Jump to content
The Education Forum

Nathaniel Heidenheimer

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Nathaniel Heidenheimer

  1. AMAZON WHY DID YOU TAKE DOWN BARRY KRUSH'S REVIEW OF THE BILL OF REILLY SEWER-BRAIN BOOK "KILLING KENNEDY?" Of course the book got a review in the New York Times even though it has not got one single footnote and is raw sewage. And of course the New York Times did not review JFK and the Unspeakable, which has over 3,OOO footnotes from academic books and journals, and has been endorsed by Daniel Ellsberg, of Pentagon Papers, and Marcus Raskin, formerly a top aid to McGeorge Bundy in the Kennedy White House. Oh I forgot. To write a JFK book and have it get a word in the Times, it has to be written by a women who waited until every single witness who might have confirmed the story is dead. And it has to involve copulating, to the exclusion of events such as the closest the word ever came to WWIII. But that is media capable of reaching many. Now it seems, from my own experience and your recent censorship of review, dissent is even not allowed to reach 11 eyeballs at a time. Free Speech. So long as nobody hears it. Corporate America is styrofoam mind. ------- Please post about Amazon censorship. Where the GENERAL AUDIENCE CAN SEE IT. Increasingly they are accomplishing their goal. Having us ONLY talk to ourselves. Brave New Internet. Death of the public sphere.
  2. new research which threads new light on to what degree some parts of the National Security State were pushing envelope independent of the Commander in Chief and or get more views to great articles, sites and books. Please post good quotes with their reference and a link if possible. I will spread them wherever I can , and I encourage others to do so too. We should not let the court historians cover up this pivotal glimpse into the nature of the national security state.
  3. Good idea. and also write a lot more Amazon reviews with lots of Best book references and PRODUCT LINKS (see product links button when you are writing your review.) Also mix in links to good internet sites and a variety of specific titles of articles from those sites, thus giving readers a sense of the POLICY CONNECTIONS TO THE ASSASSINATION and not merely the who dunnit stuff that O'Reilly readers are going to be served detached from the policies.
  4. In a letter dated December 9, 1960 Lippmann writes to the historian Allan Nevins about the CIA's reason for "why the flight was permitted on May 1st" "They tell me that they debated it anxiously and decided in favor of it if the weather on any particular day proved to be good for photography because it would be very nearly their last chance before the cloudy summer weather to find out about the new missile sites in the Soviet Union. So far as I know Herter did not participate in the decision, nor I think did Eisenhower himself. You may remember that when the whole thing came out [Allen] Dulles offered to accept the whole the responsibility for the affair and to resign, and that Eisenhower refused the resignation. I dont' think the State Department has any active control over Dulles since the death of John Foster Dulles, and one of the things Kennedy is going to have to go into is the relationship between the Foreign Service and the CIA. The real tragedy of the whole affair, however was the decision made by the President, not by Herter, under the direct influence of Hagerty, to assume personal responsibility for the U-2 flight and to justify it. This was the thing which upset Khrushchev. In the week following the capture of the plane, he said at least once, and I think twice, that of course the President couldn't have known about this flight and he didn't hold him responsible for it. It was when the President insisted that he was responsible that Khrushchev blew up, feeling that he had been humiliated by the man he had told the Russians they could trust" I did not realize that Nevins, a very influential historian of the Cold War Consensus "school" during the 1950s had earlier been a colleague of Lippmann's at Pulitzer's New York World.
  5. This is a real opportunity. Everyone should get Amazon reviews up ASAP. Everyone should also include THE PRODUCT LINKS BUTTON IN THE AMAZON REVIEW. WE CAN EASILY BOOST SALES OF GREAT BOOKS WITH THIS SPIN OFF EFFECT. WE CAN ALSO MENTION GREAT SITES LIKE BLACK OP RADIO AND CTKA IN THE REVIEWS BOOSTING AWARENESS OF THESE GREAT SITES OVERNIGHT. This could really be a blessing in disguise. All 3 or 4 formats of this book are already selling very very high. This judo media opportunity cannot be missed, given how unfairly the corporate media treat books like JFK and the Unspeakable and Breach of Trust. Speaking of Breach, that is a book that REALLY Deserves to become better known. How about some product links for that and Unspeakable in the Riley book?
  6. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/us/in-kennedy-secret-recordings-historys-raw-materials.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2 MAKE COMMENTS NOW. THIS CAN DIRECT PEOPLE TO GREAT BOOKS. WHY not mention JFK and the Unspeakable and Breach of Trust. Breach is not getting into enough skulls. Use opportunities. The idiots don't need to.
  7. Ironically, (maybe) Lippmann was the journalist that LBJ feared the most as he began the introduction of US ground troops to Vietnam, which JFK had resolutely opposed so many times. Johnson made many efforts to try to keep British criticism quiet in 1964 and 1965. Perhaps the Lippmann, England link was connected here, although Lippmann carried lots of weight as probably the most internationally respected American journalist. His ideas of the Phantom Public , originally published in the 1920s and strengthened by the vastness of WWII, did much to create elite rationalization for total secrecy when it came to the National Security State. So there is some irony that Lippmann was one of the strongest critics of Vietnam .. fairly early but as Logevall shows, not loud AND early enough.
  8. The book The Last Investigation by Fonzi has been btw. 2,000 and 3,000 for four days in a row starting two days after the publication of the NYT obit. Now there has not been a real book (as opposed to useful taste-spoon book such as Dead wrong) this high in sales since Unspeakable left that realm after staying there for three whole years in a row, AND A WHOLE YEAR OF THAT BEFORE THE OLIVER STONE FLASHING ON BILL MEHER SHOW) Please, if possible do the following. Post YOUR FAVORITE PARAGRAPHS ON THIS THREAD FOR COPY AND PASTING ON OTHER SITES. THE COPY AND PASTING CAN BE DONE WITH A LEAD BLOCK PLACED BY THE NYT ARTICLE. ________ I HOPE TO PLACE A PARAGRAPH HERE SOON ALONG WITH SOME EXAMPLES OF GOOD places to place it. I have Done about 70 postings of the Fonzi article with amazon link. You might want to include the Amazon link too. On the other hand, most of these posting I have done over the last two days have been into FB groups. This is because I have been removed from big newspaper groups or in some cases have not had the time to dig up those connections again. THe FB groups do not reach nearly the huge numbers some of the big newspaper sites do. We need to start building footholds all over the internet and connecting these back to the hubs . Spindles must be in place by the beginning of the year.
  9. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/us/gaeton-fonzi-76-investigated-kennedy-assassination.html This article seems new and different, when compared to other NYT articles about the JFK assassination. IMO this should be posted everywhere and LINKED TO THE AMAZON LINK TO THE BOOK. There exist large groups of youngish people for whom a Times article like this could be a bridge over the moat. We should use it.
  10. Paul I am certainly not suggesting that JFK was "a leftist". I think he was a liberal, but a real liberal, not {not a classical liberal, not a neo liberal not a liberal as the term is used today, which really means de facto far rightist... gee isn't it great how political terms are always cut with such surgical precision} ok if you want a model loosely say FDR between 1934-37. Of course this was a different historical context than those years. To be a liberal-- and to be a president who refused to accept just being nominally in control of the very steroided National Security State when it was 13 years old and... kinda impulsive-- to be a liberal in that unique historical moment when the presidency was becoming either dashboard or engine and would have to make up its mind or have it brusquely removed-- was to rock the boat of the post War US government far more than any "leftist" might from any streetcurb, podium or editorial board. The disinformationists want us to look only at the weight of the kids on the see saw. That is how they dismiss, and get people never to open that first or second book and they do it with group-identiy-centered magazines. We know that it is also kind of important where, on the see saw, they are sitting. As to Chomsky positioning himself to the left of JFK, yes that is exactly what he is doing: key word POSITIONING. Of course the strategy is to play individual -judging, and take the question of the National Security State out of the picture, which goes with his ridiculous notion that said National Security Sate was cut and dried by 1950. Again, it cannot be overemphasized just how ironic and perverse he is when he writes to the "left" that the JFK assassination is unimportant because of its lack of structural importance. Nothing could be further than the truth. Nothing offers a cleared picture of the President becoming dashboard sans engine or dead. [Nixon was a gradual learner on this one.] Nothing is more relavent for all US politics right now in illuminating the complete irrelevance of party politics except as diversion and scrambling op. However the biggest mistake we could make for in all of this is to cede the "left" to their paid pipers. To do that means the pipers have won, and the policy implications will forever be separated from the assassination itself. It will remain a crypt of trivial pursuit, as the narrators of state and big media have designed. However much we become frustrated with the mistatements of the left, we must remember that , in an ultra-right state like the US they are subject to the easiest kind of media manipulation, and all of the best lies have been aimed at them. We must not allow the wrong implications to be drawn from the assassination, because of our disgust with the media representations of the completely caged and gelded US left. Because that left is a fake-left created with rightward ends in mind. That is why, as the 50th approaches , the misrepresentations of most widely published fake left must be addressed very directly.
  11. moreover... just found this in Paul Ginsborg A History of contemporary Italy Society and Politics 1943-1988 "However,as in the immediate post-war period, American diplomacy did not speak to Italy with a single voice. At the State Department Dean Rusk remained skeptical of the benefits that would accrue to the United States if the PSI joined the government. He favored a policy of strict neutrality, as did the the US ambassador at Rome, Frederick R. Reinhardt. Within the American embassy at Rome there were those who expressed extreme opposition to making any concessions to the Italian Socialists. In a meeting of November 1961, Vernon Walter, the military attache , advocated armed intervention should a centre-left government be formed. He was Supported by members of the CIA office in Rome, including Karamessines, who was later to play an important background role in the Greek military coup10 [and Brazil coup and Watergate coup??? Funny How Vernon Moves Around!! Volume 8iii, NH] Check out Ginsberg's footnote 11 though... 11".... Kennedy visited Italy from 30 June to 2 July 1963, and at that stage made his support for the centre-left quite explicit. For an entertaining account of the visit, base on the American documents and CIA bugging, Faeneza, Il malaffare, pp. 352-8
  12. ------------Robert interesting re Italy . I had heard about this difference between Angleton and Colby before, or at least as Colby put it out . Colby connected Claire Booth Luce in his suspicion that Ms. Paint-Chip- LSD- Cuban- Speed Boat-Luce.... Dramatist herselves was involved with Angleton in going round his (Colby's back) after Colby had replaced her in Italy in 56 I think was the year. The difference was over whether a socialist Christian Democrat coalition could serve the same NATO interests as the earlier Christian Dem-with Catholic Action and further right parties had earlier, now that the latter was no longer feasible. These advocates were probably also trying to better isolate the Communists on a split in the communists. Nevertheless, It is very easy to imagine 9 thirds of Washington freaking out just by hearing the word socialist in such a coalition. I wonder what Clare was saying about Italy in 1963. And to whom.
  13. Tom, can you explain how this relates to the left-gatekeeping? and or why you chose this thread to post this on rather than the longer one about Mary's Mosaic? There may be a connection, and it skipped by me amid the excerpts.
  14. Paul, I would argue that some of the far right groups you mention here may have played minor facilitating roles, but when we speak of "lies aimed at the left" we are more interested in lies with the following objective TODAY but not THEN because they would not have worked as well then, (and didn't because people were too close to the events and the rewriters of history had not had enough time for Hersh's and Chomskies to do their thing: to get the post 1980 "left" and left-liberals to think that Kennedy's policies were not significantly different from those of Johnson and the key figures in the permanent military and intelligence bureaucracies. To use a metaphor of a horse and its rider, the truth of the horse (how the assassination and immediate cover up happened) might be handled by all kinds of cross spectrum mixing up. But the truth about the rider (JFK's actual policies both as enacted and as they were still inchoate in the violent contradictory chrysallis of the National Security State in which a nominal leader struggled almost alone against a teeny bopper on steroids listening to Freddy Boom Boom Cannon (the NSC and JCS) THAT truth about POLICY has to come from sources that APPEAR left, because otherwise the audience that should be most interested in the assassination would be. Hence the rider must be removed from the horse, policy removed from the assassination. Otherwise you have the JFK assassination WITH its policy implications, and JFK and the Unspeakable is #1 by teatime. Now you might argue, why would the liberals, right and center care if the left think that JFK was, in essence a Cold War rightist ? Sometimes left opinion IS allowed to matter. If what they are typing confirms the belief that the right and establishment want the public to know then the Non-truth e.g. that JFK was JUST ANOTHER Cold Warrior will be cited by the right and corporate "Center" in such a way as to say "look even that leftist Chomsky says JFK was hugely responsible for Vietnam therefore etc...." Only rightist lies emerging from ""left""""""" mouths can knock the rider off the horse. That is something to think about as we approach the 50th. The rider must be put back on the horse, because if you do not directly confront the audience that that deception is aimed at, you surrender a small but very disproportionately influential audience, who are subjected to the writers who scramble the picture of JFK's policies for the entire spectrum and are only able to do so because of their disguise.
  15. How much power do presidents really have, 49 years after an unacknowledged coup d'etat? It is a question that makes the assassination current event #1 every day of the week. And how would we know the answer? So far all presidents have ONLY moved right on all the real issues of money, class and war. The only way we would be able to tell is if there was a president swimming up river, against the power structure. Last time i saw any of that there was a plain crash. That said, I just don't understand how people who have studied the assassination as much as many here have could have maintained even the least illusion about BushBama. He is pure corporation decoy and needs to be denounced in the strongest possible terms. He is more Bush than Bush could get away with. When veteran researchers express ignorance about Obama, it is, in a way, denying the significance of the coup of 63.
  16. Hitting 1st. David Atlee Phillips SS Hitting 2nd Claire Booth Luce 3rd Base Hitting 3rd Nelson Rockefeller LF Hitting 4th James Angleton C Hitting 5th David Rockefeller RF Hitting 6th Allen Dulles 1 Base Hitting 7th John J. McCloy CF Hitting 8th J.C. King 2nd Base Hitting 9th C. D. Jackson Pitcher FOR THOSE NOT FAMILIAR WITH BASEBALL THE BEST HITTER USUALLY HITS 3RD. For example, the former First baseman for the current World Champions.. the name escapes me at the moment... hit 3rd. I am well aware that many people will see this structure as stupid, and worse. It was not intended as such. I actually think that this structure of lineups,, which I stole from the poet Charles North, can be a useful analytic tool. Hey, they're a small market team!
  17. Hitting 3rd, Nelson Rockefeller LF Hitting 4th Angleton C Hitting 5th David Rockefeller RF Hitting 6th Allen Dulles CF
  18. This book has something like 150 5 star reviews. Only about 10 reviews are written by people who know anything. HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF EYEBALLS ARE GOING TO AMAZON TO READ ABOUT THIS BOOK AND, BECAUSE ITS CARO, WILL BE GOING THERE FOR A LONG TIME. WHY ARE THERE NOT MORE PEOPLE WHO KNOW STUFF WRITING REVIEWS HERE WHERE PEOPLE WILL ACTUALLY SEE IT? WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY? IS THERE A MILITANT DESIRE TO POST EM WHERE THEY AINT? Correction: Wee Willie said HIT em where they ain't, NOT POST EM WHERE THEY AIN'T. Amazon reviews are a great way to tell LOTS of people about other good books. Use the product links and tell people about great books. It will raise sales instantly and you can tell. It seems we have people who really don't care about the JFK assassination. If they did they would be trying to SPREAD TRUTH out of the moat called the internet.
  19. Recently I read that James Truitt was also influential in key developments of Cold War culture. If this author is correct, he was a key player in the popularization of Jack Kerouac. He also urged the Washington Post Company and Newsweek to buy ARTnews a key magazine in defining what it meant to be a McHipster in the Cold War. If one thinks about how depoliticized art became during the Cold War, this might not be as far removed from the JFK assassination as it initially seems. Also, in my ongoing research into Communications Research during the Cold War, I have noticed a strategy that I call "the side vein" strategy of disinformation. By this I mean posting key, but isolated, bits of disinformation-- USUALLY in MAGAZINES--which reach professionals but who are NOT primarily political / historical in their main interest. For example if a writer lumps together the JFK assassination with UFO banter, and publishes a monthly article in say, Scientific American, or ARTnews, those readers are educated but they are much less likely to read more and contextualize the political tid bit they read, because they specialize in other fields. These "Side Vein " snippets are designed to prevent larger audiences, who ARE educated and could matter, from "going there," as it were. In short, this "Side Vein Strategy" is a way of keeping the powder damp, so that the explosive implications of key events in the history of the National Security State will have trouble spreading to wider audiences, even when the correct match is finally lit. My Source for the info on Truitt is Carol Felsenthal's book Power, Privilege, and The Post
  20. This topic is about what top-down fake leftists write to make" the left" not interested in the JFK assassination. I am of the opinion that any real leftist should be all over the political assassinations.
  21. Paul there is a history of just such control in the US during WWII. See Brett Gary's book called Nervous Liberals. I would not use the term 'left wing" It was more about building a firewall on the political spectrum between left liberal an further left. Also there is the history of Encounter Magazine. Also I cannot emphasize enough the importance of "left" v left. This question is inherent any time there is top down manipulation with a few in the know who have the intention of consciously deceiving. This does not mean that everyone in, say , The Nation Magazine , in 1964 was conspiring. See for example how the Nations lead investigative reporter wanted to publish fierce exposes about the Warren Commission but was prevented from doing so by editor Carry McWilliams because A) Carry said he trusted his old law school chums on the WC and he was worried about another McCarthy Era if some spread rumors that USSR behind the assassination. Now did McWilliams actually believe these rationalizations? How would I know? But what is important is that the Conspirators, placed these egshells out there to be walked on very self-consciously and there is no doubt they were used for left-gatekeeping purposses in the JFK assassination. And more importantly it was MOST IMPORTANT that left liberal groups like readers of the Nation be convinced not to get loud over the assassination NOT BECAUSE OF THEIR SIZE IN NUMBER OF READERS .. but because this would have been the group who would have put the tail on the kite, i.e. connected the assassination with its wider political implications.
  22. Greg, interesting. Have you read Secret Agenda by Jim Hougan and Silent Coup by Colodny? Was wondering if this one builds on their research , differs or what.
  23. Precisely how interesting is Jesse H. Jones? We know he was important to LBJ. The writer Charles Higham claims that Jones was a big influence on FDR's decision to advance 6$ million a year to Ibn Saud, even though the latter was a Nazi collaborator, so the Germans would not get enough oil. "Saudi Arabia was emphatically not a lend-lease country. If it were known that Ibn Saud as Hitler's close ally in Nazi pay was being bribed by the President to protect an oil company [Jones was part owner of the Davis Oil Company] there would have been a major public outcry. Roosevelt ordered Harry L. Hopkins, who was in charge of Lend-Lease, to arrange with Britain for the money to be paid to the king under the table. Lend-Lease to England was to be surreptitiously increased." p.81 Trading With The Enemy? Any other sources on this?
  24. "He was a charter member of what came to be known as "the goon squad," a group of young New Dealers who, in the days before Pearl Harbor, met o Monday evenings in the apartment of economist Robert Nathan ,who by day was in charge of developing military requirements to help the nation mobilize for war. In addition to Phil, Rauh and Prich, the group included Isaiah Berlin, diplomat, Oxford don, philosopher, and great friend of Felix Frankfurter, and Lauchlin Currie, the first professional economist to work in the White House. The company was all male; wives were not welcome. Phil placed a starring role. To some he seemed a brash upstart, but others recognized that he was the son-in-law of the publisher of The Washington Post, and the Post was leading the was in pushing for American involvement in the war. In August 1940, Meyer fired his editor, the Quaker isolationist Felix Morley, and replaced him with the interventionist Herbert Elliston. Financial editor and columnist for The Christian Science Monitor, and earlier its correspondent in China, he had refused to become a Christian Scientist, thereby, in effect, refusing the editorship of the Monitor. Within a week of arriving at the Post, Elliston called for "speed, and more speed" in entering the war;"every minute," he said, "the heat of the European blaze is hotter and closer!" The goon squad was known for leaking and feeding information to selected reporters and columnists, and Phil had an inside line to journalists who were squarely in the interventionist camp. Te preferred newsmen included Alfred Friendly, a favorite of Eugene Meyer's who had moved to the Post in 1939 from the Washington Daily News; and Drew Pearson and his partner, RObert Allen, who since 1932 had been writing the syndicated column "Washington Merry-Go-Round," and offshoot of their shocking and best-selling books that exposed the political, social, business, and sexual secrets of Washington's most powerful; the column, then in Cissy Patterson's Times-Herald, would soon move to the Post" pp. 102-103, Power, Privilege, And The Post by Carol Felsenthal --------------------------------------------------- Does anyone know much about this Elliston's background in China? Did he represent a compromise between Europe v. Asia focus in an attempt to divide the latter away from the isolationist camp [i.e. win over those isolationists who thought that the interventionists were more Eurocentric, and perhaps not strongly enough commited to US unilateralism in Latin American and China?] Also I am pretty certain that Felix Morley is the Grandfather of Jefferson Morley. Can anyone confirm that? Also was Thomas Corcoran also a member of this social group that the author refers to as "the goon squad"? Also, elsewhere the author tells us that Phil Graham's little brother Bob was not the only future Senator in Phil's life. Phil's boyhood close friend was George Smathers. First i had heard of that, and perhaps interesting, given the Capitol whispering in late summer and Fall of 1963.
  25. By left-gatekeeping I mean attempts to control the left by intelligence agencies or their surrogates (foundations, academics, or publishing companies) who are 1) trying to maintain credibility with left audiences but only in order to 2) neutralize this audience so that the net effect of their writing/ pontificating is to A) split the left up even more make them get even localer than local so the connection between social movements and electoral politics is broken even more C) cover up key events in recent history [e.g. the RFK 1968 campaign where something was in danger of actually working, and turning it into a litmus test of what it means to be a good leftist [i.e. how much can you bash RFK ] D) disconnecting key policies from key events so that the youthful leftist is left thinking "why bother with the assassinations since there were no policy consequences and one dead Kennedy is no better than one dead Cuban] hence taking all consciousness away from such things as the legitimation (or not) of a completely corrupt political system, the legitimation (or not ) of a completely corrupt media system... etc. In short it is Using "left" to prevent left., and it easy because of money and because of the collapse of the teaching of history under Wall Street's testing and Charter school barrage, which does not leave enough time to let history explain how power works. Also, Paul, Obama and Clinton are rightists at different stages of the same, 45 year long, rightward movement, that includes the RFK and MLK assassinations, and the Democratic big wigs desertion of George McGovern, who, it is too often forgotten was a backer of RFK in 1968.
  • Create New...