Paul Rigby

David, Without labouring the point, that was Ramsay's position a few years back; and I'm no more impressed by the LBJ thesis, either. His early insistence on the Mob's centrality to events Elm induced in me a degree of suspicion I've never quite been able to shake off. That noted, it would be churlish not to acknowledge his great work on other subjects, and my own debt to him: I think the Round Table material, for example, consistently outstanding, and something that has changed my view of things considerably, even if the US end of it - from Mahan on - is notably absent. For that, and much else besides, I thank him. Have a good Christmas, Paul

Couldn't agree more. Absolutely ghastly. Typical upper-crust RC-ers: more establishment than the establishment. I look forward to borrowing a friend's copy when he gets home from his travels. There's fascinating stuff in most editions, but I rate Ramsay on JFK and Elm Street rank old rope: "It looks like the Mafia and it always did," or some rubbish, wasn't it? Paul

Peter, The truth never follows in Britain. For that could lead to meaningful accountability - and that would never do. Paul

This is an excellent piece on Rosa Monckton's background and the improbability of her "friendship" with Diana: http://www.news-alliance.com/mi6__the_lying_game.html

Two pieces in this morning’s British press covering a dramatic Friday in the Diana inquest. In one, yet another link in the case to Britain’s far-right MI6 is whitewashed; but not in the other. The paper which sought to hide the former is, yes, The Guardian, our fearless “liberal” daily. The story of Rosa Monckton’s “friendship” with Diana is an important one. For years, Fayed has insisted that the relationship between his son and Diana was serious: The establishment has routinely trotted out Rosa Monckton to pour scorn on the very notion. Seems like the “mad Egyptian” had Rosa sussed. First up, the censored MI6 version from Owen Boycott in this morning’s Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,331568524-103573,00.html Now for some proper journalism from the Daily Telegraph’s Nick Allen: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...5/ndiana315.xml Both Monckton’s husband, journalist Dominic Lawson, and her brother, Anthony, have previously been identified as either an MI6 asset (hubby) or officer (her brother). Try this link for background: http://www.inside-news.ch/eurobusiness.htm

(24) Bill Lord interview of James Chaney for WFAA-TV, 11/22/63. Hargis confirms Chaney in early newspaper interview:

But, Pat, that's precisely what you've done - cherry-picked them to support the proposition that the films are genuine. The pattern in eyewitness statements is quite clear. They're refashioned, chiefly by the FBI, to support the films. If the films were genuine, there would have been no such need. Quite the wrong way round: the eyewitness statements make nonsense of the films! And here's the rub - the films don't match Altgens #5. Paul

For the benefit of those without the Richard Trask book cited by John Costella, here is the relevant extract: That Day in Dallas: The Photographers Capture on Film The Day President Kennedy Died (Danvers, Mass: Yeoman Press, expanded edition, 2000), p.115 & p.119: At about this time Bill Lord of ABC News did a brief interview of Chaney, recording his activities for a broadcast over WFAA television. Chaney recalled of the motorcade incident:

Genuine debate is. Enjoy it!

Clarification: Removing Chaney from the Z-film - and its supporting filmlets - is of considerable utility to anyone trying to sell the grassy knoll as a fall-back position: Chaney in his true position, moving beyond the presidential limo as it stopped, interposes himself between limo and knoll. Perhaps the knoll bullet bent round him, giving us a second "magic bullet"?

Perfectly conceivable, agreed. 1) I don't know the full extent of Chaney's testimony, which is why I asked if some better informed soul could reproduce, for all of our benefits, his interview in the Houston Chronicle. It is amazing - to me, at least - that the full texts of Chaney's various radio, TV, and newspaper interviews are not readily available. It is an omission that needs rectifying. 2) That's uncharacteristically lawerly of you: Does Altens #5 concur with Z255? If Chaney is where he appears to be in the former, Z255 is a blatant fake, as are the frames prior to it, which should capture Chaney's movement to the position captured in that frame/Altgens #5. And if the Altgens photo is genuine, and Chaney's position is alongside the limo, we now have a very good explanation - the best - for the otherwise inexplicable: why the WC failed to call him as a witness. In other words, he had to be omitted to protect the second version of the Z film. Paul

Cliff, Me old Harriman sparring partner, might be worth checking the Houston Chronicle interview with Chaney published in the paper's edition of 24 November 1963. According to Mark Lane's testimony to the WC, citing that interview, Chaney said he was 6 feet to the right and front of the President’s car, moving about 15 miles an hour…when the first shot was fired” (2H43). Anyone got a copy of that Chronicle interview to confirm or refute Lane's version? And is Chaney really behind the presidential limo at the moment of Altgens #5? Looks very like he's alongside it to me, looking to his left! He died, incidentally, reportedly of a heart attack, in 1976. Paul

John, Do we know for sure that this is the way it really worked? Is it not every bit as likely - more so, I can't help thinking - that Angleton et al fed the defectors the lines he/they wanted pursuing? In effect, aren't we confronted with a variant of what, to modify Karl Kraus, is no more than: "Spooks tell lies to their assets in the media and academia, then pretend to believe what they read"? Paul

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-21058925.html “House's 1912 novel, Philip Dru, provides much insight into House's fantasy life. In it he created a role-model administrator whom he sought to emulate. The novel also displays contempt for democratic processes, a taste for violence, and admiration for benevolent authoritarianism. House's protagonist, a young West Point graduate who, like House, suffers from frail health, quits the army to become a social critic. After overthrowing the U.S. government in a brief and bloody "Second Civil War" Dru disbands Congress and installs himself as a de facto dictator, keeping the president only as a figurehead. He institutes popular reforms, including some that smack of fascism: Strikes are outlawed, but labor is compensated by representation in a government-management-labor syndicate that eerily foreshadows Mussolini's Italian corporativism. House himself later compared Dru to Mussolini, while praising the Fascist strongman's ability and courage.(10)” (10) Edward House, "Does America Need a Dictator?" Liberty, 7 January 1933, 6.

Not convinced by the suggestion that House was an agent of perfidious Albion. R. Palme Dutt. World Politics 1918-1936 (London: Victor Gollancz, 1936), pp.59-60: Dutt goes on to note Lloyd George’s desperate attempt – what complete buffoons the Round Tablers were – to persuade Wilson at Versailles to agree to the preservation of British naval supremacy. The Round Table puppet’s position was summarised by a manifestly unsympathetic US Secretary of the Navy, Daniels, thus: Unless the US ends its naval expansion programme, London won’t support the League of Nations. Dutt notes that the British were unsuccessful, and, in 1920, “began to climb down and announced a One-Power Standard” (Ibid., p.60). A year later, the US “summoned the Washington Conference….and was able to compel the acceptance by Britain of naval parity in capital ships, the acceptance by Japan of a three-fifths ratio, and the abandonment of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance. This victory of the United States was one without a battle on the strength of its superior economic and financial resources” (Ibid., p.61).

Colonel House, Gruening and the New Deal Robert David Johnson. Ernest Gruening and the American Dissenting Tradition (Harvard University Press, 1998), p.103: Robert David Johnson. Ernest Gruening and the American Dissenting Tradition (Harvard University Press, 1998), pp.125-6: Robert David Johnson. Ernest Gruening and the American Dissenting Tradition (Harvard University Press, 1998), p.114: Colonel House and the utility of the Bolsheviks From Preparata's tour de force, Conjuring Hitler, p.35: p.271, n78: N. Gordon-Levin, Jr. Woodrow Wilson and World Politics: America’s Response to War and Revolution (Oxford UP, 1968), p.60.

Nat, Try Michael Wala's The Council on Foreign Relations & American Foreign Policy in the Early Cold War (Oxford: Berghahn Books, 1994) - it contains a very extensive bibliography. Beware, though, for the rear cover blurb informs us that the author "previously edited Allen Dulles' The Marshall Plan (1993)." Nice. From memory, House was enthusiastic about Hitler & Mussolini. If I can remember source(s), will let you know. He also flits in and out - mostly "out" of the indices - of any number of books on the "left-wing" luminaries backing FDR. Paul

Tim, I'm impressed with the speed of your recovery; and feel sure many of us will, in the fullness of time, learn to live with the profound shock of it all. The NYT and Washington Post await guidance - er, from Langley.

Very generous of you, Bill, let's hope 5 and 6 note your kindly sentiment. Alas, Americans with rather more practical experience of the market in Brits - spooks among them, one confidently assumes - tend to report to the contrary: (34) p.423: Strategic Services Officer – London, war diary, OSS papers, RG 226/147/3 (National Archives). I don't - Confederate intel found exactly the same thing during the US Civil War; and Bruce (above) was referrring, of course, to his fellow OSS-ers. Paul

Bob Edwards, MP, & Kenneth Dunne. A Study of a Master Spy (London: Housmans, second edition, May 1961), p.63: Was it Adenauer or Erhard who groaned, upon being introduced to yet another CIA man bearing the wearingly familiar alias, “Not another Smith!”?

Founder member – see Quigley’s Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (NY: The Macmillan Company, 1966), p.133. Quigley’s notably reticent on the subject of oil. Much neglected, incidentally, is the fact that Milner and Balfour worked arm-in-arm to foment civil war in Ireland in the years preceding the WWI: I note in passing that of all the post-WWII groups in the Anglosphere, it is the Neo-Cons who have most faithfully embraced the maniacal senses of superiority and imperial destiny we find in the Round-Tablers. God help America: The Round Tablers cost Britain dear.

Norman Vincent Peale on acid. I loved it.

John Poulson - a deliberate echo, presumably. The question is, who has been deliberating - or should that be incubating - this one?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,331209788-103681,00.html Soviet intelligence continues to work miracles in Georgia. The latest sign of its extraordinary powers is manifested in today's edition of the Observer, the sunday stablemate of the Guardian, the CIA's favourite British liberal daily: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/st...2216829,00.html My week: Peter Goldsmith The former Attorney General attempts to define British citizenship and stands up for freedom of speech in Georgia - but doesn't get quite enough sleep Yes, Blair's Attorney General - the man who ruled legal the blatantly illegal Anglo-American invasion of Iraq - is working for Moscow in destabilising the current ruler of Georgia. I wonder which Russian intel front paid for Goldsmith's jaunt? Of course, and rather more sanely, it might just be Tisdall's original story was little more than a Foreign Office/MI6 piece of nonsense; and the real drivers of change in puppet in Georgia are our old friends, the CIA and its lapdogs in MI6.

John, This is to ignore the fact that by late 1916, when Lloyd George supplanted Asquith as PM, the former was little more than a front-man for the Round Table (aka the Rhodes-Milner group): “Betrayed in a backroom conspiracy of the Liberal Party, Asquith fell, and on December 7, 1916, David Lloyd George became Prime Minister. Exponents of the Round Table were forthwith raised to several high posts, and the master himself, Milner, was made into the chief strategist of the War Cabinet. Thereupon British troops were embarked for the Middle East to fight the Turks” (1). And what of Scott and the Manchester Guardian, that brave, honourable paper which had rightly denounced Rhodes’ skulduggery in the Jamieson Raid (2), and, like Lloyd George, courageously opposed the British imperial attack on the agrarian Afrikaners (3)? Had it, too, become little more than a liberal mask for the Round Table? Not according to Carroll Quigley, the American academic – and Round Table insider – who single-handedly raised the veil on the subject. According to Quigley’s magnum opus, Tragedy and Hope, the major press fronts for this ramified network were, in Britain, The Times; and, in the US, the New York Times, the Herald Tribune, Christian Monitor, The Washington Post and Boston Evening Transcript (4). Quigley’s failure to include the (Manchester) Guardian in his list of Round Table press properties, however, should not be seen as definitive. After all, Quigley remained an establishment loyalist – there is nothing critical, for example, on the Warren Report within Tragedy and Hope – and to have included the paper within the British section of his list might, just conceivably, have provoked a question or two about who – or what – financed the Guardian’s move to London in 1961, a bait first dangled by Round Tablers Lloyd George and Churchill in June 1916 (5). Contemporaneous evidence, moreover, is conclusive: The Manchester Guardian was part of the Round Table stable of tame press outlets. This was only to be expected, given the context. In the first decade of the twentieth century, the burgeoning of Round Table power and influence made its presence felt in two classic, mutually reinforcing, ways of real power in the Anglosphere: censorship and the sack. Thus in the wake of Rhodes’ death in March 1902, a former MP, Herbert Paul, “who had weathered successive storms in Bouverie Street…was dismissed [from the Liberal Daily News – PR] for having written a vitriolic obituary of Cecil Rhodes.” Who sacked him? George Cadbury, a man not unknown to Scott (6). Real power also tends to be modest, going on reclusive, when it comes to publicity, and none too keen on accurate history, as the improbably named J. Saxon Mills discovered when he “was required to expunge from an article on King’s College, London, any reference to Milner, perhaps its most celebrated living undergraduate” (7). The Round Table did not invite the Guardian to abandon its public character, merely to put it at the Rhodes-Milner group’s service. In foreign affairs, the Guardian’s semitophile grain – not always evident or consistently applied, contrary to lazy retrospective readings, as the Boer War correspondence of J. A. Hobson attested (8) – was run with by the Round Table to most long-lasting and inhumane effect in the Middle East: “From the Manchester Guardian, in November 1915, recruits of the so-called Kindergarten – Milner's club, also known as the Round Table – intimated 'that “the whole future of the British Empire as a Sea Empire” depended upon Palestine becoming a buffer state inhabited “by an intensely patriotic race”' Indeed, Palestine was 'the key missing link' that joined together the limbs of the British empire in a continuum stretching from the Adriatic to the middle of the Pacific” (9). The Guardian loved the Balfour Declaration. To this day, the Guardian’s apologists pride themselves on the paper’s unflinching honesty in describing the tragic fate of European Jewry in general, and that of Germany’s in particular. They are silent, as far as I can see, on the limits to the Guardian’s philo-semitism. And no wonder, for its domination from behind the scenes by the Round Table set profound curbs on the accuracy and purpose of its inter-war journalism. It could tell its readers what was happening Germany, but not who was really responsible: “In 1934 the foreign correspondent of the Manchester Guardian confirmed the widely diffused rumor that the bulk of Nazi funding was foreign in origin: ‘Hitler had large funds at his disposal, not obtained entirely from German sources, He got money from certain capitalist interests in foreign countries, who were attracted by his hostility to Soviet Russia, or by...his policy to increase the demand for armaments...International finance does not seem to be unfavorable to the Nazi regime’” (10). Who were these foreign financiers? As far as I have been able to establish – and this was prior to the recent unveiling of the paper’s archive on the web - the Guardian failed to identify them when it mattered, before the Holocaust began. It could not because they were, in many instances, the cream of British and American banking, finance and industry (11). Communists did much better. More to the point, Round Table-ism was a profoundly racist creed which embraced philosemitism for purely geopolitical reasons. None of its senior members appear to have lifted a practical finger to save Europe’s Jews. What is most striking about the Guardian’s treatment of the Round Table and its epoch-making, catastrophic Machiavellianism is the continuity in dishonesty. As recently as May this year, the paper’s Saturday Review section carried a book review by historian Maya Jasanoff of John Darwin's After Tamerlaine: The Global History of Empire (London: Allen Lane, 2007). One particular passage caught my eye: In fact, Mackinder’s thesis was the geopolitical bible of the British elite for nearly half a century (13); and its author so ignored by an ungrateful establishment that it made him High Commissioner of South Russia, 1919-1920, for which service he was knighted in the latter year (14). The conventional version has that Mackinder sought to save the White Guardists. As Preparata demonstrates, the truth was otherwise.