Myra Bronstein

I'm most pleased to join this forum by sharing a point of information and an observation on the Butler/Roosevelt affair.

1. While Jules Archer's "The Plot to Seize the White House" remains the only book-length analysis of the coup attempt extant (albeit out of print), I'm told that Joseph Trento completed a volume on the same subject. Indeed, "The Last President," which he allegedly co-authored with William Corson, was coveted by Oliver Stone in 2000 as the basis for, as they say, a major motion picture.

Perhaps Mr. Trento will be moved to enlighten us on the status of the project. So too Mr. Stone.

2. I was morbidly gratified when I read in Dick Russell's extraordinary "The Man Who Knew Too Much" of how the author was tipped off to the probable involvement of Charles Willoughby and an unnamed American military hero in the Kennedy hit. The latter could only be the Old Fading Soldier himself.

For some time I had considered the possibility that Douglas MacArthur, having experienced first-hand the problematic nature of bloodless coups, subsequently made a "no more Mister Nice Guy" pledge to himself. So if he had been confronted in his retirment by serving flag officers bearing "evidence" of JFK's unsuitability for office, he would have given his blessing to executive action.

As a writer of fiction, I was intrigued by such a scenario -- one for which meaningful empirical evidence is all but absent. I bring it to the forum's attention only as an exercise in creative visualization. Sometimes -- not often -- intuition leads.

Charles Drago

General Smedley Butler named MacArthur in his statements about the coup attempt. And I wouldn't put anything past the Faded Soldier. My god, he attacked his own men, on American soil, when they merely assembled to demand the bonus they were promised. Killed some, injured many. General Faded was the lowest of the low.

However, President Kennedy reportedly met with him at least once, and supposedly was impressed with him. So he must have said something... human to so impress a decent President. Partly for that reason I don't suspect MacArthur in the President's murder right now. Of course that could change.

http://www.tarpley.net/bush8b.htm

"...

During the days after the Bay of Pigs debacle, Kennedy was deeply suspicious of the intelligence community and of proposals for military escalation in general, including in places like South Vietnam. Kennedy sought to procure an outside, expert opinion on military matters. For this he turned to the former commander in chief of the Southwest Pacific Theatre during World War II, General Douglas MacArthur. Almost ten years ago, a reliable source shared with one of the authors an account of a meeting between Kennedy and MacArthur in which the veteran general warned the young president that there were elements inside the US government who emphatically did not share his patriotic motives, and who were seeking to destroy his administration from within. MacArthur's warned that the forces bent on destroying Kennedy were centered in the Wall Street financial community and its various tentacles in the intelligence community.

It is a matter of public record that Kennedy met with MacArthur in the latter part of April, 1961, after the Bay of Pigs. According to Kennedy aide Theodore Sorenson, MacArthur told Kennedy, "The chickens are coming home to roost, and you happen to have just moved into the chicken house." 10 At the same meeting, according to Sorenson, MacArthur "warned [Kennedy] against the committment of American foot soldiers on the Asian mainland, and the President never forgot this advice." 11 This point is grudgingly confirmed by Arthur M. Schlesinger, a Kennedy aide who had a vested interest in vilifying MacArthur, who wrote that "MacArthur expressed his old view that anyone wanting to commit American ground forces to the mainland [of Asia] should have his head examined." 12 MacArthur restated this advice during a second meeting with Kennedy when the General returned from his last trip to the Far East in July, 1961.

Kennedy valued MacArthur's professional military opinion highly, and used it to keep at arms length those advisers who were arguing for escalation in Laos, Vietnam, and elsewhere. He repeatedly invited those who proposed to send land forces to Asia to convince MacArthur that this would as good idea. If they could convince MacArthur, then he, Kennedy, might also go along...."

Myra,

Always a pleasure to encounter a fellow Seldes admirer. In case you weren't aware - apologies for boring on if you are - the University of Pennsylvania has done him, and In Fact, proud. If you follow this address http://www.library.upenn.edu/rbm/ , then click on the Schoenberg Center for Electronic Text & Image, &, finally, tap in Seldes, you are confronted with a complete run of the paper. It's a splendid project, and a model for what universities could and should be offering, both here and in the States.

The corporate fascists failed with FDR; they succeeded with JFK.

Couldn't agree more. The continuities between US fascism in the 1930s and the Dallas coup remain a gaping hole in assassination research. Which is very odd, when you think about it, not least given the controversy that surrounds the Z-fake. And the Luce empire's inter-war politics?

Paul

Paul, I'm new to Seldes admiring. But you've just advanced my Seldes literacy tremendously. The University of Pennsylvania archives you pointed me to are fantastic. I've now read through most of them.

It appears that they have all of his newsletters from decades ago, before President Kennedy's murder by corporate thugs. The newsletters are super valuable for dot connecting. Seldes names names of the corporate villains so that when--years later--President Kennedy ends up corporate roadkill some prime suspects are well documented.

Seldes is (I'm discovering after you) a hugely helpful source, esp given the fact that he covered so many rich man's wars (as Steve Earle calls them) as a correspondent. He was in the right places at the right time, and has the right stuff in terms of character,... yet he's a lefty. (Sorry 'bout that.)

I've ordered many of his books at the library. Unfortunately most are inter-library loan, which means they may be impossible to get. I have his book of quotes waiting for me now at the library. Can't wait to see that.

But there is a lot of good stuff online:

http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/seldes.html

http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/1000_americans.html

Even Wiki admits his existence and give a good overview:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Seldes

Thanks for the nudge in Seldes' direction.

I don’t know how many times I need to reiterate that I never made any anti-American statements. I just made the observation that Americans are responsible for nearly 100% of all cases of people being reported to the moderator. (It also true that in virtually every case the person making the complaint is American).

...

Well that's not true. I've complained about John and Andy, non-Americans, numerous times on this thread.

There goes your beloved "100%" stat you keep throwing around to give your biases moral heft.

Regardless, I still think it's a well moderated forum. I appreciate the restraint the mods have used thus far in opting not to censor discussion, and I consider this forum by far the most valuable one on the internet. FWIW. So if the new mod system helps it survive then I'm all for it.

Have you considered why this is? I would argue it is because we allow people of a wide variety of different opinions to post on this forum. The reason Andy and myself set up this forum was because we were banned from a forum for posting anti-Tony Blair comments.

That's EXACTLY what I was saying John. I was trying to give you some props, you know--try to find good in everybody--but you even manage to make nice statements impossible. I wont try that again.

It is of course very difficult to run such a forum because when people feel very strongly about subjects they can become very impolite. That is of course why I started this thread. For domestic and business reasons I cannot devote as much time to the forum to sort these problems out. Six members generously offered to take over my moderating role. Now they are being attacked before they have taken up their duties. I would appreciate it if you judged these people by what they do rather than what you think they might do?

And this twisting of words is just so typical of you John. My post could not have been more clear about who I feel the abusive mods have been. I specifically named you and Andy, and gave actual post numbers. Of course I wasn't referring to six moderators who haven't moderated yet.

Really, it's impossible to have a genuine sincere discussion with you when you take quotes out of context, as you did with my post--#199, and twist words so that you can dispute things that were never even said. You don't demonstrate any sense of fair play or honor.

You claim the high road and take the low road.

Ask the Brits. They should know 'cause they're still over there in the North being imperial, in spite of John's assurances that those days are behind England.

When did I say that. Have you not read any of my posts on Iraq?

Post 110 implies the British empire is a thing of the past. But I see England still occupying Northern Ireland.

I wasn't referring to Iraq though I did read your posts on the subject and thought you offered great insights and comments.

Well since John raised the subject and now we're all sitting around the virtual campfire sharing our anecdotes--I've traveled extensively, including two trips to England. The only place I encountered systemic rudeness and haughtiness (aside from the Bahamas) was England. The worst experience I've ever had with a company was with British Airways. The only time I've ever been thrown out of a restaurant (because they didn't like the way my companion was sitting on the chair, and she did not have her shoes on the chair, nor did she argue with them) was in England. By contrast, the French were downright cuddly. Oh, and I worked for a British company for three years and the top five managers--all Brits (one Scottish) were the worst, most duplicitous unscrupulous, people I've ever worked with or for. And of course there is my experience on this forum...

I am sorry you have had some bad experiences of the British. I cannot do anything about the way you were treated in the restaurant.

I didn't ask you to do anything about it.

You shared your experiences in the US in post #128, then I shared my experiences in England in a later post.

However, I am keen to sort out any problems with the forum. Could you explain about how the British have treated you so badly on this forum?

John, reputed Brit/Post 1 in this thread>

"I have had a lot of complaints recently about the insulting comments of some members of this forum. The names of certain people are constantly being mentioned. ...In virtually every case, the culprits are Americans. I suppose this abusive behaviour must be part of their culture, however, people from outside the United States find it very offensive."

Andy, reputed Brit/Post 18 in this thread>

"John's original post in this thread amounted to an appeal for an end to bad language and gratuitous insults. I agree with him incidentally that many of the Americans here appear particularly poor at expressing themselves effectively without recourse to either."

Andy, reputed Brit/Post 26 in this thread>

"GK Chesterton could perhaps teach you all a lesson or two about what is wrong here - "The problem with this country is me"

The British have treated all Americans badly in this thread, and I'm American. In the above quotes we Americans have been told that abuse is part of our culture, that everyone else in the world finds our abusive ways very offensive, that only American forum members have a problem communicating without gratuitous insults, and that we should "all" know that the problem with the US is each of us. The tone is haughty and snide and condescending and superior and judgemental and bigoted and hostile and harsh and... kind of abusive.

I would say that's bad treatment of each American member.

I would also point out that those quotes contain gratuitous insults directed at Americans.

I've already pointed out the hypocrisy of the two English moderators publicly chiding American forum members over behavior, often by name, which is in itself rude. I'll follow up this point by noting that neither of these Brits have exhibited the qualities of introspection, contrition, humbleness, sense of humor about themselves, personal growth, or the willingness to admit error. Americans, and other nationalities, do exhibit these qualities, which I personally value.

I think the mods underestimate the extent to which they set the tone.

Regardless, I still think it's a well moderated forum. I appreciate the restraint the mods have used thus far in opting not to censor discussion, and I consider this forum by far the most valuable one on the internet. FWIW. So if the new mod system helps it survive then I'm all for it.

I'd like to add a 4th category that seemingly always gets out of hand and will test the true colors of any future moderator and that is any theory that attempts to debate Israeli or Mossad involvement.These discussions always turn into who's a racsist,bigot,or an anti semite.In the short time i've been a member here,i have to say,i've never been more disgusted than i was after witnessing the way Michael Piper Collins was treated when he offered to answer questions about his book in the Author section.He hasnt been back since and i dont blame him.But you see, the mission was accomplished,have zero debate about the contents of his book,Final Judgement...This scenerio with Collins is one i'm more familiar with because my main interest is the JFK assassination but these type of attacks are not limited to the JFK assassination.The ordeal and circumstance that led to Collins no longer participating on this forum is ,imo, a black mark on open debate.

Just for the record Collins Piper left of his own free will unable apparently to cope with the rigour of open debate.

Just for the record,i happen to think the Piper/Final Judgement topic in the history book section epitomizes many aspects of poor behaviour.Ultimately, the name callers won out, no Piper no debate....you say open debate ,i say open attack....

We are experiencing parallel realities. Collins Piper was belligerent and hostile and hyper-defensive the second he joined the thread you mentioned. He started arguing with himself, basically. After a few salvos from him in the general direction of everyone on the planet, esp those on the forum, a few members got disgusted and finally swatted back at him.

He came into the thread with a major attitude, anticipating arguments, and it became his self-fulfilling prophesy. I never communicated with him, and I was planning to read his book until I read that thread. No way now I'd believe anything that guy writes.

He was the abusive one, not the forum members.

Hello Myra.Congrats on your recent moderatorship appointment,as well as the others...As to your comments about Piper..I agree he came to the forum very defensive,but if you were familiar with the build up of Piper first participating you would know that before he ever responded,posted or was possibly even a member there was a discussion/debate that in a nut shell asked, "should an anti semite be a member of this forum?".He was attacked before he ever posted on the forum.Holocaust denier,David Duke, and anti semite were some of the terms that were thrown around,again before he ever posted a word on the Education Forum...This is no doubt an interesting thread,an endorsement from our new moderator of how Len Colby and Tim Gratz treat people that disagree with their agendas while others point out all the shortcomings of Americans.

This proves my parallel reality theory.

First, Mark, you attributed quotes to me that aren't mine. That whole "4th category" blurb was from someone else's post.

Second, I did not get--or seek--a moderator appointment. Although the very idea of me being a moderator here is pretty friggin' entertaining.

Third, and finally, I read all back posts between Piper et al. And I think Piper discredited himself.

'Kay?

Myra

How much collegiality is too much collegiality?

How many tender mercies were on display in Dealey Plaza that day?

If, as I have argued from podiums and soap boxes, we are at war with the killers of John Kennedy, then for what reasons other than the cynically tactical should we honor these people by treating them with civility?

Permit me to offer again what I've published in other media:

Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in this case who does not conclude that JFK was the victim of a criminal conspiracy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

Further, conspiracy in the murder of JFK is as verifiable an historical truth as is the Holocaust; and anyone in a position to know this truth who, in support of ulterior political and/or cultural agendas, chooses not to do so is spiritually akin to the Holocaust deniers.

As far as the "how" of the assassination is concerned, polite debate is as absurd as it is counterproductive to the pursuit of greater truth. The "who" and "why" questions remain on the table.

Bugliosi is to be pilloried by us. His JFK assassination-related opinions are deserving of not a scintilla of respect and must be treated as enemy propaganda. We must deny him and his ilk the illusion of a level playing field in the eyes of history, for he and his masters are targeting the historical record.

All they want is for history to dignify their lies. And if we cannot prevent this, how will history judge us?

Great post Charles. I share your philosophy.

Hmmm, confusing....is it a debate about the behavio(u)r of all forum members, or just about the ones who regularly occupy the "JFK Assassination Debate" section? Or is moving it here an attempt to get even more quality input because some of the most committed members think the "JFK Assassination Debate" section is all that exists (proof of which being they will start threads on any topic from Mockingbird to Who Stole My Pudding in this section)?

I have no doubt the majority of the complaints are against Americans, whatever the percentages and the sociological data might be; I'm sure I'm one who's been complained about. But I do recognize I'm only a guest in this house, and it's up to the owners to decide what they want to do with their house. It's mostly a question of how people behave as guests, and if they're behaving like idiots then they should be tossed out just as guests behaving like idiots would be tossed out of someone's home. I agree with the proposals of Greg Parker and Frank Aqbat: most of the problems stem from fights over photography, and maybe the best solution would be to have a "special (rubber) room" where the usual suspects could go and see how many people join them; and John and Andy having to shell out money for bandwidth because of those same fights and the innumerable postings of images is not something John and Andy should have to do. They're already providing the tavern; why should they have to keep footing the bill for the heaviest drinkers?

As an American who has traveled a bit, and lives in an international city, Los Angeles, with as large a percentage of immigrants as any city in the world, I feel I can comment on Andy's statements. He's right. Americans are extremely aggressive, among the most aggressive people in the world. Part of this is our "Ugly American" attitude....

Some have concluded this American aggressiveness is connected to our Puritan and Democratic heritage. We have no royalty. While people from other cultures are taught their lot in life from an early age, Americans are taught that they can become anything they want, and that they have to EARN their way into heaven. This combination spurs inventions, factories, music and murder. Americans are taught the world is theirs to mold. I suspect people from other countries have a different attitude.

While it's nice that Pat and other less parochial, more "worldly" Americans can concede the point about American aggressiveness, it's also true that one of the common complaints I've heard a few times about this forum is that there's a decidedly anti-American slant to most of what's posted. So it's no great surprise to see that it's mostly "bad-mannered" Americans who are the culprits in behavio(u)r: we may soon be the only ones left, since more self-respecting Americans wouldn't want to have much to do with hearing about all the evil the United States represents, and also wouldn't want much to do with other Americans who give Americans a bad name.

I subscribe to lots of outrageous conspiracy theories, one being that it would be in the interests of certain political groups -- many of them associated with the Republican Party -- to discredit "the research community" by having their toadies play-acting as (American) "radicals." One result of that would be more or less what we have here, where many "responsible" American members are not active because of all the bad-mouthing of the United States that goes on and because they may not want to be associated with others who are embarrassing as Americans. (But it's also true that the non-American academics for whom this forum was supposedly designed are distinctly absent much of the time, and hardly come near the "controversial" section....) I suppose another possibility would be for an international forum like this to keep only "bad" representatives of the US while driving out more "responsible" ones; then all the non-Americans can point and laugh at "the Americans."

This raises another question. There's a long-standing cliche' about the British having a "character trait" for hypocrisy. I don't believe it's a universal trait, but then again I don't easily believe that the British and their previous subjects in Canada and Australia and elsewhere have been strangers to the violence inherent in conquering frontiers and subjugating "the natives" -- just like Americans, but without the corresponding current superpower status that non-Americans have the luxury to get so upset about. It's indisputable that there is a "gun culture" in the United States; but it exists largely because of an amendment in the US Constitution that was once thought to be necessary for Americans to be able to defend themselves against both "natives" and Redcoats. (And so nothing can be done towards gun control in the US because every red-blooded American really believes it's only his hunting rifles and shotguns that are indispensable to the survival and the success of liberty.) And it was our one-time British overseers (now so benign) who made it seem necessary by ordering the confiscation of colonists' "home protection weapons" (on the same theory followed by every imperial power -- that controlling the access to weaponry by a hostile occupied population would somehow result in that population's acquiescence to being occupied).

So I blame the British. It was not the United States that came up with the Balfour Declaration, and it was not the United States that let the situation in Palestine develop into a civil war that continues to this day and is the prime cause of what people call "unrest" in the Middle East. It was not the United States that decided to carve up the remains of the Ottoman Empire, stuffing the Kurdish people into an amalgamation with Sunni Arabs and Shi'a Arabs in something called Iraq; and it was not the United States that was responsible for the India-Pakistan-Bangladesh-Kashmir "problem." The simple fact of the matter is that most of the "world problems" the US has had to deal with for a half century has resulted from inheriting the "problems" left over by previous imperial powers, mostly the British. (In Vietnam it was the French.) But for the most part in this forum evil in the world was born around 1945, and everything's not only been downhill ever since but it's all been the fault of the United States....

Simplistic, of course; but blaming the British is every bit as legitimate and supportable by historical evidence as blaming the United States. Even more so, in my opinion, since the British ruled the world far longer than the United States has had the opportunity to do, and since there's some evidence the United States originally had no desire to rule the world but was instead acting in larger interests of trying to block attempts by totalitarian states to dominate all the people of the earth. Again, it's a luxury for non-Americans to be critical of the United States, however justified their criticisms are, both because they are in a weaker position and because they don't have to deal much with the responsibility. I do call that hypocrisy, just as many of the issues involved in (the origins of ) this thread may reveal a good deal of hypocrisy.

If a hypothetical member noticed a great many themes, arguments and ideas being put forth which he or she recognized as the themes, arguments and ideas commonly held and espoused by (for instance) the John Birch Society or by racists, then the hypothetical member's instinctive reaction might be to confront it directly and expose the thing. He or she might see no point in pretending to be "civil" and "play the game" by accepting at face-value the facades of people who themselves may be and seem to be pretending. Some have a lower threshold for living with dishonesty and hypocrisy than others.... But it may seem too aggressive (too "typically American") for the hypothetical member to try to point out what others are "on about," particularly if those being "attacked" have managed to finagle their way into the good graces of a forum administrator. And it doesn't help when the "higher-ups" display a good deal of selective criticism, double standards and preferential treatment. If I was intent on disrupting this forum I would have a real hard choice between whether I should be infinitely polite or relentlessly abusive, but neither option is exactly mutually exclusive of an overall strategy for promoting a particular agenda.

There's not much that can be done about hypocrisy or about promoting (hidden) agendas. But here are two proposals to deaI with the immediate problem that this thread is allegedly about:

1) All Americans should voluntarily cease and desist from activity in the forum. This would merely be an extension of the current pattern anyway, and then the membership and the administrators can draw their own conclusions about the Americans who remain.

2) All Americans should be banned from the forum, including the deletion of the membership of all the current ones. This would be the most effective option, in my opinion, because then the "bad apples" would have to find someplace else to go and other things to do, and it would be no great loss to the forum since so few of the "good apples" want much to do with it right now anyway.

Great post Daniel.

I'll just add that many Americans on this forum have acknowledged that they see America as hyper-aggressive, and even apologized for the behavior of other Americans. Whereas no Brit has apologized for the rudeness and hypocrisy so many perceive, and so many comment on, or even acknowledged it as part of their culture.

PS - Just where is Ireland anyway?

Ask the Brits. They should know 'cause they're still over there in the North being imperial, in spite of John's assurances that those days are behind England.

I'm not sure how this moved from the behavior of members to the behavior of Americans, but...

I've always found the Americans with whom I have had to deal generally friendly, helpful and good-natured (with the exception of immigration officers at the airport who would, I think, have been happier and felt more at home in Stasi uniforms). Londoners, on the other hand... When I was teaching in Iran during the Revolution, one of the teenage girls I taught went to London. She got a taxi from the airport. When he discovered she was Iranian, the driver order her out of his cab... I've generally found Londoners to be a pretty miserable bunch. It's probably due to overcrowding, pollution, the weather, a succession of conservative governments and the performance of national sporting teams. We Spaniards are much more relaxed, good-humored and laid back...

I have pretty solidly negative memories of the English I've met in England too, as I mentioned in another thread. (Loved the taxi driver's though. They were my favorite people to chat with! )

I live in the US and I don't see the US you think you see. Having also traveled extensively, I see many of the same problems in other areas of the world, including the UK.

I would agree that there is sometimes a sense of fear in the BIG CITIES of the US, but this is also true of Paris, London, Hong Kong and many other big cities.

I'm proably a bit more familiar with the US than you are, and I think you are looking at it through your own biases.

Of course I am guilty of making subjective comments. That is what we do all the time. You are also guilty of being subjective, or as you put it, “looking at it through your own biases”. Anecdotal stories are interesting but they can only be used to illustrate the point you are making. When it comes down to it, my experience of New York or your experience of London, is fairly irrelevant to the argument that America is a more violent place that other industrialized countries.

As I pointed out, there is a considerable amount of statistical data to support this claim. For example, you have had for many years the highest murder-rate in the advanced world. You also imprison the highest percentage of your population than any other country. The state also carries out more acts of extreme violence on its citizens. The United States, alone amongst the Western World, retains the death penalty.

Have you got some alternative statistics to support the claim that other countries have a worst record for violence than the United States?

I think two separate issues are being conflated 1) the inherent aggressiveness of a particular country or culture and 2) violence generated by social inequities. The latter isn’t really relevant as to why the rude behavior is on this (and perhaps other) forum stems primarily from Americans members. This is not to say they could be a connection between two e.g. more aggressive societies are less likely to resolve their social ills or less equitable societies are likely to be more aggressive.

One area in which Britons and other nationalities (Europeans and Latin Americans) demonstrate considerably higher levels of violence and aggression is spectator sports especially soccer (football) fandom. The vast majority English and Brazilian etc fans aren’t violent of course but I’ve never heard of fans of one teem attacking another in the US. On the other hand it’s not uncommon for students from large universities in the US to go on drunken rampages when their schools win a championship.

“Have you got some alternative statistics to support the claim that other countries have a worst record for violence than the United States?”

Straw man John, he never made such a claim.

Excellent example Len. American sports fans do not, as a rule, behave the way English soccer fans (yobs & hooligans) do. I would think statistics would support that claim.

I do believe that aggression and violence is a more prominent aspect of your culture than other advanced industrialized countries.

I Have lived in the New York area for a quarter century, and the only physical violence I ever witnessed was an altercation between two ladies on Madison Avenue. When the ladies began swinging their handbags at each other I could not resist cheering along with the gathering crowd.

The first time I went to New York I travelled around the city with a former resident. He explained that you would be safe as long as you kept your car doors locked and if you only walked in certain areas of the city. That proved correct but it was worrying to occasionally come across a car that had broken down in a rough neighbourhood.

The second time I visited New York I stayed with my publisher on the outskirts of the city. He of course lived in a very expensive neighbourhood. However, he took me for a drive and within minutes we were in an area where he said his family never ventured on foot. What surprised me was that these people did not travel into his area. He replied that his neighbourhood was well policed and that “these people” would be arrested if they ever entered his neighbourhood.

I got the same story when I was in Dallas. The taxi-driver that picked me up from the airport told me some horrendous stories about some of the things he had seen over the years (he was an immigrant from Thailand). However, he patted the gun on his holster and said that had protected him so far.

Then there was the taxi driver from San Francisco. He told me about the problems of taking passengers to their homes. There were certain areas of the city where he would just not go. He said he was sorry about this as unfortunately those “law abiding” people who lived in these parts of the city had great difficulty getting taxis to take them home.

All these stories illustrate the same point. The United States is a deeply divided country. This is a consequence of having the most unequal distribution of wealth and income in the advanced world. It is no surprise that the US also has the highest murder-rate and locks up a higher percentage of its citizens than any other developed country.

Well since John raised the subject and now we're all sitting around the virtual campfire sharing our anecdotes--I've traveled extensively, including two trips to England. The only place I encountered systemic rudeness and haughtiness (aside from the Bahamas) was England. The worst experience I've ever had with a company was with British Airways. The only time I've ever been thrown out of a restaurant (because they didn't like the way my companion was sitting on the chair, and she did not have her shoes on the chair, nor did she argue with them) was in England. By contrast, the French were downright cuddly. Oh, and I worked for a British company for three years and the top five managers--all Brits (one Scottish) were the worst, most duplicitous unscrupulous, people I've ever worked with or for. And of course there is my experience on this forum...

I'm not generalizing any more than John, who assures us that he's not talking about all Americans. And I'd never have volunteered my solidly negative experiences to an audience that includes Brits if it wasn't already an ongoing, and persistent, topic.

John, if you feel it would help I will offer my services as a moderator. I feel as most of the disputes occur in three catagories, Moon landings, 911 and JFK photo evidence any Mod should refrain from either, offering personal beliefs, or starting threads on these topics. If yuo wish to discuss this matter further I will send you my home phone number in a P/M.

Steve.

I'd like to add a 4th category that seemingly always gets out of hand and will test the true colors of any future moderator and that is any theory that attempts to debate Israeli or Mossad involvement.These discussions always turn into who's a racsist,bigot,or an anti semite.In the short time i've been a member here,i have to say,i've never been more disgusted than i was after witnessing the way Michael Piper Collins was treated when he offered to answer questions about his book in the Author section.He hasnt been back since and i dont blame him.But you see, the mission was accomplished,have zero debate about the contents of his book,Final Judgement...This scenerio with Collins is one i'm more familiar with because my main interest is the JFK assassination but these type of attacks are not limited to the JFK assassination.The ordeal and circumstance that led to Collins no longer participating on this forum is ,imo, a black mark on open debate.

Just for the record Collins Piper left of his own free will unable apparently to cope with the rigour of open debate.

Just for the record,i happen to think the Piper/Final Judgement topic in the history book section epitomizes many aspects of poor behaviour.Ultimately, the name callers won out, no Piper no debate....you say open debate ,i say open attack....

We are experiencing parallel realities. Collins Piper was belligerent and hostile and hyper-defensive the second he joined the thread you mentioned. He started arguing with himself, basically. After a few salvos from him in the general direction of everyone on the planet, esp those on the forum, a few members got disgusted and finally swatted back at him.

He came into the thread with a major attitude, anticipating arguments, and it became his self-fulfilling prophesy. I never communicated with him, and I was planning to read his book until I read that thread. No way now I'd believe anything that guy writes.

He was the abusive one, not the forum members.

...

That view was expressed in a letter to his brother Edgar dated Nov 8, 1954. The relevant portion of that letter follows:

Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of governmental functions. I oppose this--in some instances the fight is a rather desperate one. But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything--even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon "moderation" in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas.5 Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

I'm just gonna ditto John; this is one of the move valuable quotes I've seen. IMO it's damn incriminating--though it's long been obvious the HL Hunt & sons were guilty as hell. But this is primo evidence Greg. Esp considering the source. Thanks!

(Lamar Hunt's widow was on the superbowl yesterday and it was just sickening. She gets to stand on the field at the superbowl while her husband's victim--our President--who was "Wanted for Treason by Lamar--lies at the bottom of the ocean.)

It's also interesting given that the Bush regime has attempted to gut social security, and labor laws are practically defunct.

...

- Vincent Bugliosi Summation at Manson Trial. This is a pretty good read, with Manson's interspersed commentary quite telling and humerous. I now believe there is more to the so-called Mason murders, and that he and the family were probably part of a MKULTRA op gone berserk.

...

BK

I have been thinking this for a while now. Didn't Squeaky Fromme, supposed follower of Manson, pretend to try to shoot Ford? Of course there was no bullet in the chamber and she seemed to know it, which only makes it more interesting...

http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2007/01/02/the...ot-gerald-ford/

I think Manson and his klan warrant more scrutiny as a possible MKUltra project. They were trained to kill, that seems clear. But the potential motive of discrediting the hippie/liberal movement--mentioned in this thread--is sure interesting.

Ok, found this on a website. Again, sure is interesting.

http://www.justiceforjeremiah.com/html/tavistock.html

This is a short segment of a looong article. I'm unfamiliar with the site though, so I can't vouch for its credibility. The bold text was added by me.

"Manchuria in California?

As Carol Greene has demonstrated in her 1992 book Morder aus der Retorte: Der Fall Charles Manson, (Test-Tube Murder: The Case of Charles Manson) Charles Manson, before he committed mass murder, was himself an NIMH “research subject.’’ Manson was released from a California prison in March 1967. He was required by law to report regularly to a parole officer named Roger Smith, who was based at the Haight-Ashbury Medical Clinic in San Francisco. This was an NIMH project designed to observe and in effect supervise the first large-scale drug addiction of white teenagers, thousands of whom were the clinic’s clients. Clinic director David E. Smith was also the publisher of the Journal of Psychedelic Drugs, and a leading national advocate for the legalized use of narcotics. Within the clinic arrangement, Charles Manson’s parole officer was officially commissioned to scientifically investigate the effects that various kinds drugs had on addicts served by the NIMH clinic. David Smith also collaborated with another NIMH project: a behavioral study of children in communes. He was an expert on the breeding of violent anti-social characters in the mind-crushing environment of the hippie or cult commune.

Parole officer Roger Smith remained on Manson’s case after he was no longer his parole officer, as an adviser and observer of the increasingly insane man. Charles Manson took up with a British-origin satanic killer cult called The Process--Church of the Final Judgment, a spin-off from Scientology. When he started with The Process is not clear, but there are some reports that it was in that summer of 1967. Its British founders had put the U.S. headquarters of the cult into the Haight-Ashbury section, two blocks from where Manson was living, and they recruited from among the “flower children’’ for the jobs of drug-running, assassination, and race riots.

David Berkowitz, convicted in the New York “Son of Sam’’ serial murders, was an initiate of The Process. Manson is most widely known for his communal Family, which carried out the satanic Tate-LaBianca murders. But here we note that Lynette “Squeaky’’ Fromme, who became the head of the Family after Manson was arrested in October 1969, was herself imprisoned for the 1975 attempted assassination of U.S. President Gerald Ford. Another associate of the Manson Family, Sarah Jane Moore, was also imprisoned for a failed assassination attempt on President Ford. Had either been successful, Nelson Rockefeller would have become President.

There is a certain psychiatric agency, the American Family Foundation, which exists officially to guard the public from injurious cults. AFF is the mother organization for the so-called Cult Awareness Network (CAN). Dr. Louis Jolyon West is a director of AFF. An expert in brainwashing for the Air Force and the CIA, West first achieved fame from his MK-Ultra feat--he injected LSD-25 into an elephant and killed it. West researched “the psychology of dissociated states’’ for the CIA, using LSD and hypnosis. His friend Aldous Huxley suggested to Dr. West during an MK-Ultra experiment that West hypnotize his subjects prior to administering LSD, in order to give them “post-hypnotic suggestions aimed at orienting the drug-induced experience in some desired direction.’’

Dr. West was called upon by the government to examine Jack Ruby, who had killed Lee Harvey Oswald before Oswald could stand trial for his alleged role in the assassination of President John Kennedy. West declared Ruby to be in a “paranoid state manifested by delusions, visual and auditory hallucinations, and suicidal impulses.’’ Ruby was convicted in 1964, but conveniently died in 1967 while awaiting what could have been a revealing re- trial.

Dr. West lived in Haight-Ashbury during the summer of 1967, to study the hippies. In the 1970s, West became famous again for his plans to create a Center for the Study and Reduction of Violence. Its staff was to investigate the genetics and biochemistry of their prisoners, including “hyperkinetic children,’’ whose every motion would be electronically monitored by Orwellian guards. Though backed by Gov. Ronald Reagan, the plan was defeated.

Rabbi Maurice Davis is another “expert’’ guarding America from cults as a director of the American Family Foundation. Davis worked at the NIMH Lexington Addiction Research Center as a chaplain, serving the slave victims of the MK-Ultra drug experiments as they were brought into cult participation. Rabbi Davis then moved to Indianapolis and sponsored the career of Rev. Jim Jones, whose followers were murdered with poisoned Kool-Aid in Guyana.

The bulk of the start-up financing for the American Family Foundation was channelled through a New York law firm running two funding satellites of the Josiah Macy, Jr. Foundation. The same law firm was the legal representative of The Process--Church of the Final Judgment.

The Process Church employs neo-Nazi themes, as do other British-origin movements such as the Satanists associated with California’s Anton Lavey and Col. Michael Aquino. Charles Manson’s swastika tatoo attests to this. Many of the psychotic potential presidential assassins have been “neo-Nazis.’’ These include Ronald Reagan’s deeply brainwashed assailant John Hinckley, and some of those who have threatened President Clinton.

To help turn up the possible source for this curious zombie pattern, we review the case of NIMH leader Seymour Kety--as of recent report the chairman of the Professional Advisory Section of the Scottish Rite Masons’ Schizophrenia Research program. This is the Dr. Kety who, with his NIMH predecessor Dr. Felix, helped shape the programs that made Charles Manson a satanic beast. A Scottish Rite brochure reports on the meetings of the Rite’s Grand Commander and Supreme Council with their psychiatrists to plan for the future. The brochure explains that Dr. Kety “can trace his interest in the genetics of schizophrenia to a report by Dr. Franz Kallmann at one of these meetings years ago. Dr. Kety’s own genetic studies have become landmarks in the field, as the first convincing demonstration of an inherited factor.’’ Not the first, perhaps, because Kallmann provided Adolf Hitler with “convincing’’ pretexts to exterminate mental patients."

Was Sarah Jane Moore really associated with Manson like Fromme was???

Test-Tube Murder: The Case of Charles Manson eh? Wonder if there's an English version.

In 1933-1934 there was a plot to remove President Roosevelt from office - a coup d'etat. The conspiracy involved Wall Street brokers, bankers, industrialists, even some members of Roosevelt's Democratic Party, the House of Morgan, the Duponts and the Rockefellers. Roosevelt, like John Kennedy, was considered a communist, a traitor to his class, and worse, by these elite forces who feared his actions to remedy inequalities and to better the situation during the Great Depression which had begun during Herbert Hoover's prior administration. The plot entailed the use of war veterans of the American Legion, an organization founded by wealthy military officers after World War I to resist "radicalism," who were to be mobilized to march to the White House in Washington, D.C., to remove Roosevelt and to install a popular Marine General, Smedley Darlington Butler, as 'dictator" in his place. The plotters were admirers of Benito Mussolini who had led a force of his 'black shirts' against Rome to remove the Italian King, putting Mussolini in power in 1922. They also admired a French Fascist paramilitary organization, the Croix de Feu (Cross of Fire), of approximately 500,000 which they planned to pattern in their efforts in the United States.

When they approached General Butler, he became curious as to their plans and offers of money and power. As he listened and learned more about the plot, he, being totally opposed to the idea of a dictatorship, went to the President, the Secret Service, and members of Congress, leading to a Congressional inquiry by the McCormick-Dickstein Committee, forerunner of the House Un-American Activities Committee, to investigate fascist and communist organizations which threatened the United States government. The Committee stated in its final report that it had found evidence of a plot to overthrow the elected goverment with a military coup.

Some of the names directly involved were Robert Sterling Clark (heir to the Singer Sewing Machine Company); Grayson M.P. Murphy (Wall Street broker, director of a Morgan Bank, and treasurer of the American Liberty League); Bill Doyle and Gerald C. Maguire (members of the American Legion); and even Douglas MacArthur and Al Smith, former Democratic Governor of New York, were alleged to have been involved by General Butler. Two important witnesses who were to testify, MacGuire and Grayson, died, and another moved to Europe beyond the reach of Congress.

Although a few newspapers reported on the Congressional hearings and the proceedings were placed in the Congressional Record, not much was made of these events. They are not even mentioned in U.S. history texts. The right-wing American Liberty League, funded by the Duponts, went on to try to defeat Roosevelt for his second term in office and then died out, but did give rise to anti-communist, anti-semitic, and anti-union organizations such as the Black Legion, the Minutemen, Minutewomen, Sentinels of the Republic, and other violent hate groups.

General Smedley D. Butler, already retired, went on speaking tours and on the radio to denounce the plotters. His book, War is a Racket, spoke in favor of war veterans and against war. He had been the most unlikely person to have been chosen by these conspirators to displace President Roosevelt, but luckily for us, he foiled their plot.

1. Barbara LaMonica, "The Attempted Coup Against FDR", Probe Magazine (CTKA),

March-April 1999 issue (Vol 6 No. 3).

http://www.webcom.com/ctka/pr399-fdr.html

(This article provides connections to the assassination of President Kennedy.)

2. Jules Archer, The Plot To Seize The White House, Hawthorne Books,

New York, 244 pp., 1973.

3. More references may be found by a Google search.

Excellent post, to which I add a few more suggestions for background reading:

Clayton Cramer, “An American Coup d’Etat?”, History Today, Vol 45 (11), November 1995, pp.42-47;

John L. Spivak, "Wall Street's Fascist Conspiracy: 1. Testimony that the Dickstein Committee Suppressed," New Masses, Vol 14 (5), January 29, 1935, pp.9-15;

John L. Spivak, “Wall Street’s Fascist Conspiracy: 2. Morgan Pulls the Strings,” New Masses, Vol 14 (6), February 5, 1935, pp.10-15;

NB: For UK readers, the relevant editions of New Masses were held - presumably still are - by the Hallward Library of Nottingham University.

George Wolfskill. The Revolt of the Conservatives: A History of the American Liberty League, 1934-1940 (Houghton Mifflin Co., 1962);

Official report into the plot: Investigation of Nazi Propaganda Activities and Investigation of Certain Other Propaganda Activities: Public Hearings Before the Special Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, Seventy-third Congress, Second Session, at Washington D.C., December 29, 1934. Hearings No. 73-D.C.-6, Part 1; p.194: McCormack-Dickstein Committee published "Extracts," a 125 page "document";

Hans Schmidt. Maverick Marine: General Smedley D. Butler and the Contradictions of American Military History (Univ. Press of Kentucky, 1987).

The initiation of this thread reminded me of some questions that have long nagged - why did James Angelton's father suddenly relocate to Italy in 1934? Was it simply a coincidence, or did Angleton pere have some role in establishing a line of communication between fascist plotters in the US and Mussolini's regime? Did Angleton Snr. hook up with Donovan when the latter visited Italy in December 1935-February 1936? Anyone know the answers?

Paul

I don't know the answer Paul. But I've been reading on the subject and have a couple more sources to add:

-1000 Americans, 1947, by George Seldes, Appendix 20? I got this reference from the recently written forward to "War is a Racket" by General Smedley Butler. In fact the forward itself, by Adam Parfrey, has some good details, quotes/interviews.

-The Plot to Overthrow FDR, History Channel Documentary (http://www.ihffilm.com/r547.html)

And I agree that Adele's original post was excellent... I'd like to learn a lot more on this subject. It's, obviously, hugely relevant to President Kennedy's murder. The corporate fascists failed with FDR; they succeeded with JFK.

...

- Vincent Bugliosi Summation at Manson Trial. This is a pretty good read, with Manson's interspersed commentary quite telling and humerous. I now believe there is more to the so-called Mason murders, and that he and the family were probably part of a MKULTRA op gone berserk.

...

BK

I have been thinking this for a while now. Didn't Squeaky Fromme, supposed follower of Manson, pretend to try to shoot Ford? Of course there was no bullet in the chamber and she seemed to know it, which only makes it more interesting...

http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2007/01/02/the...ot-gerald-ford/

I think Manson and his klan warrant more scrutiny as a possible MKUltra project. They were trained to kill, that seems clear. But the potential motive of discrediting the hippie/liberal movement--mentioned in this thread--is sure interesting.

John, I'm hoping you're just joining the the fun and kidding along with us in this sub-thread, which is intentionally silly and frisky. If not, please take the time to read back over the sub-thread I think you'd see that a few members are sharing a laugh.

The respect you show for the forum in your comments is laudable. Now if you could couple that with a sense of humor and awareness of context, we'd make even more progress on improving communication in the forum.

Respectfully,

Myra

Point well taken Myra, I misinterpreted Marks post, I had not seen the earlier ones and thought that Mark was engaging in a dispute. I deleted it when I realised my mistake just before reading your post.

Apologies to Mark, no offence intended my friend. I berated you for something you did not do.

Its so bloody hard to read sarcasm out of context!

John

Woo hoo! We're all in synch.

(John you'll have plenty of valid reasons to berate soon enough. So hold that thought... )

...

David, this seems a particularly thin-skinned reply to Michael Hogan's point, one I'm at a loss to understand, particularly considering how long you've demonstrated you can hold your own in far more contentious exchanges over matters of far greater import. Perhaps you and Michael Hogan have a past animus of which I'm unaware, but this seems a peculiar contribution to a thread dealing specifically with the behaviour of Forum members in how they deal with each other.[/color]

Amen. When someone as nice as Michael Hogan gets attacked I know we're living Lord of the Flies.

I've been asked to post the following information/opinion and link by a fellow researcher

who isn't a member of this forum:

...

Translation, someone who has no credibility and/or no nerve wants to spread some story but deny forum members the opportunity to debate the details.

What they lack in nerve they make up for in agenda.

II'd suggest we save attacks for those who would bury the truth, not try to further expose it. If anyone thinks Joan Mellen is trying to do anything but help to expose the truth of the matter, they are sadly mistaken. I think her book and work, EVEN IF you don't agree with it in its entirety, is a monumental contribution and effort.

I agree Peter.

Dawn

Ok, makes sense.

BIGGEST BOOK YET ON JFK'S KILLING

By CINDY ADAMS

New York Post

February 2, 2007 -- PROSECUTOR on the Charles Man son murder trial, Vincent Bugliosi, a name from headlines past, was DA in L.A. eight years. He also wrote award-winning crime books like "Helter Skelter," "Till Death Do Us Part" and "Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O.J. Simpson Got Away With Murder." He's at it again.

Not prosecuting. Writing.

Bugliosi's just written a 1,600-page, 1,500,000-word book. The thing's larger than most coffee tables. Start it in junior high, you'll finish as a senior citizen. The title: "Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy."

So, why? He's setting the record straight forever and always. The man takes apart every single theory ever perpetrated. He follows the Oswald line, Ruby line, conspiracy line, every line ever even sniffed at. Following each to its nth degree with every twist around every corner behind every tree down every alley inside every crevice, he's five years late delivering the manuscript.

This book's like a train hurtling through a tunnel because his ultimate conclusion? The final revelation? There ain't no revelation. It was what it was. It wasn't more than it was. A nut killed the president of the United States, and that's it, period.

Bugliosi originally wanted this in separate volumes but that was - pardon the expression - shot down because readers usually buy only one. While no human alive will stick through to the end, it'll sell to every library, archive, historical society, etc. Publisher Random House, price $50, pub. date May 19.

I sure wonder when and why he went to the dark side. I actually admired him after None Dare Call it Treason. I bought at least 60 copies and gave them away, no joke, including sending one to each member of the Supreme Injustices, and most Dem members of congress (I think Ted Kennedy was the only one to send a thank you note).

I wonder which book is the aberration--the Posneresque JFK book or the Supreme Court smackdown.

Also, Bugliosi was actually an attorney in a case related to Senator Bobby Kennedy's murder, and he was on the correct side. (I'm not referring to his TV mock "trial" of LHO.) It was described in "The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy"

http://www.amazon.com/Assassination-Robert...4930282-0043924

http://www.nixonera.com/etexts/silentcoup/contents.asp

Silent coup is available online at this address

John

Thank you John. I was unaware of that book, and I love books online...

Would anyone who has read this book care to offer an opinion on it?

John Armstrong's book Harvey & Lee consists of almost one thousand well-documented pages. Whether or not one chooses to subscribe to Armstrong's conclusion of two Oswalds, his book contains much valuable information and research, in my opinion.

In fact, the subtitle of the book is: How the CIA framed Oswald. Armstrong's book can easily serve as a reference tool when it comes to the Agency's involvement in President Kennedy's murder.

After presenting a lot of evidence and documentation Armstrong concludes:

Written memoranda shows that

George Herbert Walker Bush

was particularly interested in the HSCA's probe into what information the CIA withheld from the Warren Commission and to what extent the Agency was involved in Kennedy's assassination.

In the author's opinion

Allen Dulles

was almost certainly one of the high-level conspirators in the assassination of President Kennedy, and was also instrumental in the cover-up.

In the author's opinion

Richard Helms

was almost certainly one of the high-level conspirators in the assassination of President Kennedy.

In the author's opinion

James Angleton

was most certainly one of the high-level conspirators.

In the author's opinion

David Atlee Phillips

was most certainly one of the conspirators.

In the author's opinion

Howard Hunt

was most certainly one of the conspirators.

Armstong provides much information about these and other Agency players. There is much about Ford, Hoover and LBJ. The list goes on and on. The main names are of course familiar to all Forum members, but Armstrong provides fascinating detail on many lesser known participants as well. I believe that anyone interested in the events surrounding the murder of President Kennedy will come away from reading Armstrong's book with a greater knowledge than they had before, regardless of how much they have studied this case.

I can't help but adding that almost without fail, the ones that seem to be most dismissive of Armstrong's work have never read his book in its entirety.

Ah, that helps to know that the book has a wider scope than just the dual Oswald angle. Thanks for the summary.