Fred Litwin's new book

[Pat Speer]

20 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

You're saying that Posner and Litwin know more about the JFK assassination.

😆

They almost certainly know more details, but a lot of what they "know" is garbage.

[Anthony Thorne]

4 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Do you have a shred of actual evidence that these individuals are "supporting Litwin's career" ? I didn't think so.

Black and Pipes wrote blurbs for the back of one of Litwin’s books, to help Litwin sell a book he'd written.  They're also part of a specific group of hawks with ties to the Pentagon and Department of Defense - the Center for the National Interest - which regularly produces pro-war propaganda and which has figures from and advisors to the Pentagon on the board.

Edited February 18, 2023 by Anthony Thorne

[Pat Speer]

20 minutes ago, Anthony Thorne said:

Black and Pipes have already written blurbs for the back of Litwin’s books, to help Litwin sell the books he’s written.

You tell me if helping a writer sell his books, is something that would help his career as a writer, or hurt it. I’m assuming if Litwin is writing books and selling them on Amazon, helping him sell more copies of them is helping his career, rather than hurting it. You might feel differently about this.

If you want to argue that Conrad Black and Daniel Pipes wrote their blurbs of praise on the back of Litwin’s book to hurt Litwin’s career as a writer, rather than help it, go ahead and make the case. I’d be keen to see what you come up with.

The broader point will be forthcoming. Are Black and Pipes part of a specific group of people with a probable, sometimes overt, long term interest in generally pushing back against credible JFK assassination research, such as the book written by James DiEugenio? Yes. Again, more later.

The name Conrad Black rang a bell, so I looked it up real quick and found he was someone I'd written about before in connection with John McAdams. This leads me to wonder, then, if Litwin is the new McAdams, and is in fact a paid shill for this creep. 

Here is a snippet from my online review of McAdams' book, entitled "The Gospel According to John McAdams:" 

McAdams' Back Pages

On April 11, 2012, Professor McAdams responded to a post on his alt.assassination.JFK newsgroup in a manner suggesting he thought scientists proposing "global warming" were every bit as kooky as JFK assassination conspiracy theorists. I teased him about this, seeking clarification.

Here is his response: "I'm skeptical of the global warming stuff, but it's not nearly as bogus as the JFK buff stuff." Wait... Not nearly as bogus? That means...he still thinks...it's bogus?

The thought that McAdams, who presents himself as a man of science and logic--while providing indications he's really a man of faith--was himself a conspiracy theorist, claiming the world's top scientists and politicians had teamed up to sell that global warming is real and man-made--when there are good reasons to believe it isn't--honestly hadn't occurred to me. I mean, here was the author of a book combating conspiracy thinking subscribing to one of the wackiest conspiracy theories of recent years, a theory at odds with the thinking of most every independent scientist to study the issue.

This led me to search through the alt.assassination.JFK archive. From doing so, McAdams' cognitive dissonance became quite clear. Frighteningly so.

On March 11, 2009, on the alt.assassination.JFK newsgroup, he derided the "fascist tactics" used against "global warming skeptics," and insisted that "It's perfectly obvious that there is plenty of room for debate on the issue."

He linked this post to a series of posts on his personal blog.

In the first of these, from June 25, 2008, he assailed those claiming the world is getting warmer as a result of man's behavior as "environmental jihadists," and derided their attempts to make oil industry executives who knowingly spread disinformation about global warming accountable for their acts.

He then wrote: "They, of course, invoke the precedent of the tobacco companies, who supposedly lied about the negative effects of smoking. But the looting of the tobacco companies was a shameful episode in the history of American jurisprudence. Leaving aside the fact there is plenty of room for skepticism about global warming, and plenty of reputable scientists who reject the hysteria, deciding your opponent is “lying” and therefore should be prosecuted for saying things you disagree with is simply way too convenient a way of silencing dissent. The prevalence of this sort of fanaticism actually casts doubt on the scientist judgment of the scientists trying to shut up the debate."

The other posts, from January 18, 2007, February 6, 2007, June 29, 2007, July 27, 2007, and August 29, 2007, were of a similar bent, denouncing global warming activists and the scientists who support them as "fanatics" on a "moralistic crusade" designed to squash "heretics," and decrying the lack of access of "global warming skeptics" to the "mainstream media."

The June 29 post was especially revealing. McAdams applauded the Canadian National Post's own "crusade" to give voice to "global warming skeptics," but failed to acknowledge that this paper was created in 1998 to provide a voice for Canadian business interests, including those pressing for the development of Canada's enormous oil sand deposits--the development of which has since led Canada to pull out of the Kyoto protocol regarding global warming. He also failed to acknowledge that this paper was founded by Conrad Black, a controversial media magnate who was at that time under indictment for fraud--and who was subsequently convicted of both fraud and obstruction of justice. McAdams did admit, however, that "We don’t claim to have the scientific knowledge to judge the 'global warming due to human activity thesis.' But we do know enough about science to know that groupthink, careerism and political ideology have often distorted scientific findings. Indeed, these things have often created a consensus that has later proven to be nonsense."

The July 27 post was also enlightening. McAdams wrote: "When one side in a debate is reduced to intimidation, it becomes pretty obvious that they doubt their ability to win in the marketplace of ideas. We think it is relevant here that liberals have a strong tendency to be secular, and that scientists among liberals have an even stronger tendency to reject religion. But if one decides that there is no God, the craving for personal righteousness does not go away. The desire to see ideas that are Good and True expressed, and conversely to silence what one considers evil heresy does not disappear. Thus it is no surprise to find, among environmentalists, the sort of fanaticism that has marked religion at its worst." He then welcomed a prominent "global warming skeptic" to the "new Inquisition."

Let's stop and think about this... Here, on his blog, is the author of a book entitled "JFK Assassination Logic: How to Think about Claims of Conspiracy," in which he expresses great skepticism about the reliability of eyewitness testimony, and says that instead we should rely upon scientific evidence (as interpreted by government-supplied experts), admitting that, when it comes to global warming, we should doubt the government-supplied experts, because "groupthink, careerism, and political ideology have often distorted scientific findings." Here is an academic, a supposed man of letters, invoking Orwell's 1984, and fear of Big Brother, in an ardent defense of the biggest of brothers, Big Oil and Big Tobacco. And here is a man of faith, a proud Christian, musing on the secular mind, and how the lack of faith among liberal scientists has led them to conduct a new Inquisition...

Edited February 18, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Tom Gram]

41 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

The name Conrad Black rang a bell, so I looked it up real quick and found he was someone I'd written about before in connection with John McAdams. This leads me to wonder, then, if Litwin is the new McAdams, and is in fact a paid shill for this creep. 

Here is a snippet from my online review of McAdams' book, entitled "The Gospel According to John McAdams:" 

McAdams' Back Pages

On April 11, 2012, Professor McAdams responded to a post on his alt.assassination.JFK newsgroup in a manner suggesting he thought scientists proposing "global warming" were every bit as kooky as JFK assassination conspiracy theorists. I teased him about this, seeking clarification.

Here is his response: "I'm skeptical of the global warming stuff, but it's not nearly as bogus as the JFK buff stuff." Wait... Not nearly as bogus? That means...he still thinks...it's bogus?

The thought that McAdams, who presents himself as a man of science and logic--while providing indications he's really a man of faith--was himself a conspiracy theorist, claiming the world's top scientists and politicians had teamed up to sell that global warming is real and man-made--when there are good reasons to believe it isn't--honestly hadn't occurred to me. I mean, here was the author of a book combating conspiracy thinking subscribing to one of the wackiest conspiracy theories of recent years, a theory at odds with the thinking of most every independent scientist to study the issue.

This led me to search through the alt.assassination.JFK archive. From doing so, McAdams' cognitive dissonance became quite clear. Frighteningly so.

On March 11, 2009, on the alt.assassination.JFK newsgroup, he derided the "fascist tactics" used against "global warming skeptics," and insisted that "It's perfectly obvious that there is plenty of room for debate on the issue."

He linked this post to a series of posts on his personal blog.

In the first of these, from June 25, 2008, he assailed those claiming the world is getting warmer as a result of man's behavior as "environmental jihadists," and derided their attempts to make oil industry executives who knowingly spread disinformation about global warming accountable for their acts.

He then wrote: "They, of course, invoke the precedent of the tobacco companies, who supposedly lied about the negative effects of smoking. But the looting of the tobacco companies was a shameful episode in the history of American jurisprudence. Leaving aside the fact there is plenty of room for skepticism about global warming, and plenty of reputable scientists who reject the hysteria, deciding your opponent is “lying” and therefore should be prosecuted for saying things you disagree with is simply way too convenient a way of silencing dissent. The prevalence of this sort of fanaticism actually casts doubt on the scientist judgment of the scientists trying to shut up the debate."

The other posts, from January 18, 2007, February 6, 2007, June 29, 2007, July 27, 2007, and August 29, 2007, were of a similar bent, denouncing global warming activists and the scientists who support them as "fanatics" on a "moralistic crusade" designed to squash "heretics," and decrying the lack of access of "global warming skeptics" to the "mainstream media."

The June 29 post was especially revealing. McAdams applauded the Canadian National Post's own "crusade" to give voice to "global warming skeptics," but failed to acknowledge that this paper was created in 1998 to provide a voice for Canadian business interests, including those pressing for the development of Canada's enormous oil sand deposits--the development of which has since led Canada to pull out of the Kyoto protocol regarding global warming. He also failed to acknowledge that this paper was founded by Conrad Black, a controversial media magnate who was at that time under indictment for fraud--and who was subsequently convicted of both fraud and obstruction of justice. McAdams did admit, however, that "We don’t claim to have the scientific knowledge to judge the 'global warming due to human activity thesis.' But we do know enough about science to know that groupthink, careerism and political ideology have often distorted scientific findings. Indeed, these things have often created a consensus that has later proven to be nonsense."

The July 27 post was also enlightening. McAdams wrote: "When one side in a debate is reduced to intimidation, it becomes pretty obvious that they doubt their ability to win in the marketplace of ideas. We think it is relevant here that liberals have a strong tendency to be secular, and that scientists among liberals have an even stronger tendency to reject religion. But if one decides that there is no God, the craving for personal righteousness does not go away. The desire to see ideas that are Good and True expressed, and conversely to silence what one considers evil heresy does not disappear. Thus it is no surprise to find, among environmentalists, the sort of fanaticism that has marked religion at its worst." He then welcomed a prominent "global warming skeptic" to the "new Inquisition."

Let's stop and think about this... Here, on his blog, is the author of a book entitled "JFK Assassination Logic: How to Think about Claims of Conspiracy," in which he expresses great skepticism about the reliability of eyewitness testimony, and says that instead we should rely upon scientific evidence (as interpreted by government-supplied experts), admitting that, when it comes to global warming, we should doubt the government-supplied experts, because "groupthink, careerism, and political ideology have often distorted scientific findings." Here is an academic, a supposed man of letters, invoking Orwell's 1984, and fear of Big Brother, in an ardent defense of the biggest of brothers, Big Oil and Big Tobacco. And here is a man of faith, a proud Christian, musing on the secular mind, and how the lack of faith among liberal scientists has led them to conduct a new Inquisition...

I’ve read this on your website before but that’s just friggin hilarious. 

[Bob Ness]

4 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

You're saying that Posner and Litwin know more about the JFK assassination.

😆

What I'm actually saying is he knows more about film making than Posner and Litwin. Wouldn't be fair. 😄

[Anthony Thorne]

Pipes and Black hyped Litwin's earlier book, not this one, so they know of Litwin's writing, and gave words of praise back then. I mixed up the positive reviews of Litwin's earlier book with the lack of positive reviews for his current one, sorry Fred.

But they're quite the pair to quote for praise. Black and Pipes sit on the advisory board of The National Interest, the neocon publication run by the Center of the National Interest think tank (originally founded by Richard Nixon as the Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom). A former Secretary of Defense (Schlesinger) is chairman, a Chief Financial Officer for the Department of Defense (Zakheim) is on the board, the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy from the Reagan administration (Ikle) sits on the board beside him. Ruth Wedgwood is a member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board. J. Robinson West (board) was the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for international economic affairs during the Ford administration. Helmut Sonnerfeldt (board) was a member of the National Security Council during the Nixon admin. Graham Allison has been a Pentagon advisor for decades, sits on the Defense Policy Board, and came to fame working under Ernest May in the 60's when he helped put together a study on the Cuban Missile Crisis. (May, who joined Allison at the Kennedy School of Govt at Harvard, was an official historian for the Joint Chiefs, and maintained his career as a Pentagon advisor alongside Allison). Zakheim, Schlesinger and others from the list also worked for military contractors on the side (Booz Allen and MITRE). With the above members, The National Interest could pass itself off as a newsletter from the Department of Defense, and the guys working on it who have a background in propaganda, rather than a career resume from the Pentagon, are Black and Pipes.

Pipes wrote articles funded by the United States Institute of Peace, a cleverly titled outfit created in 1984 by the Department of Defense during the Reagan administration, which had the Secretary of Defense on the board. See Pipes citing a grant from the government agency here, and a breakdown of hawks and neocons in the Institute right after.

https://www.danielpipes.org/documents/1064.pdf

https://militarist-monitor.org/united_states_institute_of_peace/

Black was a longtime business partner of Richard Perle, with the two of them running Hollinger International, Black as CEO, Perle sitting with him on the Hollinger board. Black was convicted of criminal fraud in 2007, and spent a few years in prison. Black's main claim to fame and fortune was overseeing the Hollinger newspaper empire. From Wikipedia - 

Quote

Black controlled Hollinger International, once the world's third-largest English-language newspaper empire,^[1] which published The Daily Telegraph (UK), Chicago Sun-Times (US), The Jerusalem Post (Israel), National Post (Canada), and hundreds of community newspapers in North America, before controversy erupted over the sale of some of the company's assets.

When Pipes worked as a pro war / anti-muslim essayist for the neocons, he had a regular column in the Jerusalem Post, and had a side specialty of writings attacking conspiracy theories, JFK conspiracies included, see here. 

https://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2006/01/bibliography-my-writings-on-conspiracy

Pipes is also director of the Middle East Forum, which wrote letters to congress (with Perle as a signatory) demanding action against countries harbouring weapons of mass destruction. Comedy alert, Pipes also authored a book in the late 90's - The Hidden Hand: Middle East Fears of Conspiracy -  lambasting Middle Eastern authors for asserting that an anti-muslim conspiracy against them might be on the cards. The book was released just a few months after the Project for a New American Century, Richard Perle among them, had written an open letter to Bill Clinton urging the President to act against Saddam Hussein, 

https://noi.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/iraqclintonletter1998-01-26-Copy.pdf

This is the tip of the iceberg for Pipes, who gets a long write up here.

https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/daniel-pipes/

Black and Pipes both have a history of producing conservative propaganda, and making money from hyping neocon wars. With that in mind, and with another Litwin's book featuring praise from a guy who worked for a government funded propaganda outlet (Ronald Radosh, from the United States Information Agency) I confess I find it funny that two cited fans of Litwin's work sit on an advisory board of hawks from the Department of Defense with multiple ties to the Pentagon.

Edited February 18, 2023 by Anthony Thorne

[John Kowalski]

On 2/17/2023 at 8:38 PM, Pat Speer said:

The name Conrad Black rang a bell, so I looked it up real quick and found he was someone I'd written about before in connection with John McAdams.

Conrad Black is a Canadian who owned a newspaper chain. He gave up his Canadian citizenship to join the house of lords in Britain. He was convicted in 2007 in the US for fraud and obstruction of justice though some of those charges were later overturned. He spent 42 months in jail and was pardoned by Trump in 2019. Found a reference to him praising Litwin's book Conservative Confidential.

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/conrad-moffat-black