Nathaniel Heidenheimer

I guess Ill be the first student in the history of human consciousness to take an incomplete on a hi coup! Don't worry come Al Haig Awareness Month (May)Ill need to be refumagated.

I can't imagaine why anyone would dabble in any of these silly conspiracy thoeries. Why the eternal vigilance of our media is everywhere; who could get away with anything these days! Why look at the former Governor of Illinois and the current Senator from that state! And look at how the media came down on Carolyn and her sweet millions! These folk are AT THE VERY CORE OF US POWER and our media's cameras never shuddered for an instance. No, conspiracy would never work here. Perhaps in Bengal maybe.

Oh I should probably specify ... pre June 4th interventions!

John this might be a bit broad but I would be curious about writings on the topic of CIA interventions in the 1968 Democratic primaries. The variety of different things would be the key here (an impossibility??). Of course it would be very easy to read too much into any one piece but it still could be good family entertainmen-- provided one doesn't live in Southern California!

Tom, I don't disagree with you on most of what you wrote there, save perhaps for an understimation of how much JFK represented the dreaded "Industrial Policy" to bankers like David Rockefeller, who were alarmed that JFK's tax credits were so tightly tied to domestic investment in modernizing factories and technology. This part clearly represented a threat to David Rockefeller which is why he balled out JFK in a famous two page talking down to in Life magazine -- or was it Time in 1962. I did not mean to imply that this latest example of the MIC hubris was the only problem. But it could be used as an interesting historical yardstick in a "how far we have come" sense. > Walker Fired, Patraeus becomes a talking point on CNN.

What's amazing is that after twenty years of Sam Halperin writ large we still get the line about Camelot and how the press was and is so easy on JFK!! Like band aids on a back-stabing, so are the lies of our Times.

Who is the one US President who its ok for the NYT to call a xxxx? http://100days.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/1...roken-promises/ Please write response before 1030 am when they usually stop taking comments.

http://www.counterpunch.org/porter02102009.html Gareth Porter is a great source. His book Perils Of Influence is an essential source on MICMC

from Al Haig's curious career hopefully sometime btw. the years 1963- 1975. Prize: an old Black Eagle Trust Note, which might be the very last inflation linked bond

Given Nixon's early (Jan 1969, and later (June 1973???????? not certain but was this brought up again in "Smoking Gun" tape???) to wrest the "Bay of Pigs File" from Helms and Ubiquitous Vern--friends called him "youvee" --Walters, the allegations about doctoring of Diem Docs. are among the loosest of Watergate ends, even in a very tough field. Was the CIA using the rumer that a clique insided the Nixon White House was responsible for document forgeries in order to muddy the waters --years later, when people began to investigate-- about THIER OWN disinformation re: JFK in Vietnam. Note that this division could have a disinformation--split the opposition narrative type value, even if there were never any document forgeries to begin with.

This article by Walter F> Graf and forum member Richard R. Barthololomew is an ambitious exploration of this muzzled mauser-discrepancy. The Gun That Didn't Smoke http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/gtds_3.html

This looks like a good source of information on Indonesia in 1965. Wish I had time to look at it. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB52/

Wolin, who taught political philosophy at the University of California in Berkeley and at Princeton, in his book "Democracy Incorporated" uses the phrase inverted totalitarianism to describe our system of power. Inverted totalitarianism, unlike classical totalitarianism, does not revolve around a demagogue or charismatic leader. It finds its expression in the anonymity of the corporate state. It purports to cherish democracy, patriotism and the Constitution while cynically manipulating internal levers to subvert and thwart democratic institutions. Political candidates are elected in popular votes by citizens, but they must raise staggering amounts of corporate funds to compete. They are beholden to armies of corporate lobbyists in Washington or state capitals who write the legislation. A corporate media controls nearly everything we read, watch or hear and imposes a bland uniformity of opinion or diverts us with trivia and celebrity gossip. In classical totalitarian regimes, such as Nazi fascism or Soviet communism, economics was subordinate to politics. "Under inverted totalitarianism the reverse is true," Wolin writes. "Economics dominates politics-and with that domination comes different forms of ruthlessness." I reached Wolin, 86, by phone at his home about 25 miles north of San Francisco. He was a bombardier in the South Pacific during World War II and went to Harvard after the war to get his doctorate. Wolin has written classics such as "Politics and Vision" and "Tocqueville Between Two Worlds." His newest book is one of the most important and prescient critiques to date of the American political system. He is also the author of a series of remarkable essays on Augustine of Hippo, Richard Hooker, David Hume, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Max Weber, Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl Marx and John Dewey. His voice, however, has faded from public awareness because, as he told me, "it is harder and harder for people like me to get a public hearing." He said that publications, such as The New York Review of Books, which often published his work a couple of decades ago, lost interest in his critiques of American capitalism, his warnings about the subversion of democratic institutions and the emergence of the corporate state. He does not hold out much hope for Obama. "The basic systems are going to stay in place; they are too powerful to be challenged," Wolin told me when I asked him about the new Obama administration. "This is shown by the financial bailout. It does not bother with the structure at all. I don't think Obama can take on the kind of military establishment we have developed. This is not to say that I do not admire him. He is probably the most intelligent president we have had in decades. I think he is well meaning, but he inherits a system of constraints that make it very difficult to take on these major power configurations. I do not think he has the appetite for it in any ideological sense. The corporate structure is not going to be challenged. There has not been a word from him that would suggest an attempt to rethink the American imperium." Wolin argues that a failure to dismantle our vast and overextended imperial projects, coupled with the economic collapse, is likely to result in inverted totalitarianism. He said that without "radical and drastic remedies" the response to mounting discontent and social unrest will probably lead to greater state control and repression. There will be, he warned, a huge "expansion of government power." "Our political culture has remained unhelpful in fostering a democratic consciousness," he said. "The political system and its operatives will not be constrained by popular discontent or uprisings." Wolin writes that in inverted totalitarianism consumer goods and a comfortable standard of living, along with a vast entertainment industry that provides spectacles and diversions, keep the citizenry politically passive. I asked if the economic collapse and the steady decline in our standard of living might not, in fact, trigger classical totalitarianism. Could widespread frustration and poverty lead the working and middle classes to place their faith in demagogues, especially those from the Christian right? "I think that's perfectly possible," he answered. "That was the experience of the 1930s. There wasn't just FDR. There was Huey Long and Father Coughlin. There were even more extreme movements including the Klan. The extent to which those forces can be fed by the downturn and bleakness is a very real danger. It could become classical totalitarianism." He said the widespread political passivity is dangerous. It is often exploited by demagogues who pose as saviors and offer dreams of glory and salvation. He warned that "the apoliticalness, even anti-politicalness, will be very powerful elements in taking us towards a radically dictatorial direction. It testifies to how thin the commitment to democracy is in the present circumstances. Democracy is not ascendant. It is not dominant. It is beleaguered. The extent to which young people have been drawn away from public concerns and given this extraordinary range of diversions makes it very likely they could then rally to a demagogue." Wolin lamented that the corporate state has successfully blocked any real debate about alternative forms of power. Corporations determine who gets heard and who does not, he said. And those who critique corporate power are given no place in the national dialogue. "In the 1930s there were all kinds of alternative understandings, from socialism to more extensive governmental involvement," he said. "There was a range of different approaches. But what I am struck by now is the narrow range within which palliatives are being modeled. We are supposed to work with the financial system. So the people who helped create this system are put in charge of the solution. There has to be some major effort to think outside the box." "The puzzle to me is the lack of social unrest," Wolin said when I asked why we have not yet seen rioting or protests. He said he worried that popular protests will be dismissed and ignored by the corporate media. This, he said, is what happened when tens of thousands protested the war in Iraq. This will permit the state to ruthlessly suppress local protests, as happened during the Democratic and Republic conventions. Anti-war protests in the 1960s gained momentum from their ability to spread across the country, he noted. This, he said, may not happen this time. "The ways they can isolate protests and prevent it from [becoming] a contagion are formidable," he said. "My greatest fear is that the Obama administration will achieve relatively little in terms of structural change," he added. "They may at best keep the system going. But there is a growing pessimism. Every day we hear how much longer the recession will continue. They are already talking about beyond next year. The economic difficulties are more profound than we had guessed and because of globalization more difficult to deal with. I wish the political establishment, the parties and leadership, would become more aware of the depths of the problem. They can't keep throwing money at this. They have to begin structural changes that involve a very different approach from a market economy. I don't think this will happen." "I keep asking why and how and when this country became so conservative," he went on. "This country once prided itself on its experimentation and flexibility. It has become rigid. It is probably the most conservative of all the advanced countries." The American left, he said, has crumbled. It sold out to a bankrupt Democratic Party, abandoned the working class and has no ability to organize. Unions are a spent force. The universities are mills for corporate employees. The press churns out info-entertainment or fatuous pundits. The left, he said, no longer has the capacity to be a counterweight to the corporate state. He said that if an extreme right gains momentum there will probably be very little organized resistance. "The left is amorphous," he said. "I despair over the left. Left parties may be small in number in Europe but they are a coherent organization that keeps going. Here, except for Nader's efforts, we don't have that. We have a few voices here, a magazine there, and that's about it. It goes nowhere."---- From Its Not Going To Be Allright by Chris Hedges http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/02/02-0 ____

Len since virtually everything you post are lines taken from much longer posts would you mind at least posting the thread and number of each post that you are so judiciously excret... exerpting from? It would save me a lot of time later on. Surely you could have no objection to this, as our goal is truth or at least its suburbs? Otherwise I will have to do a lot of diggin on May 20th. Now what good would that do anyone? But I guess Ill have to make exceptions for you. Yours is a world where "Truther" is a phylum, not an example of name-calling. Such arduous work, swimming down-river with those ferocious sceptics of the Miller Center!

The “initial comment” was just the first of a series of 4 errors. 1) I said your more tolerant reaction to the Goodman death threat when you discovered it was really from a “truther” was “reminiscent” of the tolerant reaction to a death threat against Mark Roberts (a prominent “debunker”) by a “truther” on the Loose Change Forum. You misinterpreted that as me saying you advocated violence. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=144945 (see also the following posts) 2) You pushed the wrong button on my 9/11 poll causing your vote to be nullified. 3) Unable to figure what went wrong you accused me of fixing the poll and dragged in your miscomprehension of my above cited comment on the Amy Goodman thread. 4) You forgot you had accused me of fixing the poll You specifically asked me “What percent of the US population would you estimate read about and discussed (with at least 1 fellow citizen) the AL Q. attacks of the Cole or others on Sptember 10th 2001?” and made absurd statements like “"but in the absence of the anthrax attacks, 9/11 could easily have been perceived as a single, isolated event” Quite ironic that the guy who just labeled me “slusher Len” and recently called me “sleaze” considers comparing him to Chicken Little “stupid name-calling”, where else have I ever called you "a name" Funny that you of all people would make sarcastic comments about someone else's supposed factual errors sorta like Hervé Villechaize getting on someone’s case about their height. But let’s look at all my comments about “truthers” on the thread. “Truther” accounts invariably omit that a) the Fire Department had been predicting the building’s collapse for hours due to observed damage, strange noises and instability and the intense fires on the south side of the building." (post #4) "Truthers in general aren’t champions of free speech I don’t know of any of their forums were “debunkers” are allowed to post many (most?) even restrict which “truther” theories are permitted, some ban “no planers” others those who rebut such theories etc." (post #4) "...a movement so consistently inaccurate..." (post #11) The only one that comes close to being a “accusation against "truthers" in general." Was the last but he seems to have been referring to comments I made before posts #6 and #9 in which you said “HIS STALINIST USE OF THE COWCATCHER TERM OF PSYCHOLOGICAL DISPARAGEMENT TRUTHERS IS DOUBLE MISLEADING” and “Slusher Len conflates my failure to remeber a dependent clause of mutual recrimination with the alledged inaccuracy of the…”"Truther"…" movement" in general.” The first 2 are statements of fact. Can you point too and truther accounts of the BBC report that include what I say they omitted or any truther forums that allow free debate? Word to the wise Nate, check and make sure you have your facts straight BEFORE you click the ‘"Add Reply’ button.

This Watergate article in NYT reminded me that Len Colodny was supposed to come out with a new book. Then today I get this on the Amazon site. Currently unavailable. We don't know when or if this item will be back in stock. That sounds uniquely discouraging as far as Amazon messages go. Anyone know what up with The Forty Years War?

Behind the accusations are rival visions of Mr. Dean, who is seen by some as a flawed but ultimately courageous man reluctantly sucked into the scandal, and by others as a primary architect of the cover-up who saved himself by deflecting guilt. ------ Note here that although Len Colodney and Russ Baker are mentioned the full scope of their "revisionism" is not. The article frames the contraversy solely in terms of the personal character of John Dean; the possibility mentioned by both "conspiracy theorists"-- and what was Woodword, a conspiracy stnographer?-- that Dean was part of a much wider CIA plot against Nixon is not even on the radar screen of possibilites. Many readers will be left thinking, "is that all that's at stake, the reputation of John Dean? I heard Pittsburgh is gonna put the ball in the air"

Peter Janney's book seems just about compleet. Was unaware that Dick Russell was also involved. Has anyone heard an update on the movie? http://www.amazon.com/Marys-Mosaic-Pinchot...n/dp/0979988632

Nate, I don't think Murdoch really cares who killed JFK. But then I hear that Russo's book Brothers In Arms is on the cover of American Heritage Magazine - now there's a Mockingbird connection there somewhere. BK ------- Bill probably your right about not caring about wh killed JFK. Not sure about preventing the broader public from finding out who did. These are two very different questions. How do we know that Lucy goosy relationships do not exist between him or others in News Corporation and the CIA. Not saying they do, just saying again, right now we do not have the right to know. Also disagree about the relative importance of News Corp vs. American Heritage. News Corp publicity lifted this book to 57 on Amazon. Thats how many times more than have heard about JFk and the Unspeakable? Yes it wont create experts but it will agitate the critical mass that might otherwise and jell into a more unified critical mass that might be big enough to really challenge the Lone Nutism in a MEDIATED FORUM.

---- Well then, that pretty much settles it. The Moderator-- of Len's cut pastings-- has spoken! Anyone who wants to -- and I'm afraid I will pitty the citizen-- can go back and examine the ENTIRE THREADS from which Len has from the very beginning chosen so selectively from. At this stage of world capitalism I have better things to do. However, since the economy will undoubtedly have fully recovered by May 20th, when I have a bit more time after my 3 grad classes are over, I shall be happy to fill in Len's pastings. Until then I leave anyone with any toxic-curriosity in this pettyness to ponder the following statement by Moderator Evan: "And I don't see where he made any accusation against "truthers" in general." Really? Evan please get your goggles checked before you go jumping from planes with flyPappy!

first an initial comment that was centered on your mudslinging becomes three inaccuracies after about pushing a button. Did you count Ohio in 2004 by any chance? Then you turn your current interpretation of the Amy Goodman thread into the objective truth making whatever I said "inaccurate" then you contort your innane comparison of the degree of media saturation of Cole coverage to the POST 9/11 DEGREE OF MEDIA SATURATION OF THE ANTHRAX LETTERS (apples and oranges indeed! but not even a variable in Mr Accuracy's analysis)...into the objective truth without even outling what the original point of disagreement was about... Why yes Len I notice a pattern of odious comparisons that terminates with stupid name-calling.

This book certainly got a huge boost in that combined Murdoch one two punch of Liz Smith and FOX. (By the way I do not mean to imply that everything emerging from this source is false. I recently purchased -- at half price-- the new book on John Mitchell that was written by a writer who happens to be a correspondent for Fox News. This in spite of a rather simple-minded review by the otherwise great writer and researcher Douglas Valentine) So why do I bother pointing out that both are Murdoch? Frankly we have no way of knowing whether this is a result of media politics or not. It might also be a mistake to assume that it isn't. We have no rasa to keep tabs. The best we can do is read each product with all critical faculties firing on four to six eco-friendly cylanders. Say what? I have to admit that I have not read Waldron's book, but I have read the intro and I read the first one. I plan on reading more but not till I have time. THAT SAID I note that Lamar describes Richard Helms as "boxed in" by the actions of leading Mafia figures like Carlos Marcello. To be fair he claims this boxing in was aided by Helm's own dissembling in the early stages of the coverup, BUT THERE IS THE CLEAR IMPLICATION AT LEAST IN THE INTRODUCTION THAT THIS INITIAL HELMS-DISSEMBLING WAS DONE FOR LEGITIMATE "NATIONAL SECURITY" REASONS OTHER THAN PROTECTING THE ASSASSINS PER SE. For those who have read more of this book, first do you feel this is an accurate assessment of the author's claims re: Helms? Secondly, do you think that Lamar successfully argues his case that Richard Helms was "boxed in" by leading members of the US mafia. Some might deem this question premature and presumptuous for someone who has not read a work that took so long to compleet. To that I would argue that the purpose of forums like this one is the MEDIATION of a conversation on the causes of the assassination and its importance for US history. Of course not everyone has read the same stuff, nor can we. Unfortunately we exist in A COMPLETELY UNDEMOCRATIC MEDIA ENVIRONMENT. Books like Lamar's-- which I am sure has many valuable new insights as did his previous book which I read-- get lavish media attention. Meanwhile, JFK and The Unspeakable-- a book which I consider a masterpiece its unique and seamless welding of Cold War historiography with a succinct yet profound summation of vast amounts of information re: details of the assassination-- is WORSE than shunned by the media. Worse than shunned? Not only has James W. Douglass' book received absolutely no coverage in the Corporate Media... but it IS NOT EVEN AVAILABLE IN ANY SINGLE BOOKSTORE IN THE ENTIRE METROPOLITAN AREA OF NEW YORK, a city that at one point in history was reported to have had greater litterary and psychic diversity than Kirksville Missouri-- now Id go with Kirksville! Market forces could not be the explanation for the censorship of the Douglass book, as it was FAR FAR FAR OUTSELLING all other books on the JFK assassination for a long time until the new Waldron book came out, and yet these lesser-seelers were abundant and flowing in lots of bookstores which I make a point of viewing repeatedly because I am interested in how the media circulates and/or smothers diversity in political views. What is the point of all this media mumbo jumbo? Simple. Some people consider the assassination to be solved when a good book is published that answers most of the outstanding questions. I differ from them in the sense that I will consider the assassination to be solved when that book is read and or its lessons learned by critical mass of citizens. Unfortunately this is as much about media as it is about ding an sich. By the way Waldrons book got as high as fifty seven on Amazon at least as far as I saw. THAT MEANS FOR MANY YOUNG PEOPLE THIS WILL BE THE ONLY JFK BOOK THEY HAVE READ. Time to make suggestions where they can be seen!

It will also be noted Len's a priori rejection of the possibility that political censorship of Youtube might actually be taking place... for reasons other than violations of posted policies. This in spite of numerous accounts of internet censorship of vehicles like Youtube, and even by the New York Times. This knee jerk defense of the Corporate Media owners who have gotten nearly everything of imporatance wrong for the last fifty years save perhaps ninety percent of the boxscores, is what should alert us to Len's uniquly focused scepticism

Predicatably, Slusher Len conflates my failure to remeber a dependent clause of mutual recrimination with the alledged inaccuracy of the """"""""""""""""""""""""Truther"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" movement"""" in general. Le plus ce slash... le plus same slush. I hereby acknowledge my mistake in the dependent clause. Yes, that WILL pass for magnanimity arount here! (emoticon difficulty) More monotonous pith to follow...sigh. Not everyone has the capital to stay FULL TIME on 9/11 threads!

---- What Len accuses me of here is false AS I CURRENTLY REMEMBER IT. I remember having some difficulty with the voting process, but AS I NOW REMEMBER IT nowhere did I accuse len of fixing the vote. Please show me before lumping me in a blanket accusation, I was once from the Show Me State. Also my Youtube account, Len was red34birds. Please find it. Perhaps you can. You will note that I stated my case in the form of a question and in a conditional mode. Len's smears were unconditional, but then its good to see commitement once in a while. -- ALSO IT SHOULD BE REEMPHASIZED THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF MY VIDEOS ON MY NOW INACCESSIBLE (TO ME) CHANNEL WERE NOT ABOUT 9/11 BUT WERE ON GENERAL TOPICS OF POLITICAL ASSASSINATION, CIA MEDIA OPS (FOR EXAMPLE THE EXCELLENT ONE ON MKULTRA WITH PROFESSOR CHRISTOPHER SIMPSON OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITY, AND OTHER CIA OPS) SO LEN.S LUMPING TOGETHER EVERYTHING WITH HIS STALINIST USE OF THE COWCATCHER TERM OF PSYCHOLOGICAL DISPARAGEMENT TRUTHERS IS DOUBLE MISLEADING.