Jump to content

The Dark Side of Lyndon Baines Johnson


Peter McGuire
 Share

Recommended Posts

I was 4 during the missile drisis. My memory, in sweden at the time, is a sense of unease. I remember the JFK assassination better.

SID (a fantasy) threatened to destabilise MAD. (I think you give Russell far too much power). Raygonzo also divided nukes into friendly and unfriendly ones. As a frontsman for a corrupt regime he truly was mad.

The death squads in latin america were sold by Raygonzo as freedom fighters.

So, Russell ruled the world, The british prime minister ruled the US, abd Raygonzo was an innocent bystander who saved the day. Wow, what a mad world we live in. A heart attack is certainly in order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I was 4 during the missile drisis. My memory, in sweden at the time, is a sense of unease. I remember the JFK assassination better.

SID (a fantasy) threatened to destabilise MAD. (I think you give Russell far too much power). Raygonzo also divided nukes into friendly and unfriendly ones. As a frontsman for a corrupt regime he truly was mad.

The death squads in latin america were sold by Raygonzo as freedom fighters.

So, Russell ruled the world, The british prime minister ruled the US, abd Raygonzo was an innocent bystander who saved the day. Wow, what a mad world we live in. A heart attack is certainly in order.

SDI (not SID) was a fantasy? How then explain Ted Kennedy's reaction to Ronald Reagan's announcement. The liberal Kennedy was willing to sell out the USA by working with the KGB and western media to discredit the policy? You trying to tell me Teddy was only kidding? Andropov and Gorby freaked out as well as the major media who dubbed it "Star Wars".

You obviously didnt watch the video about "beam" technology.

I never said Russell ruled the world. But if you check you'd find out I am right that Russell convened these "Pugwash" conferences where he pushed the idea to create this terror with nuclear weapons. This was the policy Mutually Assured Destruction. It came from Bertrand Russell In 1949 Russell had called for a preemptive nuclear strike against the Soviets.

And I am sure you'll email the JFK library asking for the Russell cables to JFK during the Missile Crisis. You do know you come across like a 1960's leftist don't you? I expect you to quote from Mao's Little Red Book any moment now. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

Speaking of the Dark Side of Lyndon Baines Johnson - the topic of this thread:

George Reedy, who worked closely with Lyndon Johnson from 1951-1965, calls LBJ a “bully, a sadist, a lout, and egoist” in his book

“Deeply disturbed” does not adequately describe Lyndon Johnson … pathological xxxx, master manipulator, clever sociopath, and serial killer along the lines of a John Wayne Gacy or Ted Bundy (charming … then you are dead)

George Reedy, former press secretary for Lyndon Johnson: http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/George_Reedy

George Reedy on Lyndon Johnson:

• "He may have been a son of a bitch, but he was a colossal son of a bitch."

• "Not only did Johnson get somewhat separated from reality, he had a fantastic faculty for disorienting everybody around him as to what reality was." • "What was it that would send him into those fantastic rages where he could be one of the nastiest, most insufferable, sadistic SOBs that ever lived and a few minutes later really be a big, magnificent and inspiring leader?"

In his book, Lyndon B. Johnson: A Memoir by George Reedy… Reedy is quoted on his book flap as calling LBJ “a bully, a sadist, lout, and egoist.” He describes LBJ as “magnificent, inspiring leader; the other that of an insufferable bastard.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course SDI (SID is topical, a slip of the fingers). Perhaps the strategy of tension. Good cop bad cop routine. Is the media suddenly something to be believed? What video?

The use of N bombs preceded Russell as well as advocacy as such by Truman and Hawks. MAD was about balance.

I'm glad I come across as what I am.

I'm not surprised you think Mao comes next, it was a grave mistake by some elements in the left and rightly condemned. AFA I'm concerned, there never was a last emperor, the fox just morphed. Just like the havoc the US is wreaking on the world today, the corporate fascism of China is revealing itself. It explains the US support for China re Vietnam where I do think Ho is worth listening to. The US certainly didn't think so, they rebuffed his feelers for cooperation in favour of China. The US also can't be said to have only become involved in Indo China after Dien Bien Phu, they already almost totally finaced the french colonial war efforts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terry, I find this exchange thought provoking and of obvious interest to me, however, as Robert points out : off topic and we are likely dissuading others. I'd like to explore the Russell preemptive strike issue more. I think a topic on it would belong in the PC section or Politics. I wonder if you could start a topic there with the necessary docs and links? I think we should take the discussion there if you want to continue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...
Guest Robert Morrow

I am going to post the book blurb for the 2013 edition of this very well done, very rare book by Joesten which was first published in 1968. I would love to get a copy of the Epstein article in the July,1967 issue of Commentary. The Edward Epstein article is titled "Manchester Unexpurgated" and it is on pp. 25-31 of the July, 1967 issue of Commentary.

"First published in 1968 in the UK (the subject matter was too controversial for US publishers to touch) this is Joachim Joesten's treatise on the 36th president of the United States, Lyndon Baines Johnson, and his lifelong addiction for power at any cost. Joesten pulls back the layers of lies and deception to reveal LBJ as one of America's most corrupt and duplicitous politicians ever. Joesten carefully documents the little-known facts behind Johnson's involvement in scandals stretching back to his first stolen election in 1948, thru the Bobby Baker, Billy Sol Estes and Walter Jenkins affairs, and culminates with the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Included are LBJ's connection to mobsters, big Texas oil, political graft and corruption, blackmailing of FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover, and a disturbing number of murders committed by his henchmen for LBJ's personal gain. FROM THE BOOK: The true nature of Lyndon B. Johnson has long been hidden from the public through the frenzied efforts of highly paid P.R. wizards and artificial image-builders. William Manchester came closer than most other people to seeing through the benign public relations mask of Lyndon Johnson, but one wouldn't know it from scanning the pages of 'The Death of a President'. If there are two persons in the world who have really come to know Johnson at close quarters, outside of his own family, they are Robert and Jacqueline Kennedy. Manchester interviewed both of them at length and they told him, without mincing their words, what they thought of That Man in the White House. But when Manchester, having faithfully recorded everything the Kennedys had told him, rushed into print with his story, years ahead of schedule, they both got panicky and practically forced him to 'revise' his story out of recognition. Edward J. Epstein, the author of Inquest, somehow managed to get hold of a copy of the original, unedited manuscript of the Manchester book, then entitled 'Death of a Lancer', and revealed in the July issue 1967 of Commentary, some of its contents. In his original draft, Manchester, it seems, made some very pungent remarks about Lyndon Johnson whom he described, among other things, as a 'chameleon who constantly changes loyalties'; 'a capon' and 'a crafty schemer who has a gaunt, hunted look about him'. He also pictured Johnson as 'a full-fledged hypomaniac' and 'the crafty seducer with six nimble hands who can persuade a woman to surrender her favors in the course of a long conversation confined to obscure words. No woman, even a lady, can discern his intentions until the critical moment'. By far the most interesting aspect of this matter, however, is Epstein's contention that Manchester's original theme, which gave unity to his book, was 'the notion that Johnson, the successor, was somehow responsible for the death-of his predecessor'. Several quotations from the original draft bear out this contention. At one point, the Lancer version states, 'The shattering fact of the assassination is that a Texas murder has made a Texan President'. At another, Kenneth O'Donnell, Kennedy's appointments secretary, is quoted as exclaiming 'They did it. I always knew they'd do it. You couldn't expect anything else from them. They finally made it'. Then Manchester comments: 'He didn't specify who "they" were. It was unnecessary. They were Texans, Johnsonians'. But what is one to think of an author who allows his most important work not only to be castrated, but to be turned completely upside down by a publisher more committed to the dictates of expediency than to the search for historical truth?"

Edited by Robert Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am going to post the book blurb for the 2013 edition of this very well done, very rare book by Joesten which was first published in 1968. I would love to get a copy of the Epstein article in the July,1967 issue of Commentary. The Edward Epstein article is titled "Manchester Unexpurgated" and it is on pp. 25-31 of the July, 1967 issue of Commentary.

http://jfk.hood.edu/...chester 344.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow
I am going to post the book blurb for the 2013 edition of this very well done, very rare book by Joesten which was first published in 1968. I would love to get a copy of the Epstein article in the July,1967 issue of Commentary. The Edward Epstein article is titled "Manchester Unexpurgated" and it is on pp. 25-31 of the July, 1967 issue of Commentary.
http://jfk.hood.edu/...chester 344.pdf

That is an excellent find if its that Epstein 1967 Commentary article. I, unfortunately, can not pull it up on either of my computers. Is it me or can you guys access the file?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...