Irving, Ernst Zundel and Germar Rudolf claim - that the current official narrative of Jewish suffering in World War Two is wholly and utterly bogus. Not at all. There were clearly many Jews sent to concentration camps by the Nazis because they were Jews. A lot of Jews experienced great suffering and many died. Hitler and the Nazi Party had strong anti-Jewish sentiments. Of these matters, there appears to be no dispute.

Yet in a growing number of jurisdictions, it is illegal to question the number of Jewish deaths, the causes of Jewish deaths and Hitler’s genocidal intent. Raising questions on these topics and expressing views about them that do not conform to current orthodoxy is routinely used as sufficient grounds for banning participants from many discussion boards on the internet – forums that in other subject areas have a strong commitment to free speech.

Why should that be – if the current official official narrative of Jewish suffering in World War Two has such a secure factual foundation?

So much for World War Two (and may we never, ever participate in such colossal mass slaughter again – a real holocaust for tens of millions of people of many creeds, ethnic origins and political affiliations!)

Turning now to the topic of Jewish power, influence and collusion – the other ‘no-go’ area proscribed by Zionists and their dupes…

It stands to reason, we’re informed, that there’s nothing to see here. Move along please!

Since World War, playing on fears of a Nazi revival and mass guilt over Jewish suffering during World War Two, the topic has been chased out of public discourse, especially on the left. The argument ran something like this. Nazis believed that… didn’t they? Therefore, only crazed Nazis now raise questions about Jewish power, influence and collusion.”

The other tactic often used to stifle debate about this topic is setting up a straw man. It’s asserted that because the person raising these questions is indubitably “anti-Semitic” (virulently and irrationally anti-Jewish), they also believe that every Jewish person can’t be liked or trusted and is part of the alleged Grand Jewish Conspiracy.

Just for the record, that’s not what I believe.

Apart from anything else, some of the most articulate whistleblowers on this subject are of Jewish origin. Isarel Shamir (whose very mention so offends poor Owen’s sensibilities) is one of these. Jeffrey Blankfurt, Gliad Atzmon and Paul Eisen are others - fine intellects with penetrating analyses of the contemporary world, who confirm that there is indeed something here to discuss that’s important to our common future.

The truth, in my opinion, if far more complex than the “Great Jewish Conspiracy” straw man created by Zionist strategists and their dupes – but that straw man is useful to ridicule and marginalize the growing view that a ruthless elite, centering around but not limited to Jewish Zionists, is taking the whole world for a very bumpy ride.

Today in Counterpunch I read a remarkable mea culpa by Tom Hayden which has some bearing on this discussion. I’ll provide a link to it HERE. It seems a fitting way to end this lengthy post.

________

A final note. I try not to be unecessarily offensive, and realise that some people may take offence at my use of the term 'dupes' in this post. Perhaps I could have found a kinder word?

Happily, I believe the condition is not terminal. I was one such dupe myself, until quite recently. Now I'm not. I won't shout down others to enforce beliefs I haven't fully researched, understood or critiqued on behalf of a third party whose full agenda I do not comprehend.

Why we, the inheritors of Western Civilisation, should discard a glorious intellectual heritage that has survived at least 2,500 years, a tradiition of respect for free discusssion and open inquiry, is beyond me. I look forward to a time when the very idea of it will seem preposterous and any proposal to do so seem outlandish and offensive.

Sid,

Banquet of food for thought there. Normally I would expect certain others to slice it up like a sausage, regularly taking pieces of it out of context but after reading this and Steve's contributions, they might resist.

In fact, think I saw Len heading for the hills.

Gee, Craig. It must be tough living in a world where so many people lack your obvious ability and boundless talents. I don't know how you put up with it. You're a real trooper. And to think, some of these talentless cretins have the temerity to ask for a paycheck. It's disgraceful! Try to soldier on, old fella.

1. On the question of Sid: It's not my business to speak for another member but Sid's post which created additional controversy here was:

Which network of individuals.....is so powerful and aggressive that it has enforced its PREFERRED HISTORICAL NARRATIVE in numerous jurisdictions on pain of imprisonment

I see this as simply stating that some jurisdictions have imprisoned holocaust deniers. It doesn't specifically state the holocaust never happened. Maybe Sid can clarify. The morality of jailing holocaust deniers can be debated ad nauseum. When analysing another's post, one should try not to display small parts from a sentence when the remainder lends meaningful context to the author's intent. This occurs too often on the Forum, IMO. On the remainder of Sid's points from post #2 on this thread: Well, there's a lot of big claims there. They are interesting claims but, while I have a feeling that the Israel lobby may be a little more pervasive on a global level than many would have us believe, I'm far from convinced that a global conspiracy exists on the scale alluded to by Sid

Mark you seem to be in denial of / willfully blind to the truth about (Sid) Walker and your ability rationalize his comments is quite remarkable.

That line about "preferred historical narrative" is not absolutely indicative of Holocaust denial but it's the kind of statement that raises a red flag because it implies that this is the "Jewish version" of something under dispute which is of course absurd. I notice that you didn't acknowledge his post on the other thread which I posted here. Your comment was (yet another) strawman because you ignored the strongest piece of evidence them claim that the case is inconclusive. Read what he wrote, then tell me if there really is any doubt in your mind. I doubt he will ever say outright that he doubts the Holocaust because he knows he would lose credibility but I don't see how else we can interpret his comments.

If you still aren't convinced you might find it illuminating to know that he was banned from a blog / forum in Australia for his continuous postings on Holocaust denial. Out of curiousity I googled "sid walker" +holocaust and the first site that came up was the blog of Irfan Yusuf aka Hamish called "Webdiary". Walker was a lot less coy there about his beliefs. I didn't spend a lot of time looking at the site but apparently he was quite persistent on the topic.

At one point Hamish finally had enough and wrote "it remains Webdiary policy that we do not publish material denying the atrocities of Hitler's Nazi regime, though anything published to date will stay. Sid, if you persist in wasting editors time by posting comments that you know are unacceptable, you will be banned." http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1134

To which Sid replied (in part) "But I'd also add that what the crimes of the Nazis actually were is at issue. One doesn't wish to be an apologist for anyone's crimes - but it is nice to be able to discuss them. Freely. How interesting that there's such a vicious campaign - in western society as a whole - to close down debate on that topic."

He finally got banned for posting this link, http://revisionists.com/ , on this page http://tinyurl.com/je4oo .

On the same page the blogger wrote "I have just banned Sid Walker. He has been warned many times, by Margo and myself"

Sid or one of his apologists could argue he had free speech rights violated but the people who run the blog have the right to run a forum free of what they consider offensive postings and he insisted on violating that right.

One poster had this reaction to his banning

"…there is nothing at all ironic about the remarks, or the link posted by Sid Walker. He has been talking in a not so subtle code for a long time. When everything seems to lead back to a conspiracy, with of course Jewish Involvement…Oh, and I think it is wrong to ban people like Sid, as repungant as I find the views. You are far better served to let them write, so everyone can see what they are."

2. Re Piper: ...he was... regularly attacked for his association with other groups or individuals. The basis for his theory on the assassination was rarely discussed. Against that, it should be noted that he did have the opportunity to address specific questions afforded to him by John Simkin, Jeff Dahlstrom, Pat Speer and myself, among others. His failure in this regard was disappointing. His sense of being the subject of unfair treatment may have caused this. I agree with Daniel that his anti-Semitic reputation diminishes his credibility on the assassination.

For Piper's entire career as a journalist he has worked for / been published by Willis Carto perhaps America's preeminent of anti-Semites, one of the fathers of Holocaust denial and one of the major players in the post WWII resurgence of the white supremacy movement in the US.

It was my impression he did want to engage in serious debate the evidence in the two chapters he posted was quite weak and circumstantial. As you note he had the chance to answer specific questions but passed it up, instead he fanned the flames by suggesting Jewish involvement various other conspiracies among other stunts. He also proved to be quite hypocritical saying something like "racism should be tolerated" yet he continues to work for Carto and hang out with Holocaust deniers, white supremacists etc. On a similar note, he condemned Deborah Lipstadt for supposedly saying Jews shouldn't intermarry but works along side Christopher Bollyn who agreed with his host while being interviewed by David Duke that interracial relationships were something deplorable foisted upon Americans by the "Jews who run Hollwood". True this has nothing to do with the assassination but indicates a strong bias and an inability to remain objective. For a researcher to take a book seriously they need to have confidence that the author is being straight with them otherwise they will need to check every source he cites and let's not forget that he wrote proudly about having committed intellectual fraud in his youth.

I would also add that while Piper's anti-Semitic reputation has a negative effect on his credibility, it could be argued that anyone who states that the Israeli Govt/Mossad had a role in the assassination is likely to be branded anti-Semitic from the start.

The Israelis weren't the only Jews he tied into the plot it also supposedly involved Bloomfeild and the Jewish mob. In one of the two chapters he posted he tried to tie in a few dozen prominent Jews from New Orleans and Dallas. He claimed that Meyer Lansky was the true head of the mob a claim I've never seen elsewhere.

You were going OK until you dropped the clanger about Meyer Lansky. If you say you've never heard Lansky's name mentioned as head of the mob, then you haven't seriously researched his career. Maybe you should start a thread on it and see how your belief about Lansky's insignificance travels.

Concerning the stuff about Sid Walker, you may have a case. When I get time I might look at some of your links, but I have other priorities at the moment. That's OK isn't it? I have a natural aversion to being told by others to denounce someone. It stinks of the old Soviet style communism or 50's style McCarthyism. I'll tell you what--when I start telling you who you must denounce, then you can start telling me.

Is there anyone participating in this thread that has read the sixth edition of Piper's Final Judgement?

Michael,

Yes, I have a copy of the sixth edition, which I have read. MCP sent it to me after his brief appearance on the Forum.

Great post, John.

My favorite: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable".

Bobby's quote was also very moving, Mark.

I doubt if I'll ever stop being angry about the fate they suffered.

Owen, Daniel, Len, Andy, Steve et al,

Very interesting posts all round. Time prevents me from replying individually (maybe later) but I just want to place a few comments on the record:

1. On the question of Sid: It's not my business to speak for another member but Sid's post which created additional controversy here was:

Which network of individuals.....is so powerful and aggressive that it has enforced its PREFERRED HISTORICAL NARRATIVE in numerous jurisdictions on pain of imprisonment

I see this as simply stating that some jurisdictions have imprisoned holocaust deniers. It doesn't specifically state the holocaust never happened. Maybe Sid can clarify. The morality of jailing holocaust deniers can be debated ad nauseum. When analysing another's post, one should try not to display small parts from a sentence when the remainder lends meaningful context to the author's intent. This occurs too often on the Forum, IMO. On the remainder of Sid's points from post #2 on this thread: Well, there's a lot of big claims there. They are interesting claims but, while I have a feeling that the Israel lobby may be a little more pervasive on a global level than many would have us believe, I'm far from convinced that a global conspiracy exists on the scale alluded to by Sid.

2. Re Piper: The issue for me is that if you look at the threads to which he contributed, you'll see that he was constantly assailed by members demanding to know his views on the holocaust and regularly attacked for his association with other groups or individuals. The basis for his theory on the assassination was rarely discussed. Against that, it should be noted that he did have the opportunity to address specific questions afforded to him by John Simkin, Jeff Dahlstrom, Pat Speer and myself, among others. His failure in this regard was disappointing. His sense of being the subject of unfair treatment may have caused this. I agree with Daniel that his anti-Semitic reputation diminishes his credibility on the assassination. I should also note that I have not researched his background to any great extent. This is not due to indifference towards the Jewish plight on my part. It's just that this is a topic which history has comprehensively and accurately dealt with and my interest is in areas where the official history is, IMO, plainly wrong. And we all know where that is.

I would also add that while Piper's anti-Semitic reputation has a negative effect on his credibility, it could be argued that anyone who states that the Israeli Govt/Mossad had a role in the assassination is likely to be branded anti-Semitic from the start. I'm not referring to our more tolerant group here but rather the mainstream media, who maintain a policy of blissful ignorance and react with hostlity to anyone disturbing their blissful slumber.

Daniel, I think your post is one of the best I've read since joining the Forum. Many good points, well made. I'd like to comment on some of the points in the next few days, when time permits. (I've got a little story about the South African intelligence agency. A spook told me. Whether this lends it credibility is, of course, open to debate.)

It's probably not a good time for me to be discussing Israel. I live in an area with a very high middle eastern population. Many Lebanese, both Christian and Muslim. Some of the nicest people you could ever meet, IMO. Anyway, tensions are pretty high at the moment and it's hard not to sympathise. A rally of over 20,000 is scheduled for downtown Sydney tomorrow.

Actually, I find myself in quite good company being branded with this most dreaded of slurs (it's the modern equivalent of being branded a leper).

I'd sooner find myself alongside Tam Dalyell, George Galloway and Cynthia McKinney than others whom you doubtless believe are quite beyond reproach in this regard - upstanding righteous ones such as George Bush 2, Tony Blair and Condoleezza Rice.

Great a fan of Galloway friend of Uday Hussein

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/01/25...uday/index.html

It's not like there is no middle ground.

Incidentally, Andy, and for the record, I found your treatment of Michael Collins Piper during his brief sojourn on this Forum quite remarkable for its vitriol and bias. I have yet to observe another issue that gets you quite so worked up. Lebanon can be taken apart, Gaza smashed, Tsunamis come and go, millions starve each year and England gets knocked out of the World Cup - but none of these topics seem to excite your angst quite as much as the sheer horror of encountering someone on this Forum who is prepared to criticize what Walt and Mearsheimer call the 'Israel Lobby'. Funny that.

I think that Andy objects to bigotry rather that criticism of the "Israel Lobby" I don't remember him posting on Owen's "The US favors the PLO" thread.

My apologies to those on other threads waiting for replies from me. I especially have Stephen and his 9-11 theories thread in mind. I'll aim to do so later in the day.

Actually, I've got some time for George Galloway. I've heard some of his speeches concerning the Middle East. And if you want to damn people by association, have a look at Don Rumsfeld, as special envoy to President Reagen, shaking hands with good buddy Saddam Hussein (I think it's Uday looking on):

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Owen writes:

[i think you misunderstand me. I said you are allowing certain people who criticize Israel to get a free pass on the separate issue of their anti-Semitism. Apparently the Zionist propagandists have been so successful in their attempts to link anti-Semitism with criticism of Israel that you have accepted their definition. Let me be clear: Criticism of Israel's racist policies and anti-Jewish racism are [u]separate[/u] things. No one here is actually taking issue with criticism of Israel. We are taking issue with anti-Semitism, a trait that Piper possesses and probably Walker. You haven't ever addressed (to my knowledge) Piper's Holocaust denial. You just ignore it. Using your standards, there might as well be no such thing as anti-Semitism.

[/color]I see what you mean, Owen. Point is, I don't think Sid's assertion that some kind of global conspiracy exists necessarily makes him anti-Semitic. He may have arrived at this conclusion after much research. He's not getting much chance to state his case due to accusations of anti-semitism from all quarters. Merely identifying that he believes a global phenomenon has occurred doesn't mean he's harboring deep antipathy towards Jews. You've yet to show me such a link.

As for Piper's holocaust denial, I'm unaware of this. I thought he disputed the numbers, but not the basic facts. If he denies the holocaust occurred, then he's sadly mistaken. How's that? I tend to concern myself more with what people say, rather than spending my time determining if their background and beliefs are acceptable, as Len Colby does. If someone has a meaningful contribution to make regarding an issue like the assassination, then they can be a chicken strangler for all I care. Let them talk.

The issue of whether Piper is technically a "neo-Nazi" may not be established. However, I think that the fact that he denied the Holocaust using phony BS arguments and didn't own up to it says something about his character. Couple that with his tendency to see Jews (or "Zionists") as being behind everything. Taking these two factors into account, I think it can be quite safely said that he is an anti-Semite.

I think the idea that the Mossad is behind the assassination is a reasonable position to hold, although I am far from convinced of it. That is not what I (and I assume Len, and John Dolva, and Andy) took issue with.

You appear to be taking the opposite extreme of certain Zionist arguments that criticism of Israel is Anti-Semitic. Not only is criticism of Israel not anti-Semitic, it can't be anti-Semitic. If someone criticizes Israel, they get a free pass.

I disagree about Piper being a neo nazi. But that's not what the thread is about is it?

Why do you feel that someone needs a 'free pass' in order to criticise Israel and escape the anti-semite canard? Should protection from all criticism be bestowed upon Israel?

If I criticise America am I anti-American?

If I criticise Norway am I anti-Norwegian?

If I criticise you am I anti-Owen Parsons?

It's the instant attaching of the label 'anti-Semite' which I find irritating. Does Israel have some explaining to do concerning the current conflict in Lebanon? Damn right they do. Will I be criticising Israel long and loud about this and other policies, the same way I have been critical of Governments here and in America? For sure. I'll be criticising them and I won't need a free pass. Anyone protesting that such a view is anti-Semitic can go to hell.

Brandishing the anti-semite label, while ignoring the issues which underpin the debate only makes you seem like a modern day McCarthyist.

Read Sid Walker's post again Mark and you will find that what you have just posted is utter crap.

No one is attempting to stifle debate on issues such as Israeli foreign policy. However I will confront and expose racially motivated claptrap from the like of Collins Piper and any other neo Nazi who wanders onto the forum with every fibre in my body.

I am very glad to see that there are a few others on this forum willing to do likewise.

Yes, I have read that post in its entirety. I've read the whole thread. Some of the posts were from me.

Do I now regard my previous post as utter crap? No.

Do I still think you're behaving like a modern day McCarthyist? Yes.

I don't believe Piper is a neo-nazi either. When he briefly appeared here he was shouted down by you and others in what was a tasteless display of intolerance.

Don't bother saving me from exposure to neo Nazis with every fibre in your body. Your definition and mine obviously differ and I'm quite capable of determining what is dangerous extremism for myself. Despite the somewhat inquisatorial nature of the thread, the debate has thus far been civil despite your tiresome name calling from the sidelines.

Well, it's nice to know such unrestricted access to our politicians can be gained without having to have any influence. I will see if any of the above are available to speak at next week's 'Charity Egg and Spoon race' in aid of Lebanese children requiring prosthetic limbs. Oh, sorry not supposed to mention that - it's bigotted and anti-semetic. Anyone else bored with this game?

What a puerile posting.

Sid Walker was forwarding the idea of an international jewish conspiracy which several members have suggested is an essentially anti semitic position. This is not name calling it is in essence accurate description.

Andy,

Len Colby started this thread by cherry picking a quote from a Sid Walker posting on another thread. It's an attempt to portray Sid as a fanatic and exclude him from the wider debate. This tactic was recently used to great effect to silence Michael Collins Piper. Len regularly appoints himself chief inquisitor, dissecting posts and demanding evidence in support of each claim made in the posting. Nothing wrong with that, except that Len often fails to back his own claims with reason, logic and evidence. Len can't seem to accept that this is an issue that should be debated. If it has no foundation then it will quickly fade into irrelevance.

Brandishing the anti-semite label, while ignoring the issues which underpin the debate only makes you seem like a modern day McCarthyist.

Sid, Owen, Dan and Len,

Sid, kudos--admirable restraint. While I'm uncertain about the existence of a wider global conspiratorial network, I'm fairly certain there's a powerful Jewish lobby in America dragging US foreign policy, and more specifically Middle Eastern policy, around by the nose. I believe this will ultimately be to the detriment of the US.

Btw, the book by Antony Lowenstein which was discussed in the aforementioned thread, namely "My Israel Question" is due for release here in Australia on August 1:

http://antonyloewenstein.com/blog/

I saw him last night in a TV debate with a representative of Israel. The issue was Israel's current war in Lebanon. Lowenstein is very young and extremely articulate.

The further America moves to the right, the more globally isolated they will become which will, despite the mainstream media's reluctance, necessitate a general debate on just exactly where they plan to go. 'Conservative values' will be re-defined.

Or so we can hope, Mark. The simple fact of the matter, however, is that the conservative agenda here has successfully redefined "moderate values" and "progressive values" to such an extent that i can only laugh when I hear the usual "conservative" BS about "the Left" in the US (as if there was such a thing). Being a "Leftist" in the US means that you vote for Establishment Democrats in the hope that they might be better than a dumbed-down alternative which appeals mostly to morons (and, of course, their ilk with their scintillas). But I don't think education per se is the problem (or the solution); it's more a question of what people in power and in a position to do something have to tell and have to offer. I'll take common sense over "education" anytime (you can apparently get both an undergraduate and a graduate degree from a good university here, and still come out inordinately stupid); but our movers and shakers don't seem to be able to let anyone know what a common sense, pragmatic alternative would be.

There's much more that could be said, but I'd have to disagree about the media getting President Bush re-elected. Most of it was fear---3 years after 9/11, troops at war, and a sense that the President had done the best he could with what was handed him (9/11). In that sense, among many Americans, Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" backfired because it put so much blame upon "Bush" that some people felt sorry for him. And yet, in spite of the fact that he was Commander in Chief with troops in the field in 2 separate countries and was the nation's leader just a few short years after the worst attack on the mainland, he managed to get all of 51% of the popular vote. Not exactly a ringing endorsement........

Dan

Dan,

Since I live in Australia, I would concede that you would know more about the US media's role in getting Bush re-elected than myself. However, I would submit that they gave him a rather large boost, in that they fully supported the invasion of Iraq. The goals of the media owners and the Bush Government neatly complemented each other. Also, I regularly heard media opinion leaders report on Kerry's apparent cowardice, when in fact it was Bush who went missing during critical years of his youth. I agree that circumstances favored the incumbent, as they do in times of national crisis.

I agree that it's amusing to hear American opinion leaders complain of left wing or liberal bias in the media. And neither major political party remotely resembles the left of the political spectrum, IMO.

Carrying on from a debate on welfare provision, currently raging on the JFK section, I would like members comments on the following quotation.

"The test of a civilised society is how it treats its young, old and infirm.

If anyone is interested in an extreme right-winger's view on this subject I suggest that people take a look at this thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1160

I doubt if you could find many people in the world outside America expressing such views as Craig Lamson. It just goes to show just how different America is to the rest of the world. I expect it is because they have never experienced life in a welfare state. No doubt there are probably extremely rich people in the UK who might think like this, but they are highly unlikely to express it in public.

John and Steve (and Craig and Peter and Mark and....),

I have to take issue with the contention of "how different America is to the rest of the world." It's too easy to lump all Americans in via the expressions of conservatism as provided by Messrs. Lamson, Slattery, etc. As good historians, you should recognize that we wage an ongoing struggle here against the troglodytes with regressive agendas, a struggle we constantly seem to be losing due to the concentration of interest in terms of wealth, political influence, media influence, "religious" influence, etc, etc. (Power, in other words.)

regressive forces in any country have the real power for the same reason. And what happens when those forces are checked (always belatedly, incrementally, and half-heartedly)? The regressive forces go off the deep end in terms of rational discourse---xenophobia, chauvinism, anti-Semitism, wide-scale lynching, bombing campaigns. This would be funny (psychologically) if no one got hurt---as in people running around claiming the sky was falling because of the "media's liberal slant" when conservative ideas and "values" are so widely subscribed to. (Fox News as a paranoid over-reaction to a belief)

Our country reacted to the Bolshevik Revolution and the internationalist idealism of Wilson with a Red Scare and Palmer Raids and a decade of unbridled "private entrepeneurs" leading to the stock market crash and the Great Depression. Undaunted by stupidity, the regressive forces emerged from World War II with all their old grievances intact---and now had to deal with the rest of the world on a larger stage. So we "lost" China, the social safeguards initiated under the New Deal were "creeping socialism," Communists might be lurking in your very own home, segregation was essential to "the American way of life" and Negroes pressing for their civil rights were Communist-influenced, Ike himself was not ideologically pure enough.

then a pragmatic Catholic becomes President of these United States, the Antichrist is here, and his successor is a traitor to the South (pushing hard for civil rights progress). George Wallace gets almost 10 million votes running as a 3rd-party candidate in 1968, and those votes would have gone to Nixon if Wallace hadn't been running. Within a decade, those voters who would never have believed they could support "the party of Lincoln" were joining the GOP in droves because the GOP now represented the "values" the previous segregationists held so dear. And so all the issues were successfully reframed accoring to a conservative temperament: black Americans now had their civil rights, the whole world began anew, and there was now widespread "reverse discrimination"; there was not enough private initiative due to the inimical influence of the welfare state; God Himself had been kicked out of the classroom by secular humanism (read: education in a democratic society). And let's not forget the flag, since the inviolability of a piece of cloth is regarded as a much more serious thing than the United States Constitution.

The problem with all regressives is how blatantly hypocritical they are. As if "social welfare" has never applied to how they have been able to succeed in life (via tax-cuts and exemptions, subsidies, the benefits that come from "knowing the right people" in society and being willing to kiss the asses of those right people). As if "progress" were a zero-sum static thing instead of an ongoing process (since civil rights laws are on the books there is not now nor ever was such a thing as discrimination, end of story, period--the whole world was created yesterday).

It may not be clear right now, but President Bush is succeeding in laying the foundation for an overall progressive renewal: just as the bankruptcy of the old regressive agenda was laid bare by the Great Depression, so the bankruptcy of the regressive agenda and what has passed for "conservative values" in the US over the past several decades has been laid bare and revealed for what it truly is in this decade. Most of the American people are dimly aware of where the money and the benefits are going in this society, above all they recognize that it's not going to them. But it will still take some time to see how it plays out, since self-righteous hypocrisy has been an advantage instead of a problem for regressive troglodytes, and they've never let what they call their "Christianity" stand in the way of their agenda. In fact, their "Christianity" has always been the most important tool in their belt, as long as it is defined "correctly." But I personally regard that attitude as blasphemous as such---the idea they have that they "own" God or Jesus or Heaven.

It is not that a lack of life being fair is the continuous factor - but selfishness, ignorance and a lack of altruism.

Sincerely,

Dan

Dan,

Yes, very thoughtful post. I agree about Bush. So far he's been the best friend a terrorist recruiter could ever wish for. He will also prove to be the catalyst for a progressive renewal and rethink. Exploitation and ruthless interference in the affairs of other countries, overconsumption of scarce resources with scant consideration for future generations and the use of "Christianity" as a weapon to justify this behavior will need to be reappraised and recognised for what it is. Currently, the US fails the civilised society test but that doesn't mean there won't be a change.

The high level of political illiteracy in the US, as John Simkin noted, is a big problem. Exacerbating this, of course, is a mendacious mainstream media which actively promotes causes which do great harm to American society: global military adventurism, the 'war on drugs' and tax policies which strongly favor the rich to name just three. The media persuaded Americans to re-elect Bush. It shapes the opinions of many (unfortunately). And it is shamelessly dishonest. The media refuses to debate issues which desperately need to be debated while blatantly creating hysteria by overzealously stressing others. Curiously, the issues it constantly reports on like crime, drugs and terrorism are issues from which the media derives great profit. The issues which the media ignores like the corruption of America's political system, the duplicity of the 'war on drugs' and the 'war on terror' and even the assassination of JFK, RFK, MLK and others are issues which, if properly analysed in the light of day, might pose a threat to the media's future profit forecasts.

However, I basically agree with the sentiment of your post. The further America moves to the right, the more globally isolated they will become which will, despite the mainstream media's reluctance, necessitate a general debate on just exactly where they plan to go. 'Conservative values' will be re-defined.

When Skip Rydberg was due to leave the Navy in 1968, he wrote to Humes and Boswell requesting letters of recommendation. He received two very differrent replies. It seems from Boswell's response that something went on in the morgue that night he was very unhappy with.

Barry

Barry,

Thanks for that. What a strange letter from Dr. Boswell.

Mark Stapleton wrote:

"Craig,

I'm glad you stated that you want to empower us to succeed. That's great. Thanks.

I have a question for you. I don't like putting Forum members on the spot like this. One can usually guess where someone stands on the larger question of who killed JFK by the tone and content of their posts over a given period of time but I've never read any substantive post from you indicating where you stand on this larger question. You seem to play your cards close to your chest. Lots of put downs of other members, but nothing indicating where you stand.

Well, what's your opinion? This is an assassination forum, after all. Personal responsibilty for your own carefully considered opinion is what it's all about, not a free ride on the back of the opinion of others. My current position is that I believe US armaments manufacturers, LBJ and US and Israeli military intelligence conspired to kill JFK, with possible assistance from moneyed interests, maybe even Howard Hughes. I take personal responsibilty for this view. Who do you think killed JFK?"

Actually I've made statements similar to this one on this forum when asked.

I don't really have an opinion on who killed JFK. If I had to lean one way or the other I'd put my money on Oswald but I've not spent enough time dealing with all the crap to have developed an informed opinion. I'm not actually all that concerned with the continuing investigation as to who "might" have done it because I don't think it has any real relevance anymore. I also believe that if it somehow it was proven that the government/military/big oil/ castro/etc were the real killers nothing would change.

My interest in JFK is the photos, since photography is my background. I find it simulating and very entertaining. I actually was "forced" to deal with the JFK images due to my past membership at the DellaRosa Forum. I joined that forum to deal with the sillyness of the "Apollo was faked " works of Jack White. Needless to say they were not too thrilled that I and a few others were poking holes in their man White's BS. So it was deal with JFK or leave, so I took a look at the "photo research" in the JFK case. In the process I became involved with a number of other JFK researchers from both sides of the case and we did some projects togeter, which have been published on the web.

Beyond I find reading the daily fare here is amusing to say the least.

I take personal responsibility for this view.

Thanks for that. The major point of disagreement I have with your post is your assertion that solving the crime of JFK's assassination has no relevance. I disagree.

p.s. you should visit the political debates section sometimes. Plenty of left leaning historians and journalists there to amuse you. Just because a person is left leaning ie. may advocate universal health care or other social reforms, doesn't necessarily make them dangerous lefties hellbent on destroying America.

Perhaps the real reason American have "not followed Europes lead" is that some of us can see the utter failure of the "welfare state". I for one am very happy we have not gotten into the sewer of socialism. YMMV.

The welfare state in this country is financed through a system of National insurance. Every adult in employment pays a small percentage of their salary into this scheme. In return they recieve, Health care, at the point of need, The biulding of social housing(although this has all but ceased in recent years) unemployment income, a small percentage of their in work income, Education is also partly funded by the charge. Can the system be misused, yes, would I be without it, No, Has it ever prevented me from working hard, and being ambitious in my chosen field? no, and nor does it with most people. I strongly suspect that it is because it is partly socialistic in nature that you hate, and fear it.

Is it any wonder that a welfare state is popular? Why not. The burden of making good perspnal choices and having personal responsibility has been lifted. People are free to toally screw up their lives with no cares. Don't work, no problem, make someone else pay. No apartment, no problem, the rich can pay your way. Lotta babies and not dad...no problem. Yep that looks like the ideal system to build a stong country. Thanks but no thanks.

You really dont have a very high opinion of your fellow Humans do you Craig? Every single one of them out to screw you, do you down, live the high life on your precious tax Dollars. Given the precarious nature of Capitalism I am very glad we have a safety net, (imperfect as it is) Long may it continue to offer basic protection to me and my children. and by extention everybody else's children as well.

No I have a VERY high opinion of my fellow human beings. I WANT them to succeed. I want to EMPOWER them, not destroy thier will, which is what happens to those in a welfare state.

Your "safety net" is a direct result of capitalism. Exactly where do you think the money comes from? The Socialist fairy? What will you do when those who create the weath you gladly steal decide enough is enough? You are the perfect example of the failure of socialism. Instead of taking the personal responsibality to provide for the "basic protection" of you and your children, you expect SOMEONE ELSE to surrender their person property to support you! You are the perfect political pawn....beholden to others, not responsibile for yourself. How sad. And on the government dole to boot!

No wonder you like the system...it frees you from personal responsibilty and frees you from being a failure.

Socialism has always been a failure. It will fail for you too.

.

Craig,

I'm glad you stated that you want to empower us to succeed. That's great. Thanks.

I have a question for you. I don't like putting Forum members on the spot like this. One can usually guess where someone stands on the larger question of who killed JFK by the tone and content of their posts over a given period of time but I've never read any substantive post from you indicating where you stand on this larger question. You seem to play your cards close to your chest. Lots of put downs of other members, but nothing indicating where you stand.

Well, what's your opinion? This is an assassination forum, after all. Personal responsibilty for your own carefully considered opinion is what it's all about, not a free ride on the back of the opinion of others. My current position is that I believe US armaments manufacturers, LBJ and US and Israeli military intelligence conspired to kill JFK, with possible assistance from moneyed interests, maybe even Howard Hughes. I take personal responsibilty for this view. Who do you think killed JFK?

It's incredible how investigating aspects of this case can lead to a myriad of seemingly interconnected individuals. Now we have George McLendon (many thanks to Greg Parker) who is, by all accounts, connected directly to Ruby and more indirectly to LBJ. Also, like so many other persons of interest in this case, he is ex-Navy. As a former interpreter, translater and owner of not one but a network of radio stations, the communications field is clearly his long suit. Of course, as pointed out by Robert, it's no certainty that McLendon placed that strange set of advertisements.

I maintain the ads contained a message related to the conspiracy. The explanation concerning the film 'Running Man' stinks worse than a marathon runner's socks, IMO. It's a red herring designed to confuse and frustrate. The film was released in America two weeks before the ads and the terminology of the film title may have been deliberately used to mask the content of the message. To my way of thinking, the wide circulation print media is ideal for communicating coded messages in a compartmentalised operation like this--nobody speaks face to face and the person transmitting the message doesn't necessarily know who it's intended to reach--he just knows he's done his job.

The timing of the ads mesh perfectly with the timing of LHO's ill-fated employment. Like Tiger Woods says--it's all a matter of timing.

Why does the timing of the ads correspond exactly with LHO's application for the job at the TSBD?

Because the timing also corresponds exactly with the movie "The Running Man" being shown in Dallas. The filmmakers and theater owners couldn't help it if LHO happened to get hired at the TSBD at the same time.

If the ads promote the film "Running Man", why don't they mention the character's name, Stella?

Because no one would know who the hell "Stella" was until they saw the movie. So it would make much more sense to use the name of the actress playing Stella, since "Lee" Remick was well known, to clearly connect the ad to the movie that people hadn't seen yet.

(And please don't say it's a coincidence)

Sorry, but I'm afraid I just did. And I hate coincidences!

Ron

Ron,

According to IMDb, the release date of the movie was 2 October, 1963. If a distributor or movie company wants to increase interest in the film prior to its release date, then they sometimes come up with creative ways to promote the film, as they did with Independance Day, as I recall (and what a dog that was). It would be very unusual for a theatre owner to still be indulging in esoteric gimmicks well after its release date when many reviews have already been written and most who have seen it know it is no blockbuster (it gets 6.3 on IMDb which makes it slightly better than a turkey, IMO).

Sorry Ron, I don't buy it. The main coincidence here is that this movie was released at roughly the same time as the assassination, giving the LNers an opportunity to hastily cobble together a flimsy explanation for the messages which appeared in the Dallas papers at the time of LHO's employment with the TSBD. There's your coincidence--and I hate them too!

If I ran a theatre in Dallas, I would advertise coming attractions in bold type---prominently and loudly. I wouldn't disguise the ads as cryptic puzzles, then bury them deep within the classified section.

Mark,

How do we know that the movie wasn't advertised "prominently and loudly" in the newspapers? I'm sure the theater advertised what it was showing, as all theaters did in those days, in the entertainment section. The ads in the classified section may have been just a little icing on the cake, to create curiosity and hence start a little word of mouth publicity.

Ron

Maybe. It would be a more plausible explanation if similar cryptic ads were placed in other newspapers around the country. Who's got time to check that out? Not me.

The two big curiosities are: a) Why does the timing of the ads correspond exactly with LHO's application for the job at the TSBD? and If the ads promote the film "Running Man", why don't they mention the character's name, Stella?

Can you help with these questions, Ron. (And please don't say it's a coincidence)

James, which newspaper are the ads from? Is it possible they would still have the records of those who placed advertisments in the classifieds? It might not necessarliy lead anywhere but discovering who placed those ads would be intriguing. (Mark Stapleton)

Mark,

The ads I posted came from the Dallas Morning News.

Cheers,

James

I recently spoke with an individual who would know, who stated that the Dallas Police Department had investigated the classified advertisement's for 'Running Man, please contact me LEE.' Apparently, the classified ad had been noted by the FBI [ie J. Edgar Hoover] as well.

This is what I was told.

"The ad's were placed not only in the Dallas Morning News, but in the Dallas Times Herald on the same day's as they ran in the Dallas Morning News. The ad's were placed by the owner or manager of the Capri Theater in Dallas, as a promotion for the movie 'The Running Man.'"

Substaniating this, is the fact that by October 20, 1963 the film 'The Running Man' starring Laurence Harvey, Lee Remick and Alan Bates does indeed appear on the marquee listings as showing at the Capri Theater in Dallas, Texas.

This information is not intended to dissuade any further research on the subject, but is simply intended as a FYI to all who have an interest./Robert

Robert,

Thanks for that info. The fact that the DPD investigated the ads and accepted the explanation given doesn't mitigate the ads suspicious nature, IMO. The DPD has zero credibility in matters relating to JFK, and the benefit of the doubt can never be given to them, IMO.

If I ran a theatre in Dallas, I would advertise coming attractions in bold type---prominently and loudly. I wouldn't disguise the ads as cryptic puzzles, then bury them deep within the classified section. That makes no sense. It seems a bit too subliminal and sophisticated to have been used as an advertising technique in Dallas in 1963. The explanation sounds false, and as Lee Forman pointed out, why use the name 'Lee' instead of the film character's actual name, 'Stella'?

IMO, it's a coded message from a participant in the conspiracy, signalling that the patsy had been manipulated into place and giving the all clear for the plan to proceed.

[quote name='James Richards' date='Dec 6 2005, 01:29 AM' post='47477']

In addition to the ad previously posted, here are two more 'Running Man' classifieds. They come from the 16th and 17th of October, 1963.

FWIW.

James

James: FWIW, I think you are onto something here. Does not sound like any movie ad I have ever seen. Sounds more like code.

Dawn

If WC looked at it, they also covered it up. (after not investigating it, good old FBI)

Interesting, Lee. I too had thought of the movie. Coincidentally or not, it was released in 1963.

I'm sure it's a tie-in to the movie. Lee Remick is begging for her "Running Man" to come back. In the movie she plays the wife of Laurence Harvey, who may have inadvertently just played a different Lee in the Manchurian Candidate. He fakes his death in an insurance scam and goes on the run.

Sounds very plausible Pat - but why not use the name 'Stella' in that case? It's not Lee Remick doing the begging, it's her character?

- lee

Lee submitted his job application with the TSBD on October 15.

It was a coded message, sent three days in a row, confirming the patsy was being positioned. IMO, of course.

Mark: As usual, I think you nailed it!!! Well done, mate.

Dawn

(playing catch up here... saw Shanet's name as last post so knew it had to be of interest!! Glad to see ya back Shan).

Hi Dawn,

Yes, I think it is definitely a message pertaining to LHO, 'running man' meaning patsy, of course.

Checking if similar classified ads were placed in newspapers in other US cities at the same time could disprove the idea--as Tim suggested in post #21--or it could turn out quite interesting. Has anyone got some time to spare?

James, which newspaper are the ads from? Is it possible they would still have the records of those who placed advertisments in the classifieds? It might not necessarliy lead anywhere but discovering who placed those ads would be intriguing.