Myra Bronstein

No it aint. No good thread should be about Gratz. So I posted on that subject here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry115566 Now back to the subject of President Kennedy's murder.

I don't understand why someone who is only here to heckle is allowed to remain on the forum. He seems to be the only forum member who is not expected to comply with the rules.

In all the excellent discussion on the many motives to murder President Kennedy I have yet to see talk about his support of labor unions, which IMO was a huge factor. If there is such discussion, on this forum or elsewhere, please point me to it. Here’s how I see things. Communism is the code word for “trade union. Organized labor (“labour” for our British colleagues ) is the lone counterbalance to the immense power that corporations wield. Obviously corporations don’t want that counterbalance. They want slaves. The old South in the US. The forced labor in circa WW2 Germany. The new South in the US. That’s utopia for industrialists. The war on “communism” is the war on organized labo(u)r. As part of that war the Big Bad has intentionally made the word “communism” a dirty word when in fact it’s merely an economic political framework, as is capitalism. And like capitalism it can be implemented by fascists, but isn’t inherently bad. Hitler’s rise to power depended on his support by industrialists. They supported him because he planned to crush organized labor. Sure ‘nuff he did; in fact he wasted no time outlawing unions and lowering wages. Then he had his cheap war machine and his “business friendly” environment resulted in huge profits for businessmen like Thyssen, Bush, Sullivan & Cromwell, Harriman. Hitler “understood business.” He was, and is, an industrialist’s wet dream. Of course another critical component of the war machine, perpetual war for perpetual profit, is steel. This brings us back to Thyssen, P. Bush, Sullivan & Cromwell, Harriman Bros. United Steel Works. Consolidated Silesian Steel Company. And US Steel. When President Kennedy took on US Steel it was a clash with the Titans. In 1911 the US government tried unsuccessfully to break the monopoly of US Steel, the first billion dollar corporation in history & a company symbolic of the high tide of banker power in America. It was largely run by Rockefeller through JP Morgan. “After World War I, trade unionism surged forward. Membership doubled; organization expanded into meat packing, textiles, motors, and other open-shop fields. The key was steel. If unionism entrenched itself here, the entire mass-production sector could be swept into the labor fold. A steel drive, launched in August 1918, gathered force in the postwar months. By the summer of 1919 more than 100,000 steelworkers had joined up. In September the steel movement struck the industry and, despite the heroic scale of the conflict, expired. From that defeat there would be no reprieve until new forces were unleashed by the Great Depression.” http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=34200941# In April of 1952 Truman ordered the US Army to seize the nation's steel mills to avert a strike. Good ol’ Truman. Now there’s a man who “understood business.” However, he didn’t understand the law. His seizure was ruled illegal by Supreme Court two months later. In 1956 650,000 US steel workers went on strike. In 1959 the Taft-Hartley Act was invoked by the US Supreme Court to break a steel strike. We’re talkin’ epic battles here, decade after decade. Then in 1960 John Kennedy became president. He did not “understand business.” “Kennedy did not regard profit-making as the most esteemed of vocations.” http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/signs/ed...ndtheTitans.php The horror. “Brought up in a family of millionaires and a millionaire himself, he was not impressed by other millionaires, nor did he consider the successful businessman the most admirable of beings. He liked to quote from Dr. Johnson: "A merchant's desire is not of glory but of gain; not of public wealth, but of private emolument; he is therefore rarely to be consulted on questions of war or peace, or any designs of wide extent and distant consequence." He was well aware of their power, but he did not trust the Titans. When he became President he declared, "Taken individually, labor leaders are often mediocre and egotistical, but labor as a whole generally adopts intelligent positions on important problems. On the other hand, businessmen are often individually enlightened but collectively hopeless in the field of national policy." Eisenhower sought out the Titans, respected their advice, and treated them as they thought they deserved to be treated -- in other words, as representatives of the most influential body in the nation. Kennedy kept his distance. Prior to his election he had had little contact with industrial circles, and once he was in the White House he saw even less of them. Businessmen were generally excluded from the Kennedys' private parties. Not only did he "snub" them (in the words of Ralph Cordiner, President of General Electric), he also attacked them. Kennedy did not consult the business world before making his appointments. The men he placed at the head of the federal regulatory agencies were entirely new.(2) Since the end of the war, the businessmen had become accustomed to considering these bodies as adjuncts of their own professional associations. They were more indignant than surprised. They attempted to intervene, but in vain. The President had a mind of his own.” In March of 1962 President Kennedy persuaded the United Steel Workers to accept a contract he hailed as "non-inflationary." A few days later, the United States Steel Corporation announced an increase of 3.5% in its prices, and most other steel companies did likewise. US Steel, who had fought unionization for decades, punked the United Steel Workers and punked the US President. In the three days that followed, Kennedy put intense pressure on US Steel. On April 11, at his press conference, the President declared: “. . . the American people will find it hard, as I do, to accept a situation in which a tiny handful of steel executives whose pursuit of private power and profit exceeds their sense of public responsibility can show such utter contempt for the interests of 185 million Americans." This denunciation of the Titans stunned the nation. It marked the birth of a legend. The President's remarks made headlines throughout the world and were even quoted in Pravda, which expressed its surprise and satisfaction. The businessmen were disconcerted by the violence of his reaction and by the apparent extent of his public support, but Roger Blough maintained that his decision had been made "in the interest of the stockholders" and that the profits of the largest steel producers were 33% lower in the first quarter of 1962 than they had been in 1959.(18) The administration replied that the dividends paid to the stockholders of the steel corporations in 1958-61 were 17% higher than those paid in 1954-57. The steel industry rejoined that profits had exceeded $1 billion in 1959, but that they had fallen to $807 million in 1961, endangering investment possibilities, the future of the steel corporations, and consequently the future of American industry. But, faced with FBI investigations, the pressure of public opinion, and the cancellation of government contracts, it yielded and revoked the increase.(19) On May 7, 1962, US News and World Report wrote: "What happened is frightening not only to steel people but to industry generally . . . President Kennedy had the public interest at heart in acting as he did, but the results may not in the long run be what he intended them to be." “…Business reaction was unanimous. Ralph Cordiner, President of General Electric, declared that Kennedy ought to reread his Lincoln,(23) and David Lawrence(24) wrote: "The heavy hand of government has just won a pyrrhic victory . . . Economic facts cannot be changed merely because politicians dislike them. Nor can America's private enterprise system survive very long if the Federal Government itself engages in the mudslinging of class warfare and, in effect, tells an industry it must disregard profits, disregard dividends, and pay labor whatever the Administration says shall be paid even if, as in this case, it costs the industry an additional $100 million a year. "Apparently (Mr. Kennedy) believed that the Administration could coerce the industry into submission. For what else was meant by Mr. Kennedy's statement that the 'Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission are examining the significance of this action in a free, competitive economy? . . . This implied a threat of criminal prosecution. It was a move designed to terrorize those who disagreed with the Administration . . . While denying any inclination toward state socialism, the President's action on steel prices points inevitably to a federal dictatorship over business." And he concluded, "Socialism (is) often a forerunner of Communism. …Some months later, Kennedy explained his reaction: "I think it would have been a serious situation if I had not attempted with all my influence to try to get a rollback, because there was an issue of good faith involved. The steel union had accepted the most limited settlement that they had since the end of the second war . . . in part, I think, because I said that we could not afford another inflationary spiral, that it would affect our competitive position abroad, so they signed up. Then, when their last contract was signed . . . steel put its prices up immediately. It seemed to me that the question of good faith was involved, and that if I had not attempted . . . to use my influence to have the companies hold their prices stable, I think the union could have rightfully felt that they had been misled. In my opinion it would have endangered the whole bargaining between labor and management, which would have made it impossible for us to exert any influence from the public point of view in the future on these great labor-management disputes which do affect the public interest." http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/signs/ed...ndtheTitans.php President Kennedy took the side of a labor union, a massive interruption of the ongoing—decades old, international process—to crush trade unions. He clearly indicated his intent to do so in the future. President Kennedy, most definitely did not “understand business.” I wondered if that bastion of big business, the American Security Council (ASC) could have played a role in the US Steel war with President Kennedy. So I looked at: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title...ouncil#Founders According to them, quoting Russ Bellant’s work, the ASC: “Works with officials from the Pentagon, National Security Council, and organizations linked to the CIA discusses cold war strategy with leaders of many large corporations, such as United Fruit, Standard Oil, Honeywell, US Steel, and Sears Roebuck.”

John, This is fascinating. And very well presented. Sorry if I missed it but I'm confused about something. Who was the 15th person killed in the S-25 Sunderland Mk III crash that killed the Duke of Kent if not Hess? And why wasn't Hess on board if the purpose of the trip was to negotiate with him? Do you think Churchill wanted Hess to be killed in the crash? Also, did they use the flying boat because they had to land at the lake to pick up passengers? I'm unclear on why all those skilled navigators would agree to fly the craft over land given that it was unsuitable for that purpose. Do you know how the aircraft was sabotaged? Thanks.

I might get it from the library eventually. ... From what I've read in the reviews I find the conclusion of the book rather implausible. But it may help focus more attention on the complicity of the SS.

http://www.bloggernews.net/19575 Blogger News Network High-quality English language reporting, analysis and editorial writing on the news. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Book Review: Definitive Proof: The Secret Service Murder Of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy by Dan Robertson August 21st, 2007 by zzsimonb Although it happened 45 years ago the world is still fascinated by the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. There are as many theories behind the story as there are stars in the night sky. About the only thing all of the theories have in common is that The Warren Commission’s findings were wrong. Whether there was some dark purpose behind the commission we may never know, my own personal opinion is that their need to bring a speedy closure to the affair outweighed their need to be thorough. Dan Robertson has been a JFK-ologist for over 25 years, and he has just released his ideas surrounding the events in Dealey Plaza on November the 22, 1963. Dan bases his theory on the very famous Zapruder home movie that has to be one of the most often aired tapes of all time. MPI Media Group using the original Zapruder Super 8 film recreated the entire movie by doing frame by frame photography using a medium format camera and then reassembling it back into video, an incredibly tedious and time consuming process. This digital enhancement certainly greatly improves the quality. Had this technology been available at the time of The Warren Commission I doubt that they would have been able to sweep everything under the carpet as they did. Definitive Proof explores a number of specific frames in the video that show the actual gruesome event, and Dan claims it shows the actual assassin. When I requested a copy of this book to review Dan kindly included a copy of the DVD, and I have to say that without the DVD much of the impact of Dan’s assertions would be lost. I sat and watched the slow motion recreations of the assassination and even to my untrained eye there is something amiss. The official line is that JFK was shot 3 times by a sniper positioned up high in the Book Repository. In the DVD you can see the first two hits, there is no visible blood, and we start to see JFK slump forward. Hit number 3 the fatal hit is completely different. His head explodes on a cloud of blood and gore and he is thrown backwards. The laws of physics are not right, the shot had to come from the front, and not the back! Also the wound characteristics are so different that bullet number 3 has to be a different type, most likely a ‘hollow point’. Having explained the mechanics we are then introduced to various pieces of collaborating evidence, that build a very convincing case that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the lone gunman, involved certainly, but assassin almost certainly not. So who did it I hear you ask? Well I am not going to tell you! You will have to read the book and find out. I do recommend that you also purchase the DVD. Even if you do not agree with Dan you will certainly see that something is just not right. The digital enhancement certainly reveals some details missing from the original. At 115 pages Definitive Proof is a quick read, it gets straight to the point, and stays with the point. Many JFK books wander aimlessly around the various conspiracy theories, this one does not. You can get your own copy from Amazon."

Yeah, that Right site is a find. Kudos Peter. And... well, surely this is a coincidence--right? http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1433 American Security Council profile, last updated (Date Posted): November 22, 2003. ... This is a coincidence--right?

Thanks for posting the material on the ASC Peter. You find excellent websites.

If I recall correctly Peter Dale Scott spends a lot of time on Davidson in his Deep Politics JFK book. He comes across as (yet another) prime suspect.

Thank you John! Thank you Dan!

The human with no such need would be an extreme aberration. I'll quote one of the best articles I've read on propaganda: "Propaganda works by appealing to our most base, animalistic instincts. It does not appeal to our better nature, although one of the purposes of it is to convince us it does. It pretends to appeal to our reason, when in fact it appeals to our most primitive emotions. There is good reason for this: perception travels through the emotional brain first, to the rational brain last. Specifically, propaganda works by appealing to three things: emotionalism, tribalism and narcissism. I just mentioned perception travels first to the emotional brain, then the rational brain. This happens to everyone, including people who con themselves they are the most rational and intelligent of intellectuals. As for tribes, we share with every nearly every animal in the world the instinct to form tribes, arranged in a hierachy, with a leader. We are group animals. The fact we look to a leader to take care of us is one of the most firmly established principles in psychology (if you don't remember anything else, remember that). ... Bernays claimed that "the group mind does not think in the strict sense of the word…In making up its mind, its first impulse is usually to follow the example of a trusted leader. This is one of the most firmly established principles in mass psychology."" http://home.att.net/~bob.wallace/howpropagandaworks.html

Here is the history of the ASC according to their website: http://www.ascfusa.org/index.php?option=co...=view&id=13 "The American Security Council Foundation (ASCF) was formed in 1958, and it was originally known as the Institute for American Strategy. For almost 50 years the Foundation has focused on a wide range of educational programs which address critical challenges to U.S. foreign policy, national security and the global economy." ... Yup, that's it. Maybe I have to become a member to find out more.

John, on your ASC webpage you list Lyman Lemnitzer as an early member. That seems highly significant... Do you know of a source for that information?

Um, look what else it says on the sourcewatch site: "The origins of ASC date back to 1938. The inner circle which would form the Council was originally composed of Henry Luce and Clare Boothe Luce, Jay Lovestone, Hughston McBain, Theodore V. Houser, Ambassador Arthur Bliss Lane and Lady Malcolm Douglas Hamilton. They all brought in new people to the inner circle, but the key to their success was working together for a common goal in a bipartisan manner." Luce... Where was it that I read that Luce was friends with Joe Kennedy, but went to the white house for lunch and got in a huge fight with President Kennedy over his policies and ended up storming out? Might have been Prouty's book... argh, can't recall for sure.

Has anyone here read this book? http://tinyurl.com/3a6zxh

Thanks for posting it here Nathaniel. I don't check the other directories as often so I missed it.

I want to keep this thread visible to give people a chance to write, as Bill suggested. Let's not miss this opportunity... I'll report back here once I've written.

I find this discussion to be really persuasive. It does seem like Sheridan went way beyond just investigating Garrison, or even just refusing to cooperate. Didn't he work on the infamous NBC "White Paper" propaganda? http://www.ctka.net/nbc_cia.html The broadcast was so slanted that the FCC took unprecedented step of forcing NBC to give Garrison time to rebut. Is it even feasible that Sheridan was doing this on his own, without the approval of Bobby? I really don't know the answer to that but I doubt he was doing it without Bobby's approval. I'm just wildly speculating here but I'm starting to wonder if Bobby was determined to keep anyone else from cracking the case because he wanted to. Possibly in part to hide his own role in the Castro hunt, but maybe even for his own sense of personal satisfaction. And what I know of Bobby's dark side (working with McCarthy, approving illegal taping of MLK, refusing to ever apologize for any previous transgression) makes me wonder why exactly JFK was so determined to have him as Attorney General. Apparently he trusted him and thought his pit bull qualities could be useful if harnessed. I have an overarching question, one that I don't expect an answer to here but hope to get from more reading; unfortunately I've read much more about President Kennedy's death than his life. I'm curious about how different JFK was from the other Kennedys and how much his special qualities influenced his younger brothers. The way I see things right now, the Kennedys would have been standard issue corrupt selfish rich people if not for JFK. Joe Sr.'s life and path to success is no secret. I get the impression that Joe Jr likely would have been someone that the establishment found acceptable. I (tentatively) think JFK was an aberration--largely because his chronic illness make him more introspective and compassionate. In short, while I try not to put him on a pedestal I do think he grew to be a very special and moral man. It seems as though he was Bobby's moral compass. And I find it highly likely that he set the standard that Ted (who I consider a very courageous and principled senator), aspires to. I realize this is a long rambling stream of gibberish monologue, but I just find JFK's good character & courageous determination to be increasingly interesting, and almost novel in government or business.

Clearly he's talking about oil as some of the new wealth. Possibly also Brown & Root, which was getting big contracts from their lackey LBJ when he was a congressman in the 40's, more so after he became a senator in 1948. But I'm a little unclear on the organized crime tie in. Could he be referring to gambling, Vegas? Could he already be talking about drugs/opium/heroin? Scott seems to operate on the premise that one can't see the big picture unless one sees the role of drug running. I don't know if it explains Watergate. I'm too confused. It does sound though like he's trying very hard not to use the term "yankee and cowboy war." And it underscores the fact that even if we can figure out the cosmic org chart for circa 1963, it's changed. For example the way Bush treated the CIA the past few years. Obviously he couldn't have done that decades ago and lived. So now there are entries in the org charg, e.g., Carlyle Group, that didn't exist in 1963. And they seem more powerful than the CIA.

I'm convinced that what you say is true Ron. The bombs were dropped on Japan because of Russia. They had just entered the war in Asia, and Truman did not want to share that part of the world with them. Japan was already done for and just wanting reassurance that they could keep their emperor, which they ended up doing anyway. Hm, was heroin/the golden triangle a factor even then?

I agree with that, Charles. Despite the fact that there were nutjobs in the military and agencies talking about a nuclear war, the real 'masters' never really contemplated it and quietly kept the nutjobs on a tight leash. The fact that LBJ kept waving the nuclear spectre in order to coerce Earl Warren into chairing the WC (and helping it come to the 'right' conclusion) further indicates that it was merely a useful tool for persuading recalcitrants to see things their way. For one thing, a nuclear war, as Charles intimated, is terrible for business. There's a vast difference between dropping nuclear bombs on two cities in a defeated nation (with a war weary Europe keen for hostilities to cease looking on) and devastating major population centres during peacetime. And it only takes a few hours--there's not enough time to make the real money that long, gruelling military campaigns provide. To add insult to injury, no costly fleets of ships, planes or choppers are required. No fancy weaponry and ammunition. Hence, fat, profitable Government contracts are also not required. Why, there's barely a buck to be made! Moreover, Wall Street would be paralysed by a peacetime nuclear strike. Fear of escalation and reprisals would probably shut it down, imo. The fallout, in every sense of the word, would have a very skinny upside for business. The Wall Street end (of the suggested finance, oil and military power alliance) would be highly unimpressed, imo. Despite the fact that the fear of nuclear war has proved quite useful in scaring the pants off the public when necessary, the power elite would never have seriously contemplated nuclear war, imo. Too much financial downside and, unlike the conventional wars they've grown to love, in a nuclear war they themselves, and their families, could get, um........killed. p.s. Charles, I have Evica's book on order and eagerly await its arrival. Yes, nukes are terrible for their profit margin. But they'd be great for helping depopulate the earth, which I believe is a major objective of the new world order. ("In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation." --His Royal Virus Prince Philip, in his Forward to If I Were an Animal; United Kingdom, Robin Clark Ltd., 1986.) http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pages/100604_prince_philip.html So I wonder sometimes if they're serious. Like when the Bush regime talks about nuking Iran.

NYT 9.27.63 Tad Szulc; Outside Contact Report - HSCA-11.2.78 - I. Irving Davidson; FBI 62-109060-5836, 37; Hearing before Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, Part 11 8.8.63; Gordon, Chaplin-The Fantastic Deals of I. Irving Davidson.-Potomac 3.21.76; Life 5.2.69. Oh that Tad Szulc; what an insider. It said somewhere ("Brothers"?) that JFK was considering offering him a white house job. Don't know much about it though.

Thanks James.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/technolo...amp;oref=slogin I looked through the list of edits from the four CIA IPs and didn't find any having to do with the assassination of President Kennedy, or with any assassination. Very disappointing. So far no paydirt with the wiki scanner.

James did not have any photographs of Davidson when the page was created. Maybe he has one now. Thanks John. I'll ask him.