Nathaniel Heidenheimer

______________________ William Pepper, in Act of State: The Execution of Martin Luther King, describes Raoul as being on the payrole of General Moters, but not really working there. He describes it as a cover, in which GM was complicit. If Hoy is Raoul, then this checks out with Pepper's research.

Former National Security adviser Zignieb Bzrezinski made these incredible comments last week while testifying before congress. Unfortunately they were censored by the corporate media. Why do I call them umprecedented? Listen to how close they come to admitting that the gov. has used staged "terrorism" to achieve foreign policy ends: " Most stunning and disturbing was his description of a “plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran.” It would, he suggested, involve “Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks, followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure, then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the US blamed on Iran, culminating in a ‘defensive’ US military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.” [Emphasis added]. This was an unmistakable warning to the US Congress, replete with quotation marks to discount the “defensive” nature of such military action, that the Bush administration is seeking a pretext for an attack on Iran. Although he did not explicitly say so, Brzezinski came close to suggesting that the White House was capable of manufacturing a provocation—including a possible terrorist attack within the US—to provide the casus belli for war. That a man such as Brzezinski, with decades of experience in the top echelons of the US foreign policy establishment, a man who has the closest links to the military and to intelligence agencies, should issue such a warning at an open hearing of the US Senate has immense and grave significance." for full article http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/brze-f02.shtml ALSO PLEASE LISTEN TO THIS ANYALYSIS OF BREZINSKIS COMMENTS BY RALPH SHOENMAN OF TAKING AIM. IF YOU ONLY HAVE THREE MINUTES LISTEN TO MINUTES 15-19 OF THIS PROGRAM. I PROMISE YOU WILL FIND IT WORTH IT. Schoenmann is a veteran of Bertrand Russels Vietnam War Crimes Tribunal and knows his stuff, and does not engage in meaningless hyperbole. http://www.takingaim.info/

I am currently reading Jim Hougan's book Secret Agenda: Watergate, Deep Throat, and the CIA. A footnote on page 53 mentions Laurence Stern: ... In 1965 a firm called Psychological Assessment Associates Inc., was established with headquarters in Washington D.C. Founded by two retired CIA psychologists, the firm's mains source of funding was the CIA. See Laurence Stern, "Behind Psychological Assessment's Door, a CIA Operation," Washington Post, June 21, 1974, p A3. Has anyoned ever read this article, or has anyone heard of this CIA front company before? Did Laurence Stern write other articles about the CIA's involvement in psychological research? Had he written about MKULTRA?

Citizens: I am sure you have long, heavily footnoted grievances. But this is not the place. It will only cause ferners to make more footnotable generalizations about americans. Such as "to each American, their own Am talk radio show" Starve this fire of its oxygen, Now! Patronizingly yours, N.H.

Thanks Paul;will look at article. Thought members might be interested in this informative and enthusiastc interview of Gold Warriers, a book that I have ordered and am looking forward to: http://www.counterpunch.org/valentine09262003.html

I found these paragraphs interesting in connecting OSS Asian activities via Pawley-Cooke mission to Cuban policy: Also involved in Pawlwy-Cooke escapade was M. Preston Goodfellow, former publisher of the Brooklyn Eagle and Donovan's liason with Garland Williams, to William Keswick and the British SOE in 1942. Later in the war Goodfellow managed sensitive opperations in Burma and China, and formed close ties to Generl Tai Li and drug smuggler Du Yue-sheng. According to... Bruce Cummings, Goodfellow made a fortune by combining business ties with right wing regimes in Asia, with interests in Central America" Pawley's collusion with Cooke, Donavan, Goodfellow, Bullitt, and Hunt is a textbook example of how Establishment privateers run the secret government. And naturally the mission dovetailed with Federal narcotics activites. In January 1950, Goodfellow traveled to Taipei with Cooke, and in April Bullitt's bagman arrived. Soon thereafter a "Colonel Williams introduced the bagman to Satiris Fassoulis, "who gave him $500,000 for a PR campaign on Taiwan" (p. 78, The Strength of The Wolf, Valentine) Valentine thinks that this was Garland Williams, a top aide to FBN director Anslinger. In 1936 this Williams negotiated a treaty with Mexican President Cardenas that allowed FBN agents to cross the border, and do thier work inside Mexico. Later Valentine speculates about another link between Mexico and the old OSS connections in Asia, when writing about Hyman Ruby, Jacks utterly unconnected brother: Klein was luckier than Ruby's next partner, Paul Roland Jones. In October, 1947, Hyman betrayed Jones to FBN agents in Chicago. According to White's diary, Hyman had been his informant since July 1946. Jack followed in big brother's footsteps and served White in 1950, when he briefed the Kefauver Committee about organized crime in Chicago-- although his attorney, Louis Kutner agreed to allow him to testify only "on the condition the the K. Comm. stay away from Dallas" That raises the question of whether the Committee investigated George White, who undoubtedly brought Ruby to Kefauver's attention. concurred with this request. If so, why would White want to keep the Committee out of Dallas? Wa it to defect attention from the Pawley-Cooke mission in Taiwan, which was funded by Ultra Texas oilmen like H.L. Hunt, and which, in 1951 was facilitating the CIA-Kuomintang drug smuggling operation that entered the US by crossing the Mexican border at Laredo, Texas? (p.309) Valentine notes that there has been an "utter absence of references to the FBN in any official investigation of the JFK asassination, despite the fact that Bureau informer jack Ruby killed Oswald and that, as the HSCA consluded, Ruby had "direct contact" with associates of Marcello and Trafficante" Perhaps the forum could recruit Mr. Valentine. He is certainly well qualified to fill in blanks related to drug running aspects of the investigation.

Thanks, Nathaniel. It's now on my Christmas wish list. Cheers, James Dug up my copy of Valentine's book finally. He says that Siragusa used the alis of Cal Salerno. Its part of an interesting couple of paragraphs on page 306-307. It seems more interesting now that I know more of the role of Paulino Sierra Mrtinez, from Larry Hancock's second edition. Charlie Siragusa used the alias Cal Salerno throughout his FBN career, but when asked by Senator Edward Kennedy in 1977 if he had set up the Chicago Safehouse, he said, "there has been some poetic license taken with the truth. I only just learned the name of Cal Salerno was adopted by others that succeeded me. I had nothing to do with the CIA during the period of time that I was in Chicago" Kennedy accepted Siragusa's denial, even though Siragusa had traveled to Chicago in July of 1963 to apply for the job of chief of the Illinois Crime Commission, and while there had socialized with his MKULTRA liason, Ray Treichler, who had taken a job with a chemical manufacturing firm in Chicago after retiring from the CIA. So why didn't Kennedy ask the obvious follow up question and inquire who had impersonated the interviewee and why? Apparently, the Senator's reticense had to do with the fact that Bobby Kennedy had, concurrently with the establishment of the Chicago safehouse in July 1963, entered into relations with Paulino Sierra Martinez, head of the anti-Castro Junta del Gobierno de Cuba en el Exilio (JGCE) in Chicago. Sierra, on behalf of Bobby Kennedy and with State Department support, funded anti-Castro terrorist groups outside of the US-- perhaps through Siragusa of his impersonator at the new Chicago safehouse. He was allegedly tied to Trafficante and Marcello, and if he was, Sierra represented yet a third Cuban channel to CIA-protected drug smugglers and assassins. Siragusa was also influencial in denouncing Trafficante as a double agent (p.225), maintaining that his arrest in Cuba had been a ruse.

I have begun reading a book by Barry M. Lando called Web of Deceit: The History of Western Complicity inf Iraq, from Chruchill to Kennedy to George W. Bush. I havn't done any reading on the Coup of 1963 in Iraq, so I'd be interested on members views of this description of Kennedy and the CIA's role. With the approval of president Kennedy, the CIA took decisive action. American agents across the region helped organize a coup. From their base in Kuwait, they intercepted Iraqi communications and transmitted commands to the Iraqi plotters. A secret CIA unit known as the Health Alteration Committee sent Qasim a monogrmmed, poisoned hankerchief ,which may be ranked along with the posisoned cigars reputedly sent to Fidel Castro as among the more preposterous failed CIA assassination plots (p.28) What do members think: was Kennedy on the same page as the CIA re Iraq in 1963? I have certainly learned not to trust just one author on the degree of cooperation between JFK and the CIA, reguarding "that coup xxxx" Interesstingly, the book argues that Kuwait served as a pretext for British and US movements against Iraq in 1963 as well as in 1990. This parallel is rarely drawn. Lando maintains that the CIA provided direct help in the post coup crackdown on the opposition, a process by which a young Saddam Hussein continued his rise to prominance: The Savagery went on for monthsand stripped Iraq of its most educated classes.... In fact, far from protesting against these actions, the U.S. had enabled them. According to several sources, among them King Hussein of jordan, who maintained strong links with the CIA, lists of "Communists" to be dealt with were relayed by radio to Baghdad from Kuwait on the day of the coup. The Butchery began as soon as the lists reached Baghdad. According to Said Aburish, one of the main sources for the list was William McHale, a CIA agent operating under cover of a Time magazine correspondent. How Time flys. Does anyone know anything else re William McHale? Who would he have been working under? Was this Helms' bailywick as an extension of his time in Iran?

New heights of free market Stalinism were reached today by the NYT. They wrote a very, very, very long article about Pinochet. It must have approached 4,000 words. There was not a single sentence in the US role in the Coup d'etat. There was a dependent clause: in reference to the coup, they typed"which the US governemnt supported" That was it. This about a coup that simply would never have happened without the CIA. Then they mentioned a "period of instability" between 1970-73, while failing to mention that this was caused by a series of CIA destabalizing operations, including a national truckers' strike and the assassintion of general Schneider. The Times has always censored the Chile story, but today the airbrush was blasting away as I have never ever seen it before. I have read almost virtually every article the Times has printed concerning Latin America since 1986. What is to be done? If the US media is not deserving of credibility, what are you doing to lower it in the minds of your fellow citizens?

Myra, the clasic text on your first question is America Revised by Frances Fitzgerald. I read it a long time ago and found it good. Im sure parts of it are still relavent. Re:Huey Long, I have also been meaning to do some closer reading on this guy. Why? I have learned to grow very suspicious of the way american journalists use the word populists and demagogue. Populist especially used to have a more specific meaning, but not is used in a fuzzier way. It is interesting that poltical words like this can morph out fast in USA political speak!

Just finished chapter 16 about Bobby Baker. WOW! Complex Wheeling and Dealing made quite clear. For the first time I can see how Miami conects with Chicago and Cleveland! This after about ten books. It really makes me wonder if Waldron was not obfuscatin on thin ice! (thick with words) I can already hear The History Channel Destroying their CDs!! Guys Relax!! They're never letting Larry on the tube with this stuff! IT'S DANGEROUSLY INTELLIGIBLE. We must make up the difference by posting things all over the place (especailly web sites of U.S. daily newspapers with lots of viewers) about this book. The tree has fallen. Forest, alert the Alsop brothers!

I am reading Larry Hancock's second edition of Someone Would Have talked. It is amazingly clear. It is probably the Tenth Book I have read on the Assassination, and I wish that I had read it first. If you are thinking of recommending a book to a novice it should be this one. Its amazing that I could recommend it to a novice given the stunning amount of new information gleaned from the very latest research. How one can integrate this new info with the older background narrative so clearly is beyond me ( as well as Joan Mellon and Lamar Waldron). The complex interrelationships between JM-WAVE, Langley , Hoover and the local FBI offices are-- as they recommend to novelists-- shown not told. Nowhere did I get the sense from Ultimate Sacrifice of the writer protesting too much (mob did it , mob did it). Rather, Larry shows the complex interelationships between Organized Crime and CIA in a clear way that, in my reading, does not make JM-WAVES denial nearly as plausible as it seems in Waldrons' doorstopper. Sorry if my headline sounds a bit authoritarian. The book is that good.

Albert Pujols, World Champion St. Louis Cardinals. Already at the (dominican) age of 26, he is one of the top five hitters of all time. So whats next? He's turned himself into a gold glove first baseman.

Here is an interesting article by Peter Lance on the media machinations about his new book, mentioned by PDS, "Tripple Cross." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-lance/...-t_b_35286.html

Larry: Congrats on book. Have been reading it whenever I get a second. Very clearly written, especially when you condsider how much new information it synthesises with older info. In fact this might be a good selling point; the summary with the bulleted points are especially usefull in this regard. It might be the one book with this degree of detail and new information, that is accessible for relative novices. One thing I notice in comparison with Ultimate Sacrifice: both books seem to talk about a lot of cooperation between elements of the CIA and organized crime, but Ultimate Sacrifice seems to conclude these discussions by emphasising OC more than CIA. I was often left with the impression that Waldrons body paragraphs seemed to implicate the CIA just as much as OC, but when finishing up a section he seemed to land on OC more. I realize this is a general observation. Did it occur to you as well? What I like about your book so far (p. 175) is that it is true to the body paragraphs. What I mean by this is that it does not seem to protest too much "organized crime, and not CIA" at the end of a discussion in which both are working together. My question concerns your observation early in the book about an incident investigated by the FBI that concerned an OVERTLY anti-castro organization:"As we have seen, if the Cubans in such reports were not Castroists, the FBI seems to have had little interest in the activities, even if it apparently conncected to Oswald" (p.88) Were there other similar reports connecting Oswald with non-Castroist cubans that were not followed up on. If so how many? How does this compare, numbers-wise whith distinct connections with osetensibly anti-castro cubans that were followed up on by the FBI? -- Nathaniel

Just watched it. Absolutely Essential. Hopefully can be posted around the US, or it won't matter. Made me very curious about the new Peter Lance book Triple Cross.

I've got a source that claims I'm a poor speller. I can understand John's need to start this thread. If you know yourself to be a target of disinformation, it is a personally very troubling thing. This is because it is done outside the public realm and with the express purpose of destroying the public sphere that is the foundation of the Enlightenment and democracy, wheterver is left of that stuff. You are left wondering if you should legitimate the rumors by commenting on them, but also realizing that you have no idea how far they are spreading. I know this feeling because I used to participate in a Free Speech Speak Out in Union Square, and watched it disintegrate.( I am about 75% certain that very very low level police agents were used. I read up a bit about the use of "red Squads' in a book published in 1990 and found that much humbler and less visible groups were targetted). Sure its easy to claim paranoia and shrug it off. Its not so easy when you know you are the target, and have no idea how far these rumors have spread. That said, the proof will be in the pudding. The sooner we get back to research and off personal attacks the more clearly we will make it known that such divisive tactics will not work. Whoever wants to continue the bickering will only draw suspicion to themselves. This, by the way does not mean that I think there are are not people who wish to discredit the forum. I think it likely that there are such creeps, and that they are the antithesis of 1776-- though they probably see themselves as the logical outgrowth of 1787. As for me I fancy myself a 76er. Wish there were more alive today.

Hi Robin, it was in Merriman Smith's recollection of events that he mentions a 'radio-telephone'. The link to the thread is: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=Merriman+Smith I believe the car itself was the "phone car" and owned by the phone company. The two wire reporters, Smith of UPI and Jack Bell of the AP, rode in it along with acting press secretary Mal Kilduff. Smith grabbed the phone first and made his famous phone call reporting shots before they even reached the hospital. Smith then pretended the phone was broken and wouldn't let Bell use the phone. It is purported that Bell struck Smith repeatedly while trying to get the phone, but Smith refused to give it up, ensuring his papers would have an exclusive. For this he is a legend in journalism circles. He was given the Pulitzer prize. ------------------------------ Here is Barbie Zelizer quoting William Manchester's blow by blow on the press bus. Note how the entire bus full of reporters seems to have heard one reporters account, even though apparently none of them actually saw the shots. Note also how a second description of the shots is actively prevented so that Merrimans descirption of 'THREE SHOTS" is generally socailized among the whole bus full of reporters: [smith decided that] the longer he could keep Bell out of Touch with an AP operator, the longer that lead would be. So he continued to talk, He dicated one take, two takes, three, four. Indignant, Bell (Jack Bell AP) rose from the center of the rear seat and demanded the phone. Smith stalled. He insisted that the Dallas operator read back the dicatation. The wires overhead, he argued, might have interfered with his trans- mission. No one was deceived by that. Everyone in the car could hear the cackling of the UPI operator's voice. The relay was perfect. Bell, red-faced and screaming, tried to wrest the radiophne from him. Smith thrust it between his knees and crouched under the dash. . . [then] surrendered the phone to Bell. and at that moment, it went dead. (p. 74, Zelizer, Covering the Body: The Kennedy Assassination, the Media, and the Shaping of Collective Memory, University of Chicago Press)

Who were the people who ran the false defector operations? Were they the same SAS people? I would think that whoever ran the false defector operations would want to keep a close eye on any who came back for a long, long time. Steve Thomas ------------- Steve-- the relevent pages from John Newman's Oswald and the CIA seem to be 182-185 Newman Wirtes the the CIA's SR/6 or "Soviet Realities" department--which was in charge of establishing mundane details of Soviet realites like the location of streetlamps, buildings on a street etc-- had opened "soft files" on many American defectors. These "soft files" were less formal files that "could be maintained just about anywhere" The time period covered in this SR/6 sorft file, "around" 1960 to "ca. 1963," overlaps perfectly the time between this group's defection and thier return to the United States. All of this particular groupof defectors redefected to the United States by 1963, ezcept Dutkanicz, the most intriguing of the group, who died in the Soviet Union (p. 182-3) This use of "soft files" is here described by Newman as a deliberate act of compartmentalization, ostensibly to protect sources inside the USSR. As to who had ultimate control of these files Im' pretty sure it was the Counterintelligence division under Angleton, but would like someone else to confirm this. Was the use of this "soft file" somehow connected to the false information sent by Angleton to the Mexico City station?

We need to post this on various US sites. Right now 20 and 30 somethings are offered a fictional RFK movie and have been trained to lump these political assassinaitons with kooky martian stories a la X-files. The article in the Guardian was mentioned on Huffington Post today, but not the link to the film itself. Build a entry ramp for youngsters, by posting this film site on a local newspaper site that gets a lot of traffic. Since the media won't do it, its up to us.

Richard, I think you are jumping to conclusions.

I found this interesting quote from John Marks' book in an article by Lisa Pease in the compilation book published in 2003 called The Assasinations. Marks quotes a CIA officer involved in MKULTRA research as saying that programming an assassin would be highly "impractical...due to the unpredicatable number of independent decision the subject might encounter which could lead to his exposure before the deed was done" Programming a patsy, however? The veteran admits that none of the arguments he uses against a conditioned assassin would apply to a programmed "patsy" whom a hypnotist could walk through a series of seemingly unrelated events--a visit to a store, a conversation with a mailman, picking a fight at a political rally. The subject would remember evertything that happened to him and be amnesic only for a the fact the hypnotist ordered him to do these things. There would be no gaping inconsistency in his life of the sort that can ruin an attempt by a hypnotist to create a second personality. The purpose of this exercise is to leave a circumstantial trail that will make the authorities think the patsy committed a particular crime. The weakness might well be that the amnesia would not hold up under police interrogation, but that would not matter if the police did not believe his preposterous story about being hypnotized, or if he were shot resiting arrest. Hypnosis expert Milton Kline says he could create a patsy in three months; an assassin would take him six (p. 582)

DID YOU EVER SUSPECT THAT JOURNALISTS WERE SO FOND OF THE LONE NUT THEORY, BECAUSE THEY SUSPECTED THAT THE ENTIRE CREDIBILITY OF THEIR PROFESSION DEPENDED ON IT? SOUND A BIT EXTREME? Then read this about the book Covering The Body: The Kennedy Assassination, the Media and the Shaping of Collective Memory by Barbie Zelizer, who is at the most important Journalism School in the U.S. The Annenberg Center fo Communications at Penn. This book is nothing short of a goldmine as a way in countering lone nut dogma! I cannot recommend it highly enough. PLEASE READ THE QUOTES BELLOW!!!! This journalism Professor argues that Journalists reponse to the independent critics was not rooted in further analysis, but in tying their own narratives as journalists to the fate of the profession as a whole. This seems a startalingly frank admission from a journalism professor! She admits that the journalists never address or contradict the independent critics, who she presents in an objective manner, in spite of her role a journalism professor. The discussion is directly related to other threads about how historians and independent researchers were marginalized. The author traces the reporting and independent research from the sixties up until 1993, when the book was first published. One observation: by 1988 and the 25th anniversary, broacasts included almost entirely TV reporters and thier personal narratives. She quotes NBCs John Chancellor going on about how he was stationed in Berlin at the time then notes: The irrelevance to the assassination of Chancellor's experiences as a Berlin correspondent was not openly addressed. Instead, his porfessional standing at the time of the assassination credentialed him to speak about Dallas.... Professional standing was thus invoked to justify how seemingly ' Unconnected" reporters could nonetheless authoritatively interpret events of the assassination weekend. As one reporter said, "when the shots were fired, I was working for LIFE as a reporter in the education department, She was then flown to Hyannis Port to spend the day with Rose Kennedy (p. 133,) Do you think its goint to far to wonder if this trip to Hyannis Port was meant to help legitimate LIFE'S role as "custodian' of the assassination narrative? Admittedly, it sound like a stretch, but we are dealing with C.D. Jackson here, no? He was a master at studying how such legitimation strategies are established. Zelizer concludes her chapter called "Promoting Assassination Tales": Similarly, although to a lesser extent, (as compared to independent researchers) journalists attempted to marginalize historians, whom they cast as professionally problematic because of thier delay in covering the events of the president's death..... In this way journalists pushed forward in the contest over authorization, marginalizing more or less successfully those lacking institutional support and media access. THIS WAS PARTICULARLY CRITICAL GIVEN THE OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS OVER WHETHER THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA HAD INDEED SUFFICIENTLY INVESTIGATED KENNEDY'S DEATH. (my emphasis) .....As the (journalists') tales were lodged in collective memory, journalists reworked them in ways that celebrated the role of the individual reporter, THE NEWS ORGANIZATION AND INSTITUTION AND THE STRUCTURE AND THE PROFESSION OF JOURNALISM(my emphasis) Such tales often displaced more general questions about the degree to which they had effectively covered Kennedy's death and had actively investigated it in the years that followed (p.138) Here is a journalism professor at the most respected school in the country essentially stating that craven collective, professional self-interest accounts for the unfair dismissal of independent researchers, in favor of a lone nut theory, that she suggests never had any empirical basis. If Posner is the Horse's Ass I think we have found, in Barbie Zelizer a horse's mouth that finally speaks something true about the Corporate Medias' long romance with the Lone Nutters.

He had a Navy background, and worked under Salinger. 11/22 was aparently the first time outside of Washington as traveling acting press secretary. His Arlington Cemetary site ref mentions an interesting conversation he had with Johnson in aranging the press coverage for the swearing in ceremony for LBJ. Does anyone have any interesting material on him. I was surprised that there wasn't already a thread on him. Aparently he stayed on as Assistant Press Secretary under LBJ, before going into cosulting in 1965.

Gates' belief in restraining curiosity remains with him in spite of his no longer having a Langley area code, (or as I've heard McClean Va in case it sticks out in the rolodexes of suicided researchers ) While the President of Texas A&M, Gates recently attacked former Bush Admin. Chief economist at the Department of Labor Morgan Reynolds after Reynolds had publicly cast doubt in on the 9/11 commission, implying some degree of support for an inside job hypothesis. In an article in the new compilation by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, Reynolds writes of respond to Gate's attempt to publicly humiliate him, and intimidate others in positions of credentialed respect from speaking out against the Government's 9/11 CT. Summarizing Gates role in Iran-Contra, Reynolds throws down a Texas- size glove: "Gates, at the very least did not live up to the Aggie Code." Then leaping forward, he discusses Gates knowledge of Afganistan ops: Gates defends the absurd official tale about 9/11, according to which, in the words of the 9/11 Commission, "this immeasurable pain was inflicted by 19 young arabs acting at the behest of Islamist extremists headquartered in distant Afghanistan" But his status as an "u;timate insider", especially within the workd of US intelligence, means that he surelyknows better, much better. During Gates' CIA watch in the 1980s, the Agency created al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and Osama bin Laden as anti-Soviet, pro-western assets. Although, Gates would never admit it, he has to know that, in the words of Webster Tarpley, "High-Profile International terrorism is not spontaneous: it is artificial and synthetic. (p. 110) By the way, I very highly recommend this collection of essays, especially two extrordinary essays relating to the Italian use of rightist state terror, known as the Strategy of Tension. These essays are: "The Strategy of Tension" in the Cold War Period" by a Swiss historian named Daniele Ganser and "The War on Terror and the Pax Americana" by a Norwegian political scientist named Ola Tunander