John Simkin

I find it flattering that I am thought of as Pro-Arab and Pro-Zionist. In other words, I am hated by both sets of extremists. Liberals usually are.

Bradley E. Ayers claims that his original publisher was working for the CIA and as a result removed some of the most important information from the first edition of The War That Never Was. Here is a section of the proposal for the reissue of The War That Never Was (1995): The role and activities of Deputy Chief of Station, Gordon Campbell: (this was stricken from the original manuscript) this individual played a major behind-the-scenes role at and outside the JMWAVE station. While he was Shackley's deputy, he also appeared to function with a good deal of independence and have his own agenda. He became the author's case officer for the Elliot Key refinery raid which seemed to evolve beyond the station's normal paramilitary/operational structure. Campbell was unique, physically impressive, polished, had extensive background and experience in CIA's history in anti-Castro operations, particularly maritime. It is believed he had an ONI-naval background, had a somewhat flamboyant lifestyle and was known as Mr Bishop by some of the station.

According to RM the scheme will end in August 2006. http://www.rm.com/Secondary/Articles/Artic...2311&position=1

The author of that site is highly unstable. However he is not the only one. If you go to a certain Zionist weblog you will find John and I being vilified as Pro-Arab anti semites I find that rather flattering.

Bruce MacMaster is someone who is closely associated with Tony Sforza: http://www.namebase.org/xmac/Bruce-Macmaster.html Nicaragua 1962-1966 Dominican Rep 1966-1968 Mexico 1968-1971 Chile 1970 Guatemala 1971-1974 Atlantic Monthly 1982-12 (55-6) Corn,D. Blond Ghost. 1994 (261-2, 302) Hitchens,C. The Trial of Henry Kissinger. 2001 (64) Neuberger,G. Opperskalski,M. CIA in Mittelamerika. 1983 (193) Neuberger,G. Press Conference in Costa Rica. 1981-11-05 State Dept. Biographic Register. 1973

I see that Andy, Shanet and myself are still being labelled as promoters of pro-Zionist propaganda. http://www.jfkmontreal.com/ngfl/edforum.htm

David Lifton has agreed to discuss “Best Evidence: Disguise and Deception in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy” on the Forum. Please add your questions here: (1) Could you explain the reasons why you became interested in history? (2) Could you explain how you became interested in the assassination of John F. Kennedy? (3) Do you ever consider the possibility that your research will get you into trouble with those who have power and influence? (5) Did you have any problems having “Best Evidence: Disguise and Deception in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy” published? (6) You tend to write about controversial subjects. Do you think this has harmed your career in any way? Have you ever come under pressure to leave these subjects alone? (7) The House Select Committee on Assassinations reported that the “committee believes, on the basis of the available evidence, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy”. However, very few historians have been willing to explore this area of American history. Lawrence E. Walsh’s Iran-Contra Report suggests that senior politicians were involved in, and covered-up, serious crimes. Yet very few historians have written about this case in any detail? Why do you think that historians and journalists appear to be so unwilling to investigate political conspiracies? (8) What is your basic approach to writing about what I would call “secret history”? How do you decide what sources to believe? How do you manage to get hold of documents that prove that illegal behaviour has taken place? (9) Why is it that most books written about political conspiracies: assassinations of JFK, MLK, RFK, Watergate, Iran-Contra, etc. are written by journalists rather than historians? (10) If you were publishing an updated edition of Best Evidence, what new material would you include?

Yes I doubt very much if the exam would have been allowed to go ahead if it was an important part of a maths exam.

When Tony Blair became prime minister in 1997 he appointed Alistair Graham as chairman of the independent committee on standards in public life (CSPL). Graham, a former trade union official, was a strong supporter of New Labour and was seen as a reliable ally of the new government. Graham, like Blair, had been a critic of “Tory sleaze” during the governments of Margaret Thatcher and John Major. Graham, like all honest politicians, has been appalled by Blair’s own corruption. He has also been unimpressed with Blair’s reaction when his ministers have been exposed as being corrupt. He has refused to sack them although in most cases they were forced to resign because of media pressure. Graham has decided to go to the press about Blair’s refusal to take advice from CSPL. In interviews in the Sunday Times and on Radio 4, Graham condemned the hidden loan provided by Lord Sainsbury, the science minister. He also pointed out that Prescott should have been sacked as there is “clear evidence that he took advantage of his public position and breached accepted codes of conduct in fulfilling his public duty”. In doing so, a member of the civil service future career was put at risk. Graham also reported that Blair has refused to accept the CSPL’s recommendations on how to bring an end to cronyism. Interestingly, Graham pointed out that in a meeting with Gordon Brown last month, he was much more supportive of these ideas than Blair has been. The police investigating corruption in political parties have asked to parliamentary committee probing the affair, not to cross-examine witnesses as it might influence future legal proceedings. The MPs have agreed but it is possible that the police are part of the cover-up. It is especially worrying that Scotland Yard's Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Yates is leading the investigation. Yates is very keen to get the top job at Scotland Yard. Is it in his best interests to bring down the prime minister or is he just another Earl Warren?

Bradley E. Ayers was interviewed by Jeremy Gunn of the Assassination Records Review Board in May, 1995. According to Gunn: “Ayers claims to have found in the course of his private investigative work, a credible witness who can put David Morales inside the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles on the night of June 5, 1968 (RFK’s assassination)." Another source suggests that Gordon Campbell was with David Morales at the Ambassador Hotel on the night that Robert Kennedy was murdered.

The head of Tony Blair's taskforce on school discipline has called on parents and teachers to ban children from listening to "offensive" rap music lyrics. What do you think? Is this a serious problem in schools? Do these sexist and racist lyrics influence young minds?

It was reported today that the AQA exam board failed to send out the source booklet for its humanities GCSE exam. AQA were told about the mistake but insisted the students sat the exam. As this was worth around a third of the total marks, the students must have found this decision very disturbing. AQA say they will base the results on the other two-thirds of the paper. It just shows how much AQA values source work.

21 years ago the Church of England published a report on the state of Britain. It was so critical of the Thatcher government that it was condemned as being a “Marxist” report. This week the Church of England published a follow-up report. It points out that the gap between the poor and the rich is wider than ever. It urges the government to use the tax system to redistribute wealth. As the report points out: “We live in one of the most economically unequal countries in Europe.” So far Blair has not described the report as Marxist, however, if he has a conscience, he must be embarrassed by its findings. I visited Tewkesbury Abbey last week. I was fascinated by the contents of the notice board. It seems that the Church of England is now a left-wing pressure group. I am pleased to see that the message of Jesus Christ has not been forgotten.

As the Namebase entry suggests, there is not much on Tony Sforza. However, he definitely seems a person worth investigating. Sforza was was based in Cuba in 1959. He lived in Havana under the cover of working as a professional gambler and developed contacts with the Mafia in Cuba. A close associate of Theodore Shackley he was based at JM/WAVE in the early 1960s and worked as a paramilitary agent with Grayston Lynch and Rip Robertson. In 1970 Sforza served in Chile. According to David Corn (Blond Ghost), Sforza worked with General Roberto Viaux in the overthrow of Salvador Allende. Corn quotes a memo written by fellow agent, John Murray, that Sforza and Bruce MacMaster, took part in a mission "to help create a situation which would encourage the Chilean military to activate a military takeover of the Chilean government." Sforza moved to Mexico in 1971. Bruce MacMaster, a veteran CIA operative, claimed that Sforza had exploited "Agency pouches to ship contraband" and "had sent a large package of hard-core pornography to the Mexico City station". In May, 1973, John Murray, chief of the CIA station in Mexico City, sent documents to Theodore Shackley that Tony Sforza was involved in the assassination of General Rene Schneider in Chile. Shackley did nothing with this material and instead sent Murray to be chief of station in Jamaica. In his book, The Last Investigation, Gaeton Fonzi quotes Ruben Carbajal as saying that Sforza was very close to David Morales. According to Carbajal, both men admitted that "they killed men for the agency". Fonzi also saw a CIA document that stated "Sforza is a hit man and should be regarded as dangerous". After leaving the CIA Tony Sforza ran an import-export business in Miami. Like David Morales Sforza died in 1978 of a heart-attack before being interviewed by the House Select Committee on Assassinations. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKsforza.htm

It is interesting that Grayston Lynch was linked to the oil industry in Texas. Lynch was interviewed by Seymour Hersh for his book, The Dark Side of Camelot. He blamed John F. Kennedy for the failure to overthrow Fidel Castro. Lynch was also involved in Operation Mongoose and by 1963 was paramilitary trainer at JM/WAVE. According to David Corn (Blond Ghost), Lynch "ran his own outfit of exile raiders". In 1971 Grayston Lynch retired from the CIA and became a federal drug agent. In his work he encountered narcotics traffickers who had previously worked with the CIA. Lynch admitted that "a lot of drug smugglers learned their skills" at JM/WAVE under Theodore Shackley.

I used to look at Henry Nevinson when studying the Boer War, universal suffrage and the First World War. In fact, I used radical journalists a great deal in my teaching. In my view, crusading journalists have played an important role in the development of democracy (today they help to protect it). The problem is that very few history textbooks provide much material on these people. That is why I created my website on journalists: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/journalists.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAjournalists.htm We can never expect textbooks to produce materials that really question the dominant ideology. We can either produce it ourselves or use resources from the web.

Dan Moldea has complained about the comments above. It is of course pure speculation on my part and I have no evidence that anybody put him under pressure to change his mind about the assassination of Robert Kennedy. From the email exchanges I have had with Dan I am now convinced that I made a false assumption and I would like to apologise for questioning his integrity.

Dan Moldea has complained about the comments above. It is of course pure speculation on my part and I have no evidence that anybody put him under pressure to change his mind about the assassination of Robert Kennedy. From the email exchanges I have had with Dan I am now convinced that I made a false assumption and I would like to apologise for questioning his integrity.

(1) Could you explain the reasons why you decided to become an investigative journalist and historian? (2) Is there any real difference between the role of an investigative journalist and a historian? (3) How do you decide about what to write about? (4) Do you ever consider the possibility that your research will get you into trouble with those who have power and influence? (5) You tend to write about controversial subjects. Do you think this has harmed your career in any way? Have you ever come under pressure to leave these subjects alone? (6) The House Select Committee on Assassinations reported that the "committee believes, on the basis of the available evidence, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy". However, very few historians have been willing to explore this area of American history. Lawrence E. Walsh's Iran-Contra Report suggests that senior politicians were involved in and covered-up serious crimes. Yet very few historians have written about this case in any detail? Why do you think that historians and journalists appear to be so unwilling to investigate political conspiracies? (7) What is your basic approach to writing about what I would call "secret history"? How do you decide what sources to believe? How do you manage to get hold of documents that prove that illegal behaviour has taken place?

(1) Could you explain the reasons why you decided to become an historian? (2) Is there any real difference between the role of an investigative journalist and a historian? (3) How do you decide about what to write about? (4) Do you ever consider the possibility that your research will get you into trouble with those who have power and influence? (5) Did you have any problems having The Last Crusade: Martin Luther King Jr., the FBI and the Poor People's Campaign (1998) and Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation (2005) published? (6) You tend to write about controversial subjects. Do you think this has harmed your career in any way? Have you ever come under pressure to leave these subjects alone? (7) The House Select Committee on Assassinations reported that the “committee believes, on the basis of the available evidence, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy”. However, very few historians have been willing to explore this area of American history. Lawrence E. Walsh’s Iran-Contra Report suggests that senior politicians were involved in, and covered-up, serious crimes. Yet very few historians have written about this case in any detail? Why do you think that historians and journalists appear to be so unwilling to investigate political conspiracies? (8) What is your basic approach to writing about what I would call “secret history”? How do you decide what sources to believe? How do you manage to get hold of documents that prove that illegal behaviour has taken place? (9) Why is it that most books written about political conspiracies: assassinations of JFK, MLK, RFK, Watergate, Iran-Contra, etc. are written by journalists rather than historians? Is it because of fear or is it something to do with the nature of being a historian?

See the thread I started yesterday: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6898

Sander hopes to have the book out in about 3 months.

Yes. I would not try to defend the power of the state in places like China and the former Soviet Union. The point is, were they ever really communist states? If you look at the situation in China today, it is more like a "state capitalist" economic system. It clearly is a very efficient system (its growth-rate is far higher than in capitalist countries). However, the gap in inequality is also growing faster than in any other country in the world. I was talking to a man last week who has spent the last few years managing golf courses in China. He told me that the extremes in poverty and wealth in China will result in a "communist" revolution in the next few years.

As I have told Sander, Brad Ayers has every reason to be paranoid. However, Sander is aware that you can be both paranoid and right. That is why he is publishing the book.