S.T. Patrick

This sums up quite a number of personal conversations I've had about the case for the past two years. I know of at least two decent researchers who have all but quit doing anything with the case - a case they care about deeply and personally - because they have no interest in being the public target of the CIA Primacy crowd that rests atop of the hierarchy in the Kennedy assassination research community. It's an odd thing to observe when a community founded on the idea that "the establishment media needs to look into this with a much more open mind" is a community that has planted their flags into their own theories and refuses and refutes anything that doesn't support that flag. Anyone who disagrees is "a disinformationist," "untrusted," and the tiresome "discredited," while those who do agree with them are characterized as "careful researchers" who have done "valuable," "important," and "noteworthy" work. I continue to tell young (under 50 in this case... lol) researchers that anytime you read that someone has been "discredited," you've probably found a writer with a fragile ego who has to circle the wagons and destroy the outsiders to validate their own needed sense of importance. And yes, they'll use "limited hangout," as Pat pointed out," just as they'll use "discredited." Both phrases cause the same near-ripping of the optic nerve from the eye roll they deserve and usually describe the fragility of the descriptor better than its target. Well said, Pat.

I'll absolutely watch it.

I would not say they were praising Liddy. I would frame it as such: they are writers who have spoken to many of the particulars in the case, primary and secondary. Many like Dean and Magruder have notoriously changed aspects of the story every time they've gone on record. You almost can't quote one of their statements or writings because they probably changed it in the next one. Liddy, however, is someone who always admitted his role in what he was involved in, and they seem to feel, as a group, like Liddy was he one who was always honest with them, honest and unchanging, even when it made him look bad - or crazy (i.e. the Jack Anderson story). So, I would say that they aren't praising him, as much as they felt like the misdeeds he wrote about are ones he wrote and spoke about accurately and honestly.

From Hougan, Colodny, et al, Liddy was the livest of wires, but he was also the most honest of the particulars over the years. Looking forward to seeing Gaslit, but, to me, the litmus test will be how they treat John & Mo Dean. If it's a Dean love fest (once again), I must write it off. Dean and Jeb Magruder are at the heart of the break-ins (multiple, May & June '72). McCord, it appears to me, sabotaged the operation without Hunt's knowledge. The FBI found ZERO bugs in the DNC. Why? McCord didn't plant any there, as he was supposed to. The key to Watergate is the literal key inside Eugenio Martinez's mouth. Martha Mitchell is a sideshow act compared to other "side characters": Lou Russell, Carl Shoffler, Philip Bailley, Heidi Rikan, etc.

DuckDuckGo is something Ive used for a few years, especially for things like JFK, Watergate, Iran Contra, etc. It was never a right-wing search engine, but the fact that the NYT paints it that way shows you who they believe is looking up alternative information these days as opposed to who they believe is falling in line properly with the mainstream media. Google does limit the availability of non-mainstream, non-compliant results for general searches. Sure, if you search specifically for "Kennedys and King" or "Midnight Writer News," those will come up. But if you search more generally for more alternative perspectives, those results may be pages and pages down in a world where I believe it has been said that most searchers do not move past the first page of results. More importantly, it is the continuance of the idea that alternative perspectives are dangerous in some way, that ideas and those who search for ideas across any spectrum are dangerous. The NYT believes there to be a hierarchy of information, but this is a self-serving vested interest as they believe they should be in that hierarchy (if not at the top). I said the problem with Rogan wasn't any guest he had on the show. He's a Bernie supporter who believes in M4A. The problem with Rogan for the MSM is that he was absolutely kicking their collective asses in consumption numbers. He doesn't threaten them politically; he threatens their stranglehold on control and especially control over what media is accepted and what is not. The more popular the alternative media becomes (and believe this, it isn't right wing... to the NYT, Kennedys & King and MWN/garrison are alternative media), the more they will push back in an effort to classify it as not only wrong but dangerous. But I think the "win" is not to keep slurping the mainstream media, hoping they'll acknowledge us, validate us, and mention us. The win is to build your audience and garner a level of respect completely outside and without the MSM, as Rogan has done. (But again, I don't want to make this post about Rogan, but he's the most popular example and the article does mention him.) Of the 100 thinkers and writers I admire most in the world right now, I'd guess that 90+ would be considered "alternative." I'd rather speak to them or read them or gain some sort of acceptance from them than I would the NYT or the WaPo. But I do understand there are some in these communities who go after the MSM critically and then turn cartwheels of joy and gratitude when they get a mention in some weekend edition review. This is something I'll never understand. It's like desiring a hug from an abusive father. I mean, c'mon. So, again, I chalk this up to the NYT having no clue what is really going on at the ground level, and it not mattering to them. What matters to them is that they continue to paint their "alternative competition" as dangerous in some way. That's the narrative: Ideas that we (the collective MSM) haven't approved are dangerous. Beware. Today, it's the right whose searches are "dangerous." The MSM wants to use the left as their batterers, cheering while the right gets classified as dangerous and censored on some social media outlets. But tomorrow it'll be the left and the MSM will use the right as the cheerleaders. The problem is - when you've supported either MSM attack on one, it's impossible for you to go all the way to the other side for the other and do so with any credibility. You've been used. The only way to retain credibility as a free speech advocate is to oppose what the NYT is doing here, and oppose it always (the idea, not their right to print it).

Does the Lafitte Diary now become the next fracture in JFK research? The next Z-film alteration, or Doorway/Prayer Man, or degree of Oswald (un)wittingness?

Skyhorse apparently had an issue with this, too. Someone sent me pics of the "Publisher's Statement" at the beginning of the book.

I believe John Newman did a sizeable section on June Cobb in one of his newest volumes. That might be an interesting comparison.

I would start at the beginning. Edward Curtin's primer is pretty great. That goes right into Ed Tatro's long article on Ruby, also great, and Heather Tarver Fear's profile of Jada, one of Ruby's dancers. I think you'll like the entirety of the articles. I do.

Thank you. From you, that means a lot. It should be in the post. If you scroll down, a PDF of the TOC should pop up. If it isn't I don;t know what to suggest. I just looked again and it seems like it's there when I look at it. It does take a bit of downward scrolling, though. I think you'll like the issue. As I said, your kind words mean a lot to me.

Should be in this post: https://midnightwriternews.com/garrison-issue-008-political-assassinations-of-the-1960s-is-now-available/

Hi, Joe. Thank you. More specifically, it should be at the bottom of this post: https://midnightwriternews.com/garrison-issue-008-political-assassinations-of-the-1960s-is-now-available/

I embedded the Table of Contents into the website announcement. It's here: https://midnightwriternews.com/

I'll try to see what I can do. When Ive tried to post images before, it says Ive hit my limit or something. I'll try again. Edit: I tried. Though Ive only uploaded four files in my history here, it says I'm at my limit. I tried to delete them all, and it still says I'm over the limit. I'll try to post it at the website and then I'll put a link here.

348 pages. This double-sized issue of garrison.: The Journal of History & Deep Politics centers on the Political Assassinations of the 1960s. In this issue, you will read a profile of UK researcher Malcolm Blunt by Bart Kamp, as well as works by Edward Curtin, Edgar Tatro, Heather Tarver Fear, Jim DiEugenio, John Simkin, Vince Palamara, Dr. Cyril Wecht, Dawna Kaufmann, Walt Brown, David Kaiser, David Josephs, Barry Ernest, Rob Couteau, Prof. David Denton, Martin Hay, Andrew Kreig, Dr. David Mantik, Rex Bradford, Bill Kelly, Karl Evanzz, Larry Hancock, Phil Nelson, Benjamin Hampton, and S.T. Patrick. From JFK, RFK, MLK, and Malcolm X, to Hammarskjold and Lumumba, the 1960s were a tragic period that forever changed the course of the United States. https://www.lulu.com/spotlight/MidnightWriterNews

Robert Gettlin, the co-author of Silent Coup: The Removal of a President, joins S.T. Patrick to discuss the memory of friend Len Colodny, Watergate, and the writing of Silent Coup. There has long been a question about whether Gettlin disavowed Silent Coup when his name did not appear as an author on the book’s 25th anniversary paperback edition (Trine Day). That is answered in this episode. Gettlin also addresses the John Dean lawsuit, the origin of the friendship and co-authorship with Len Colodny, the books that should be Watergate canon, the importance of J. Anthony Lukas, the dangers to a presidency of the military-industrial complex, whether Watergate was a “golden age of journalism,” how Silent Coup was marketed, and much more. https://midnightwriternews.com/mwn-episode-158-robert-gettlin-on-watergate-silent-coup-and-len-colodny/

It is, yes. I think it's a fascinating LP. There are parts of it that make you stop and think "wow" i.e. where they say the secret service were concerned about the open windows along the route. Even the conspiratorial-minded can listen to this and say "Wait, what?!?!" because they say some interesting things that go against what ends up being the mainstream version of events. Interesting all around.

Wanted to let everyone know that on the most recent edition of the Midnight Writer News Show, we played the full LP of the "Four Days That Shocked the World (Nov. 22-25, 1963)." The album has a copyright year of 1963, which, considering the date, means they put this together in under a month. Reid Collins of WNEW Radio News narrates the events of those four days with news footage spliced in. If you have a conspiratorial view regarding the JFK assassination, you’ll find this fascinating. You’ll pick up small things throughout that are hair-raising. There are some "Did he just say that?!?!" moments, to be sure. If you just love history and are not conspiratorial, this is a deeply moving piece of work with great news footage of those four days. Run time is approx 45 mins. https://midnightwriternews.com/mwn-episode-157-jfk-oswald-four-days-that-shocked-the-world/

https://www.lulu.com/spotlight/MidnightWriterNews Thank you.

Thanks for posting this, Paul. Joe McCarthy voted for it, huh? Wow. Interesting.

I agree, but I'll see if I can find the vote somewhere so we can know.

Id be interested to know the 27 Senators who voted for it.

I think you'll like them. I also want to put in a big plug for board member Richard Booth's article on OKC's John Doe #2. It's great work.

232 pages. In the sixth issue of "garrison.: The Journal of History & Deep Politics," we counted on our friends across the Atlantic to take us into the deep politics of the UK. We look at 17 of the most popular Jack the Ripper suspects (Richard Jones, Richard C. Cobb, Michael Hawley), as well as the theory that there is no one "Jack" at all (Simon Wood). JFK assassination historian Malcolm Blunt looks at LBJ and George H.W. Bush, Jonathan Cook looks at the dubious fall of Jeremy Corbyn, Robin Ramsay takes us inside Lobster magazine and looks at Carroll Quigley, Bill Beadle questions the hanging of Mahmood Mattan, and we have Allan Johnson on Richard III, Corinne Souza on Spook PR, Tom Easton on the Social Democrats, and Scott Reid on William McEwan Duff. Returning with U.S. coverage is Richard Booth (OKC Bombing/John Doe #2), Walt Brown (Oswald), Ed Curtin (Trump/Biden), James DiEugenio (Salandria Tribute), Don Jeffries (Trumpenstein), Caitlin Johnstone, Mark Crispin Miller (Masking), Phil Nelson (Harold Holt), Kevin Ryan (Gitmo), the late Vincent Salandria (Ruth & Michael Paine), and Ed Tatro (LBJ). https://www.lulu.com/spotlight/MidnightWriterNews

As someone who likes Caitlin very much personally and professionally, having corresponded with her some for garrison, my guess is that she hasn't said much about JFK, RFK, King, or X because she would - admittedly - tell you that she doesn't feel equipped to do so. She is very "right now" in her analysis. I think she's even a bit uncomfortable with topics as "old" (huge quotation marks) as 9/11 or Iran-Contra. What she does is what she does well. She takes something that happened today and she analyzes it right now from her perspective in the moment. I'm not even sure that she's a fan, per se, of history. I'm not saying she isn't, but she rarely discusses history beyond ten years or so. When I believe she's wrong, and I sometimes do, she still causes me to think about what she says. I think that's a good thing. But , as I said, I like her and she's always been kind to me and to garrison, so yes, I'm biased.