Nathaniel Heidenheimer

She often steers clear, sos to avoid a highly unprofessional shock. See, Why do flowers grow toward sunlight, Why do political science professors grow towards Pocantico etc.... At this level of most even mildly centralized nervous systems, mindset is an afterthought.

How was Reeves Portrayal of JFK? I found this paragraph interesting about Reeves portrayal of the RFK campaign of 1968. I agree with the author, Joseph A. Palermo, that Reeves depiction is wrong. ----- On Sunday, March 31, 1968, a lengthy piece by the journalist Richard Reeves appeared in the New York times Magazine that referred several times to Kennedy's campaign organization as a "well-oiled machine." The lateness of Kennedy's entry, and his hastily-assembled staff, did not stop Reeves from portray9ing the campaign as a juggernaut(10) It was the kind of media exposure that reinforced complacency among Kennedy's supporters while energizing his opponents, and was a view Republican newspapers also promoted.(11) In reality, the the early Kennedy campaign bore little resemblance to a a machine, well-oiled or otherwise.(p. 190, In His Own Right) ---- It was Humphrey who was playing the delegate game by sitting out the primaries, and getting the top labor bureaucrats signed up early. RFK was using grass roots community groups to bring a new kind of pressure-- one that elites within the Democrats felt were unseemly-- on the older party controlled delegate structures. Also Palermo points out that RFK was getting lots of local labor support that defied the George Blue Meanys of the day. Reeves portrayal seems exactly the opposite of the what was actually happening on the ground in Indiana, Nebraska, and California. Also Palermo points out the RFK would not hesitate to strongly criticize the Vietnam war even in the most staunchly Republican counties of Nebraska. RFK talked class more explicitly than any democrat since. Yes, the full contradictions of his campaign must be explored. But I am tired of reading distortions from the so-called left-- however fashionable they are in their specious lefter than thouism-- that only help us move further right because they cover up the edge of what is permissible in US politics.

this is one paragraph from John Simkins' Spartacus thread on Desmond Fitzgerald and it relates to RFK's work with CIA figures in Mongoose: ----- Robert Kennedy put FitzGerald under a lot of pressure to arrange the assassination of Fidel Castro. CIA agent, Sam Halpern, later claimed that "Bobby Kennedy was a bad influence on Des. He reinforced his worst instincts." Thomas Parrott, the secretary of SGA, claimed that FitzGerald had trouble dealing with Kennedy: "He was arrogant, he knew it all, he knew the answer to everything. He sat there, tie down, chewing gum, his feet up on the desk. His threats were transparent. It was, "If you don't do it, I tell my big brother on you." ----- My question is what are our sources that "Robert Kennedy put Fitzgerald under a lot of pressure to arrange the assassination of Fidel Castro". This is stated as a simple fact by John, and is not quoted or attributed to any one source. Are we to assume that it is the assertion of Sam Halpern, close associate of Richard Helms? Are there other sources to this bold and simple assertion?

Tanks Tom. Lens have missed me toooo.

On May 22[1968], a few days before the Oregon primary, Professor Andrew Robinson, who played a key role for McCarthy in Nebraska, had resigned from his campaign, declaring that "the idealism and the gallantry the Senator McCarthy displayed should not be ..Columbia University Press (June 15, 2002)http://www.amazon.com/His-Own-Right-Joseph-Palermo/dp/0231120699 lost in the pell mell rush for the Humphrey bandwagon. The torch has now passed to Robert Kennedy" ROBINSON SAID THE APPOINTMENT OF THOMAS FINNEY, WHO JOINED MCARTHEY AS HIS CAMPAIGN DIRECTOR IN THE LAST WEEKS OF THE OREGON CAMPAIGN, WAS WHAT HAD PUSHED HIM INTO THE KENNEDY CAMP. FINNEY, THE FORMER CIA OFFICIAL AND LAW PARTNER OF DEFENSE SECRETARY CLARK CLIFFORD, MAINTAINED CLOSE TIES TO HUMPHREY This book by Palermo is the most relevant book to read on the Democrats since 1968. It completely annihilates all of the obvious gatekeeping that has gone on around the RFK hit, which offers the most perspective on teh Corporate Democrats of today, and is hence the most dangerous [and the most ignored] of all of the assassinations.

Where are all of the posts of Peter Lemkin? What in the world is going on? Did he type some things that seemed callous, WHEN SEEN IN ISOLATION AND NOT IN THE CONTEXT OF THOSE WHO STUCK TO HIM LIKE ....? Well guess what happens when you are attacked for hours and hours and hours on end on every single thread that you start and every single post that you make. It is a natural response of any living thing to develop callouses. Peter was in this situation-- as nobody else on this forum has ever been --not even close-- since I first discovered it in the Fall of 2005. If one want's to argue that someone in this social sitution should be inelligeable as a moderator, well that is highly dabateable given the conformity that might result from such an exclusion of someone who was attacked for having minority views. But it is an absoultely insane and tyranical basis for exclusion when when one realizes that one of the other moderators was a primary nemesis. As far as I am concerned, the legitimacy of this forum is in question. Whether via Stalinist air brushing, British libel law or some liberal mixture of the two, thousands of hours of a man's thought is consigned to oblivion with the push of a button or two. Far worse, rumors are spread that seem completely unanswerable. This without a word of explanation. Even a Supreme Court packed with Scalia clones would offer a press release. Is there no accountability here whatsoever?

y

This book is incredible!!! It really shows like nothing else I have seen before how CENTRAL the MKULTRA Bluebird, Artichoke stuff was. I am continuously amazed at how VIRTUALLY ALL the key players of CIA then and later during JFK assassination were in some way or another involved in these 3 programs from at the latest 1953. It really repositions these programs in terms of ones schema of CIA history, because it shows that the idea of compartmentalization, can obscure as much as reveal: your Kirkpatrick's might know one angle of a program and your Edwards' might know another, but they both knew important stuff very very early. Given the latter's role along with Houston in later "investigations" of the CIA, it is impossible for the readers new gleaning about the MKULTRA part not to affect his her view of the whole of CIA's later history. In short, this book is a game-changer for even well read readers on this topic. I recommend people get this book now. Never has such a specific book been so general in its ramifications. And I'm still only 1/3 of way through.

"Here's a guy who was in the Situation Room when JFK was killed and when Reagan was shot. " Bill do you mean literally in the situation room? What are your sources on that? I knew about the army coup planning, but not that. What was the stated reason for being there, or did he go there after the reports of the shooting? Yes Tom, fascinating stuff on Green and George De and Al. Do we later see Green in the Black Eagle Trust stuff?

Whoaoaoaoaoaooaaoaoaoaoaoaoa Ten Stars and i'm only on page 53. thats my Amazon review. I am typing this with one hand, because this new book A Terrible Mistake is unputdownable. To operate motor vehicles within three hours of consuming it just might be terrible mistake2. It's mesmerizing.

Kathy and Tom-- I also think its very important to place this chemical in context. There is an excellent book I think called Storming Heaven: a social history of LSD, and thats just what it is , a social history ie. not some celebration of druggery. Well anyway, we need to remember that our connotations of this drug are largely based on post 1966 illegality period and San Francisco media connotations etc. In 62 early 63 period, these connotations were absolutely not there. It was a psychotherapeutic mothers massive helper for the upper middle class and had connotations of Huxley etc. Now I think there is a danger here of some rejecting this LSD narrative out of a sense that this is one more "media smear" campaign against JFK etc. Some of this may have been in evidence in Jim di Eugenio's comments about Peter Janney and John Simkin re the MPM case. To me that particular comment of di Eugenio's seemed like an example of wide elbow's on Jim D's part; a somewhat mean spirited dismissal of the ENTIRE MPM narrative, while it was very unclear about which particular aspect of that narrative Jim D. was disagreeing with. Perhaps it was typical of many others who might see the LSD part of the narrative as automatically more of Sir Seymour of Langley-Sink- Throwing. The history of LSD must be born in mind here. If the Leary aspect of the narrative is open to question then bring those questions on! To assume automatically, however, that the LSD stuff is automatically outlandish because of its 1967 associations is ahistorical. Sure this ahisoricism might be taken advantage of by sink throwers, but that does not excuse the responsibility of true researchers from making these finer points rather than dismissing the whole MPM narrative, baby and bathwater. What a long, strange and ahistorical trip it's been makes for an awkward lyric.

http://www.amazon.com/Marys-Mosaic-Pinchot...n/dp/0979988632 No pressure or anything Peter. This book has I think been delayed twice perhaps on account of Janney's detour? into the Dino Brugioni NPIC interviews. I have been looking forward to it for about three years now.

----- Yes John. Also I think it is a mistake to look at disinformation solely in terms of concrete red-herrings planted for experts. There is no shortage of that either, but what I am suggesting here is a different genre. Professional historians are much closer to the consensus that the JFK assassination was the result of a conspiracy than the general educated reader of publications like the NYT might realize. How then, does the professional dissinformationalist deal with this situation? Here one more ding-an-banana peal is not the way to go. These folk do professional homework. A better idea is to fuzz up the audience, by messing with what people consider high and low-status knowledge. Now a book like Kai Bird's book on Oppenheimer might be cool to mention among a certain Nation reading audience of professionals. Try mentioning a book at least as scholarly with much deeper implications-- such as James Douglas' book on the JFK assassination-- among the same audience in the US. Eyebrows among some of them will conspire to do the wave. IMO, that is what books like Voodoo Histories are "about": making darn sure that dangerous topics are seen as low-class, even when the research behind them has revealed a far greater degree of certainty than most might think. There is too much new evidence out there to actively maintain the truth of LNism. Other strategies of disinformation must now be used in addition. That IMO is the propaganda function of David Aaronovitch's new book: to keep history that matters and might in fact become actionable intelligence if it becomes widely understood,.... to keep such truth's "vulgar" even if based on more empiricism many might think. The 23% who still believe in LN must never be held up for ridicule. That priority has more to do with manners than bullet fragments.

Gosh, I've been insulted again, this time by a moderator! I'm either a "cognitive infiltrator" (whatever that is) or I'm too "naive" to "catch on" that he's right... Isn't it against the rules to cast aspersions of this sort? Have you read the book, Peter? Nathaniel, the book is not primarily about whether or not there was a conspiracy to assassinate Pres. Kennedy. As you said, there is only a short chapter on that. There are other issues which interest historians. And there are other conspiracy theories... ------ Mike I disagree. The merger of the EXTREMIST-shallow treatment given to the JFK overview-- especially given how much new primary and secondary material there is on the JFK assassination-- WITH the musings on more provably outlandish Conspiracy Theories is IN MY OPINION one of the purposes of this book. Now do I have any concrete proof of this? NO I HAVE NONE WHATSOEVER. However do we have historical proof of this sort of baby and bathwater disinformation among psudo leftist in order to control the left and wall them off from potentially quite dangerous potholes in history? Yes we do. Given that we live in a radically undemocratic media environment, I feel it necessary to alert my fellow citizens to possibilities that are based on observations from past history. It is important to emphasize that that is what they are-- possibilities. But there is historical precedent: see bellow the review of Hugh Wilford's book: The Mighty Wurlitzer ------ Fair, Balanced on Trees; Forest Focus Could Be Sharper, January 25, 2008 How is it that many within the CIA were considered "liberal" by many within the FBI and their friends in the right-wing 'China Lobby' The answer is psychological warfare. Many within the CIA were affiliated with ostensibly liberal internationalist efforts, such as World Federalism, for which Agency media guru Cord Meyer showed enthusiasm. The liberal label could be misleading, however, if the right meant that the CIA "liberals" were at odds with US Cold War foreign policy goals. Just the opposite was true. The CIA liberals had done their communications research howework, as Christopher Simpson has pointed out in his essential and skinny volume The Science of CoercionScience of Coercion: Communication Research and Psychological Warfare, 1945-1960. They realized that special publications would be needed to tame left-liberal dissent from US global ambitions. And so publications like Encounter Magazine were created. Five of six articles would be left liberal, to win over this small BUT INFLUENCIAL group of tweedy professors and quasi-professionals who were capable of footnoting their bad moods. Once they thought that "this magazine is on our side' they would be more suceptible to the raison d'etre of the whole glossy: the monthly gatekeeping article that would keep this caffinated crew from openly opposing US Cold War Foreign Policy objectives. Just so was the intention behind CIA subsidies for domestic front groups such as labor unions, art critics, and journalists within the US. The author deals skillfully with the individuals involved: many of the individuals did not know that their organizations were being supported by the CIA. Others did know and walked on eggshells to preserve their collegues' virgin curiosities. The author is carefull to give people who cooperated with the Agency a fair shake. It is doubtful that Gloria Steinem could get a fairer shake than she does in this book; true she was young but a handshake or two with arch-conservative Psychological Warfare veterans like Time-Life CIA's C. D. Jackson should wake one up a bit. The author points out that there were many times when the front group bahaved in ways contrary to the wishes of their CIA funders. In fact, one wonders if the point is not overemphasized. The point was never to turn the targetted audience into armchair McAthurs: rather it was to prevent theier becoming vocal critics of Greater Containment. A little slackening of the leash now and then would have been appropriate for these scientists of coercion. In short, the CIA front groups, as is emphasized more strongly in Francis Stonor Saunders book (The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters ) were left-gatekeepers with rightist ends in mind. This point about the project could bear much stronger emphasis. On the other hand there is plenty of fresh detail in The Mighty Wurlitzer. The author openly acknowledges his debt to Saunders book but there is fresh information and detail in nearly every chapter. I recommend this book for everyone interested in post World War history and journalism. One will never read The Nation in quite the same way!

----- I thought those deus ax Mechanical jobs were supposed to chop from higher than Mr. Byrd's sixth floor.

John let me be clear I was not alluding to "destroy" that book in the sense of interfering with the electronic delivery of this book. The thought never crossed my brain. I was just using the word "destroy" in the sense of writing a devastating review that would easily be ranked the top negative review and be seen by tens of thousands. This would in turn enable all those readers to press the product link button that the author had inserted in order to promote a great though neglected work to a hitherto impossibly large audience.

This book is now inside the Amazon top 100 when combined with its kindle edition. It spends four pages on the RFK assassination. The only fact it mentions is the mistake made by the author of JFK Must Die in trying to identify the CIA agents in the Ambassador. No other facts are given, about why anyone would even be the least bit suspicious about the RFK hit. Amazon lists this book in its "historiography" section. JFK and the Unspeakable, a book with roughly 900 scholarly as all hell footnotes per chapter is listed in the "Conspiracy Theory" section. A product link to a real book could raise the sales of an obscure but good book by a factor of hundreds or even thousands. Act. There are a hundred people on this site who could destroy this book by taking six hours to communicate to thousands and thousands. Is that really more valuable than typing one more point for the cognoscenti? I make no claim to be among that group, though perhaps I sound sufficiently pretentious. I do know why the movement to reexamine the JFK Assassination has not yet met its goal, however. It is not for lack of facts or fine writers.

------- Mike I read it. It bites. This book can be a real momentum-killer if it is not addressed head-on. It is not even trying to enter into a debate over any of the serious conspiracy arguments such as JFK, RFK, and 9-ll. It is merely another attempt to section off part of public debate with more yellow thought-police tape. It does however make for a real cheap Phd in sociology of knowledge, if anyone needs one quick.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/books/16aaron.html?hpw Aaronovitch's book is plugged by the New York Times this week, in a review that claims to rely on LOGIC. According to the reviewer, Occam's razor suggests that the stork brings babies, since that explanation is much simpler than that complex theory involving the birds and the bees. Of course the Occam's razor known to logic is just a little bit sharper than the Times's reviewer seems to think. It states that the hypothesis containing the FEWEST ASSUMPTIONS is ususally the correct one. As critical readers of the Warren Report can see, the case against Lee Oswald involves a great many assumptions, while the case for his innocence requires only one. Occam's Razor doesn't help Aaronovitch in the JFK case, even though he uses Matthew Smith to give the rest of us a bad name. I have never met a JFK researcher who considers Matthew Smith a serious student of the case. No doubt Occam's Razor helps Aaronovitch in some of the wilder conspiracy theories he deals with, but if the Times reviewer is accurate then we can say that logic is not his strong suit. It seems Aaronovitch Yet when when dealing with the Red Scare conspiracy theory of the so-called McCarthy era (in which Lee Oswald became a victim) So conspiracy theories are the product of East Coasters and Hollywooders who are educated and like art and fancy music, the politically defeated and the socially defeated? ---- It is simply incredible that an Oxbridge edjumakated War ho like Aaronovitch could mouth lines like that whih are so transparently designed to appeal to Reagan dems. and rich folks who want to seem earthy at the same time. This book is all mental-fashion accessorizing and no fact. A whole new level that would herniate Orwell. It must be roundly trashed by anyone with a bit of free time on Amazon. Since so many people will see your review, it is well worth your time. Comments: Only those can comment who have read the book...and who would buy and read a"trashy" book? Those who quote "Occam's Razor" usually do not understand it and usually misuse it...and try to create a cloak of being "educated". Jack ------- Jack one can read the book in the bookstore. That's what B and N is for these days. That way you dont have to give money for such trash. Not to address this book as a means of showing your superior taste is a Pyrrhic victory. It keeps informed observers such as yourself right where the government wants you... ONLY reaching veteran researchers in very small groups instead of possibly thousands of young Jack Whites! Now which do you think the government feels more threatened by? And if you don't ..... how many millions will never read a review because their brains were celaphaned by such sewage?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/books/16aaron.html?hpw Aaronovitch's book is plugged by the New York Times this week, in a review that claims to rely on LOGIC. According to the reviewer, Occam's razor suggests that the stork brings babies, since that explanation is much simpler than that complex theory involving the birds and the bees. Of course the Occam's razor known to logic is just a little bit sharper than the Times's reviewer seems to think. It states that the hypothesis containing the FEWEST ASSUMPTIONS is ususally the correct one. As critical readers of the Warren Report can see, the case against Lee Oswald involves a great many assumptions, while the case for his innocence requires only one. Occam's Razor doesn't help Aaronovitch in the JFK case, even though he uses Matthew Smith to give the rest of us a bad name. I have never met a JFK researcher who considers Matthew Smith a serious student of the case. No doubt Occam's Razor helps Aaronovitch in some of the wilder conspiracy theories he deals with, but if the Times reviewer is accurate then we can say that logic is not his strong suit. It seems Aaronovitch Yet when when dealing with the Red Scare conspiracy theory of the so-called McCarthy era (in which Lee Oswald became a victim) So conspiracy theories are the product of East Coasters and Hollywooders who are educated and like art and fancy music, the politically defeated and the socially defeated? ---- It is simply incredible that an Oxbridge edjumakated War ho like Aaronovitch could mouth lines like that whih are so transparently designed to appeal to Reagan dems. and rich folks who want to seem earthy at the same time. This book is all mental-fashion accessorizing and no fact. A whole new level that would herniate Orwell. It must be roundly trashed by anyone with a bit of free time on Amazon. Since so many people will see your review, it is well worth your time.

Please write a review of this book http://www.amazon.com/Voodoo-Histori...=cm_cr_pr_pb_t It is selling really fast, and is pure mental sewage brought to us by a leading proponent of Blair Iraq. It baby and bathwater's JFK assassination with the Da Vinci code. It has four pages on JFK assassination and is just sad Since this book is selling so much it is a great way to promote other books like Unspeakable, the new edition of Evica. etc. Anyone with any time to spend on this could easily write the top review and it WOULD BE SEEN BY THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS. All you have to do is.. INSERT A PRODUCT LINK... THE PRODUCT LINK IS A GREAT WAY TO INTRODUCE MANY MANY MANY READERS TO OTHER BOOKS THEY WOULD NEVER OTHERWISE HEAR ABOUT. JFK assassination researchers should be spending every 7th minute of their remaining ones on this planet product linking as it is perhaps the only remaining mass media way of getting lots of new readers in a media system that is now factory produced cottage cheese. Or... dont, spend ALL your time on small sites ... allow this sewage to tinge an entire new generation, and then make comments on a small website about how dumb everyone is.... This Aaronovitch site is just mindblowingly propagandistic. It has really reached a new level...now please take action...

B. A. or Jack Is there anyway of directing one to any serious sources on the W. --John John stuff. I will just give my immediate reaction to the first time I heard of this stuff. This does not mean it is true or even a third cousin of truth. Its just the reflections of a citizen who mulls over disinformation a lot and how it is the real election, nearly everywhere, and is extremely bipartisan. Right now an incredible amount of new info, and new connections are being made about H.W. Bush and Dallas. Dangerous, but what is the way out of this in terms of the elite? Muddy it up. Bring on the flying saucers. [the last sentence was typed without any valencies whatsoever, re:UFOism; I know nothing about it, and am not currently interested in this realm, but this does not mean i dismiss it as either true of untrue; the more important question for me is WHY IS IT PUT IN THE SAME PHYLUM SOMETIMES AS JFK STUFF? This categorization, IMO, is a victory for disinformationists, and should be seen as such EVEN BY THOSE WHO PASSIONATLY BELIEVE IN ufo's and believe them to be important... I will explain why later on after people yell at me] I had never heard anything at all connecting W. to John John until this fall when I mentioned Russ Bakers incredible book Family of Secrets in front a large group of Long Islands finest citizenry. Then suddenly a man enthusiastically went into "Oh yes, and W. did in John John monologue" Eyebrows did the wave, all around the supper table. I forgot to give thans even though it was Thanksgiving. What's the point of this festive narrative? It just seemed to me that if one were looking to prevent more people from activly persuing the new H.W. Bush revelations, then one could not have done better than enlarging the phylum, so to speak with W. and John-John. Eye's rolled so heads would not. Look, I fully acknowledge that I have read nothing at all about John John's assasssination. My subject here is more disinformation strategies than that particular mysterious death. And yes I wan't to learn more. But to suggest that W. was behind it-- and this is my point if you were wondering-- well, we should be very very wary that this is a disinformation strategy. Why,logically, would anyone who wanted Jr. dead use another Bush?

Then there was his key role in Japanese internment during WWII. ---------------- Perhaps the most surprising advocate of evacuation was Earl Warren. Considering his later career as a vociferous liberal, it is at least ironic that, more than any other person, Warren led the popular sentiment to uproot and incarcerate the Japanese. As Attorney General of California, Warren cultivated popular racist feeling in an apparent effort to further his political career. He was an outstanding member of the xenophobia "Native Sons of the Golden West," an organization dedicated to keeping California "as it has always been and God Himself intended it shall always be-the White Man's Paradise." The "Native Sons" worked "to save California from the yellow-Jap peaceful invaders and their White-Jap co-conspirators." In February 1942, Warren testified before a special Congressional committee on the Japanese question. He would be running for Governor of the state that year, and would be elected. Warren testified, falsely, that the Japanese had "infiltrated themselves into every strategic spot in our coastal and valley counties." In one of the most amazing feats of logic ever performed by a lawyer, Warren next claimed that the very fact that no Japanese had so far committed any disloyal act was proof that they intended to do so in the future! Later, when the government began to release Japanese whose loyalty was above suspicion, Governor Warren protested that every citizen so released had to be kept out of California as a potential saboteur. Earl Warren played to popular racism to further his political career. Later, as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, he presided over the consummately liberal "Warren Court" which ushered in an era of racial "equality" and unprecedented racial chaos following the 1954 Brown decision. http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v02/v02p-45_Weber.html