7 hours ago, John Cotter said:

Many thanks for that expansive reply.

X

8 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

 

X

 

X

8 hours ago, John Cotter said:

Arms for whom? The IRA?

Did it have anything to do with the 1970 “Arms Crisis” which threatened to bring down the Irish government and which involved, among others, the Belgian businessman and former SS member Albert Luykx?

 

X

9 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

 

X

9 hours ago, John Cotter said:

UN Representative Conor Cruise O’Brien was portrayed very negatively in the Siege of Jadotville film. O’Brien later became an Irish government minister, the editor-in-chief of the Observer newspaper in London and a Unionist politician in Northern Ireland. He became so rabidly opposed to Irish nationalism and the IRA, that I suspect he had British intelligence connections.

X 

9 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

To say as some are implying  that somehow Kennedy did not figure prominently in the defeat of the Katanga secession is simply not accurate.

And to also imply that American policy did not drastically change after his death, this is also not accurate.

As Jonathan K notes in Endless Enemies,  the White House and the CIA now tried to blame the Simba Rebellion--some of the last of Lumumba's followers--on influence from China!

Just recall, for the disaster that took place ultimately in Congo, three men had to perish:

Lumumba

Dag Hammarskjold

Kennedy.

IMO, without those murders, and that is what they were, Belgium would not have retaken control and neither would have Union Miniere.  This is why Lumumba became a hero in Africa, and why so many streets, buildings, parks and even children were named after Kennedy.

X

9 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Jadotville was part of the UN mission. Hammarskjold had appointed Conor Cruise O'Brien to run that mission. O'Brien got decidedly mixed reviews for his performance.

But when Dag was killed, and the UN was faltering, it was Kennedy who went to the UN, not once, but twice to convince them to stay in the battle as a way of honoring Dag.  We excerpted Kennedy's speech in which he mentions this in JFK Revisited.  And it was Kennedy who approved Operation Grand Slam which ended the Katanga secession.

Everyone knows that the Belgians, and to a lesser extent the British and French backed Union Miniere and Katanga and Tshombe.  Is that supposed to be news?  And yes mercenaries were hired to back Tshombe, reportedly one was Skorzeny in the employ of CIA.  

Everything went south after Kennedy's murder. Kennedy wanted to bring in British special forces expert Michel Greene to control the Simba Rebellion tactically.  This did not occur and once Adoula retired, and Mobutu became a favorite at Fort Benington, LBJ moved the USA from center to the right.  Without Kennedy, the UN withdrew in the summer of 1964.  Now, the US and Belgium "intervened with arms, airplanes and military advisors. Mobutu brought Tshombe home from exile to replace Adoula as premier."

To put down the Simba Rebellion, the USA and Belgium formed a mercenary force which included men from South Africa and reportedly Cuban exiles.  To stop the rebellion in Stanleyville the US Air Force used C-130's to drop Belgian paratroopers on the city.  As many have said this was a military success and a political disaster. Eighteen African states accused the USA and Belgium of violation of the UN Charter.

As UN ambassador Stevenson said: a year before we were hailed as champions of a free Africa, now we were as reviled as the Belgians. (Richard Mahoney, JFK: Ordeal in Africa, pp 229-231)

X

On 7/1/2024 at 2:44 PM, Matt Cloud said:

https://medium.com/illumination/the-origins-of-america-first-cd602afb8176

The Origins of ‘America First’

The history of ‘America First’ is deeply rooted in U.S. foreign policy

 

Jonathan Bell

·

 

·

Jan 5, 2023

 

 

 

Anti-war protesters at the Capitol (1917) — Wikipedia Commons / Library of Congress

The term ‘America First’ has dominated the lexicon of U.S. politics in recent years, quickly becoming one of the most frequently used phrases of the Trump era. The notion of ‘America First’ was a core element of President Donald Trump’s foreign policy rhetoric, which he underlined in his inaugural speech on 20 January 2017, when he famously declared: “from this day forward, it’s going to be only America first. America first. Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs, will be made to benefit American workers and American families.”

However, the idea of an ‘America First’ — or a more broadly isolationist — foreign policy has deep roots in U.S. history. In his hugely influential work Common Sense, published in 1776, Thomas Paine warned against the dangers of foreign alliances and, in a spirit of revolutionary enthusiasm, proclaimed: “It is the true interest of America to steer clear of European contentions.”

Paine wasn’t the only American to offer such a warning. Thomas Jefferson laid out a similar view on foreign affairs: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none”, and 20 years later, George Washington showed comparable scepticism towards U.S. involvement with the Old World, advising in his Farwell Address: “the great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.”

Whilst a common warning can be traced through these three statements about the nature of U.S. entanglement in European affairs, this does not mean that Paine, Jefferson or Washington advocated for an ‘America First’ foreign policy. However, these early prophecies about American power and international relations do set the scene for the strand of isolationist thinking that would rise to prominence in American politics during the early twentieth century. We must turn to what historian Eric Hobsbawm termed “The Age of Extremes” to really understand the roots of ‘America First’.

‘America First’ in the twentieth century

The phrase ‘America First’ first appeared on the political scene during the 1880s, but the term gained national prominence in 1915 when it became a catchphrase of President Woodrow Wilson during his campaign trail. Wilson was an internationalist and hoped to position the U.S. as a peacemaker on the international stage, but used the term to reach out to isolationists, who desperately wanted to prevent the nation from becoming involved in the First World War.

As the Great Powers of Europe devolved into the bloody stalemate of trench warfare, America fuelled Great Britain and France with weapons and munitions but opted to stay out of the conflict directly — and In April 1915 Wilson defended his position of neutrality, stating in a speech: “Our whole duty for the present, at any rate, is summed up in the motto: ‘America First’.” This notion of ‘America First’ would become a core part of his campaign strategy during the 1916 Presidential Election, where Wilson’s slogan “He Kept Us Out of War” was used to great effect to highlight the benefits of neutrality.

 

President Woodrow Wilson breaks off relations with Germany (1917) — Wikipedia Commons

Despite the political pressure, U.S. neutrality would not last indefinitely. On 2 April 1917, Wilson asked Congress for a declaration of war against Germany after both the debacle of the Zimmermann Telegram and Germany’s use of unrestricted submarine warfare in the North Atlantic. Despite ending on the victorious side of the war, Wilson would still have to deal with isolationist interference in his foreign policy, with the Senate later rejecting the post-war Treaty of Versailles and U.S. involvement in the League of Nations in November 1919, which firmly prevented further American commitments in European affairs.

However, his ‘America First’ rhetoric had proved popular with an American public eager to avoid war — and with nearly one in seven Americans born in one of the warring nations, Wilson had shown that ‘America First’ could provide a clear political advantage at the ballot box.

Europe returns to war

As war once more returned to Europe in September 1939, the question of isolationism again became a critical political question — but this time, ‘America First’ would become a much more central part of the debate around U.S. foreign policy. Just as in 1914, public opinion in 1939 was hesitant about U.S. involvement in another European war, with most Americans favouring economic recovery from the Great Depression over military intervention.

After Hitler’s invasion of Poland in September 1939, Gallup conducted a poll asking about American attitudes towards support for Britain, France and Poland. The poll found that whilst most Americans supported sending food supplies to the Allies (74%-27%) and narrowly supported providing military equipment (58%-42%), direct U.S. involvement in the war was hugely unpopular (16%-84%).

 

Protests against U.S. entry into the Second World War (1941) — Wikipedia Commons

This isolationist sentiment would express itself through the America First Committee (AFC), established in September 1940 with the goal of opposing American entry into the Second World War. Originally founded at Yale University, the AFC would grow to reach 800,000 members across 450 chapters, with especially high levels of support across the Midwest.

Among its founding members were Sargent Shriver (future director of the Peace Corps) and Potter Stuart (future Supreme Court Justice), alongside Gerald Ford — which gave the movement a great deal of energy and ambition. Even a young John F. Kennedy would donate $100 to the organisation, showcasing its popular appeal.

The America First Committee not only opposed U.S. involvement in the war but also President Franklin Roosevelt’s Lend-Lease Plan. The plan provided material support to the Allies and aimed to make the U.S. “the great arsenal of democracy”, and after Roosevelt submitted the Lend-Lease Bill to Congress in January 1941, the group promised to oppose the measure “with all the vigor it can exert.” Despite the AFC’s fierce opposition, after much debate, Lend-Lease would pass both houses overwhelmingly, with Roosevelt’s request for $7 billion to purchase the equipment also being accepted.

The AFC attracted people from across the political spectrum, ranging from union leaders, pacifists, Republicans, Democrats, socialists, anti-communists and — of course — sympathisers of Hitler’s Germany. The most prominent member of the AFC was undoubtedly the aviator Charles Lindbergh, whose popular public profile helped to attract nationwide attention to the movement.

The AFC argued passionately for an ‘America First’ foreign policy, with Lindbergh asserting: “The doctrine that we must enter the wars of Europe in order to defend America will be fatal to our nation if we follow it.” However, some of the rhetoric, including from Lindbergh himself, brought accusations of antisemitism and a pro-German bias towards the group.

During a speech in Des Moines, Iowa, on 11 September 1941, Lindbergh fiercely declared: “Instead of agitating for war, the Jewish groups in this country should be opposing it in every possible way for they will be among the first to feel its consequences,” and bitterly complained that “their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and our government.” The speech was heavily criticised by opponents of the AFC for its antisemitic tone and quickly raised suspicions of pro-Nazi sympathies, further damaging its reputation.

From ‘America First’ to world war

Despite its strong membership, the America First Committee was to collapse as quickly as it emerged. After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on the morning of 7 December 1941, an almost immediate wave of patriotic fervour swept across the nation — and only a few days later, on 11 December, the AFC disbanded itself. In a final press release, the committee laid out their future vision for America and its role in the war: “Our principles were right. Had they been followed, war could have been avoided. No good purpose can now be served by considering what might have been, had our objectives been attained. We are at war. Today, though there may be many important subsidiary considerations, the primary objective is not difficult to state. It can be completely defined in one word: Victory.”

 

Students opposing U.S. involvement in World War Two (April 1940) — Wikipedia Commons / National Archives and Records Administration

The AFC would divide opinion with its ‘America First’ rhetoric — both at the time and in the future. In April 1941 Harold Ickes, Secretary of the Interior, accused the organisation of being one of “Hitler’s unconscious tools” and took aim at both Lindbergh and Robert E. Wood (national chairman of the AFC) as being a “fellow traveller” of the Nazis. However, the AFC’s attempts to keep America out of the war remained relatively popular with an American public that perceived foreign entanglement as a threat to their interests — and the AFC were undoubtedly able to tap into this anxiety and attract supporters from across party lines.

Ultimately, events overtook the ‘America First’ movement of the early 1940s and the organisation failed to prevent U.S. participation in the war, but its huge membership base and influential lobbying showed how powerful the concept of ‘America First’ could be. From Woodrow Wilson to the Second World War (and beyond), the notion of an ‘America First’ foreign policy has always had a certain allure with sections of both Democrats and Republicans — even if their leaders had very different goals in mind when championing it.

And it is certainly no surprise that present-day politicians, like President Trump, have continued to take up the ‘America First’ cause and utilise it for their own purposes. History shows us that ‘America First’ is deeply rooted in American history, and the cause it represents is unlikely to disappear any time soon.

X

15 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

I will watch later today - thanks 

X

X

@Paul Brancato @Matthew Koch 

X

X

On 6/26/2024 at 6:27 PM, Paul Brancato said:

I get it. Jim has you on ignore, and by my commenting here it unavoidably comes to his attention. I hope he doesn’t mind my response here.
Does the movie shed light on Dulles being fired? That is the thrust of this thread. In my view of history the Dulles brothers are villains of the first order. What’s your view on them generally? 
I’ve read something about the Katanga ‘mutiny’. The movie is two hours long. Would you mind letting us know where the film maker discusses this? And if you know, could you tell us about the film 

23 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

x

X

X

@Roger Odisio

@Benjamin Cole

Ben's "parody" serves to deflect from discussion, deliberare or not.

If he doesn't want to engage under the hypothesis: if the datebook is authentic, what secrets does it hold?  -- then he should step to the back of the room and merely observe.  I'm under absolutely no obligation to share the advances we've made. I do so because I know beyond a doubt the private record of Lafitte is a major breakthrough in the investigation.

Ben's further atempts to mock and intimidate are silly. Once he realized the futility, he resorted to taunting that he has access to Hank's archives. Highly unprofessional and, I posit, a lie.

37 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

In the dappled fading light of a summer afternoon, you will swoon when you discover who "he" is....and indeed, you will imbibe his verisimilitudes, and find unbounded euphoria....

It's all there in Lafitte's second notebook...mystical incantations and inscriptions...

 

I figured out who "he" -- the buffoon -- is.

41 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

If you consult your tea leaves in the waning afternoon sun, you will find the answer to your questions. 

They read, "he's a buffoon and don't waste time." Not sure who "he" is.

48 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Mum's the word. These walls have ears.

Keep your eye on the sparrow. 

And remember the sparrow---the ultimate clue, the key that unlocks the truth. 

I asked if your research led you to conclude Joannides played a role albeit cameo in the plan to assassinate Robert Kennedy at the Ambassador in LA? 

Reading the high strangeness and synchronicity identified in A Secret Order by Hank Albarelli Jr., Raleigh NC still holds a major key in solving the cold case murder investigation. God willing, it will be fully solved in Joe Biden's lifetime. 

i was taught,

NEVER CHANGE HORSES IN THE MIDDLE IN THE STREAM.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/rachel-maddow-presents-ultra/id1647910854

16 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Due to legal restrictions and confidentiality agreements, I am unable to reveal sources and methods at this time. 

I was able to have a source examine a second, as of yet unrevealed notebook of Pierre Lafitte's, which confirmed Mossad-Nazi collusion in the JFKA/RFK1A. 

Ben, I'm curious if you've seen any evidence that George Joannides' fingerprints are to be found in the lead up to the assassination of Robert Kennedy?  You and Jonathan appear persuaded the two murders are linked beyond the obvious. 

I also wonder what might have been had Morley not been so resistant to Hank's inroads into an investigation (he, Jeff M.) seemed to committed to .... at least to the extent of dislodging JFK government files. (That would be files maintained by agencies that provided cover for the para-goverment thugs behind the plot? In hindsightit seems laughable. )  

Since you've gained access to Hank's archives, you probably know the backstory here? 

10 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Due to legal restrictions and confidentiality agreements, I am unable to reveal sources and methods at this time. 

I was able to have a source examine a second, as of yet unrevealed notebook of Pierre Lafitte's, which confirmed Mossad-Nazi collusion in the JFKA/RFK1A. 

@Ron BulmanI propose EF provide a Romper Room located perhaps next door to the Water Cooler?