Jump to content
The Education Forum

Laurent Guyenot's New Essay About JFK-Destiny Betrayed


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Let's be real.

In all the years people have been investigating this case, no one has come up with any real evidence of Israeli involvement.

People have been digging into Angleton for over 20 years now.  

Where is the evidence from say Morley or Newman that he used Israelis in the plot?

And was Ruby really all that kosher?  Running two strip clubs?

 

Was Angleton the organizer? Does Newman still believe that? 
Angleton was certainly close to Mossad, Israel benefitted from it. 
Has anyone but me read the Mossad/Skorzeny story? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 49
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

6 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Paul,

      Laurent Guyenot is a Sorbonne graduate, a serious scholar, whose work has little to do with anti-Semitic tropes about "Jewish bankers," etc.

     As an example, he has written in considerable detail about the history of James Angleton's close ties to the Mossad.*

     Most of us agree that the CIA was involved in JFK's assassination.  So, is it really a stretch to theorize that the Mossad may have collaborated with Angleton and the CIA in some fashion?

     The issue for JFK and Ben Gurion was Dimona, Israeli survival, and nuclear proliferation. 

     Another possible Israeli angle in the JFK assassination was Jack Ruby's association with L.A. mobster Mickey Cohen, who was, in turn, an associate of Irgun leader Menachem Begin.

*  Angleton, Mossad, and the Kennedy Assassinations, by Laurent Guyénot - The Unz Review

Thanks - read it, and another one linked in the article. Do you think Mossad had something to do with 9/11?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Thanks - read it, and another one linked in the article. Do you think Mossad had something to do with 9/11?

You’re pulling at threads here, Paul. 🙂 

 

Angleton himself deeply admired Mossad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

You’re pulling at threads here, Paul. 🙂 

 

Angleton himself deeply admired Mossad. 

Guyenot mentions 9/11, and I know that W is well versed. I’ve read Guyenot before, and I don’t dismiss his work.

Edited by Paul Brancato
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Paul Brancato said:

Guyenot mentions 9/11, and I know that W is well versed. I’ve read Guyenot before, and I don’t dismiss it. 

IMHO there is something that doesn’t make sense; that Allen Dulles is our JFKA poster boy. An ivy league guy, head of the CIA, his brother is the CFR, gets fired and then corals a team to kill the president. There is no way, despite grudges, that he makes that decision without the people ruling the USA and world at the time consenting. 
 

The significant power in the world at the time sits between 3 nations, Britain, USA and Israel. Britain & USA supported the creation of Israel. They’re all one team. Quigley lays this out so that even a simpleton could understand. 


 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Guyenot mentions 9/11, and I know that W is well versed. I’ve read Guyenot before, and I don’t dismiss his work.

I've got Guyenot's book on JFK and IMHO it's garbage, it's called 'The unspoken Kennedy Truth' 

It's about how Israel killed JFK and Bobby Kennedy and I would say it is less scholarly than Final Judgement and Final Judgement isn't scholarly, it contains a lot of leaping logic. His book reminds me of Chris Bolen's work on 911 were the Israeli links are only discussed and the Pakistani, Saudi Arabia and CIA roles and minimized. 

Paul give this a watch.. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Guyenot mentions 9/11, and I know that W is well versed. I’ve read Guyenot before, and I don’t dismiss his work.

Paul,

Guyenot is a genius-- a real polymath.

He has a background in engineering, anthropology, and history from the Sorbonne.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone with an A4 sheet of paper, a few afternoons on their hands, several relevant research volumes and a handful of pertinent leads in the right directions can sketch out what likely happened on 9/11 - which would really be a story about what happened in the months and years prior, because the plot wasn't concocted the morning of the event, it was concocted earlier.

CIA/US, Israel, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia can all appear on that A4 sheet of paper depending which leads you prioritise digging in to. Some will appear more than others. But once you've done this, you need to add an additional column of commentary with various notes that distinguish some entries from the others. And that column will be comprised of phrasings you can pick from as you sift through the evidence, largely along the lines of

PLANNED IT

BENEFITED FROM IT

HELPED IT OCCUR

COLLABORATED WITH MOST FIGURES ABOVE TO HELP IT HAPPEN

COLLABORATED WITH SOME FIGURES ABOVE TO HELP IT HAPPEN

KNEW IT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN, KEPT THEIR BIG MOUTHS SHUT

SUSPECTED IT MIGHT HAPPEN, SAID NOTHING THEREAFTER WHEN IT DID

HAD NO IDEA IT WOULD HAPPEN, DOESN'T WANT TO KNOW ANYTHING MORE THAN THAT FOR MANY REASONS

and a new one which will probably dawn on some researchers if they dig deep enough into the evidence here and there, which is

KNEW SOME OF IT WOULD HAPPEN FOR PURPOSES THEY FOUND PRODUCTIVE, WAS SURPRISED WHEN SOME ADDITIONAL THINGS HAPPENED, NOT HAPPY WITH SOME OF THE ADDITIONAL THINGS THAT OCCURRED, BUT WHO CAN YOU TALK TO WITH CONCERNS ABOUT THAT IF YOU WERE ALREADY KEEPING QUIET ABOUT THE STUFF YOU KNEW ABOUT?

I gather there are some old threads that dug to a degree into the topic, various theories and so on. Possibly a new one at some point might have some fresh things to say.

Here are a few paragraphs from the 10,000 word segment that was curtailed from the COUP IN DALLAS essay. Feel free to look at the RAND essay cited below in footnote 71, where RAND decided to ask the public if a terrorist event might persuade them to support future military interventions, and whether they were likely to believe the government's official narrative about a terrorist event. It's probably pertinent to a few things here.

Some of the names cited below reappear many times throughout the rest of the essay. None of the below was known to me, or the other people who worked on the book, until we decided to follow the history of a few names and groups to see where they led. The 18 months of activity occurring immediately before the below, outlined in full in the essay, is quite the thing.

I agree with Jim that there's not a lot to point JFK researchers towards Israel as a perpetrator of the JFK hit.

Quote

 

In August 1988, Graham Allison heads Harvard’s annual Program for Senior Executives in National and International Security. Albert Carnesale, Joseph Nye, Jacques Gansler, and Robert Blackwill - a close associate of Philip Zelikow from both Harvard and the National Security Council - run the program with Allison. On the 23rd August, Augustine gives a talk at the Belfer section of the Kennedy School, ’Tunnel at the End of the Light’. Charles Zraket, the MITRE CEO already working with Augustine and Lederberg on the Carnegie Commission, also participates. Zraket is a member of the Hudson Institute Board of Trustees with Frank Carlucci, and had previously worked on a DSB report about military software. In May 1984, the Hudson Institute, a haven for hawks who support investment in the defense industry, had sponsored a terrorism conference with a talk by Michael Ledeen of CSIS. At the time of Augustine’s discussion, the DSB’s major Summer Study on the declining defense industrial base is weeks away from release. Gansler, the DSB member who had previously testified alongside Augustine about the critical nature of the issue, is an organizer of the program. At the time of the gathering, Augustine has spent months working on the DSB’s largest report to date on the subject. Augustine appears before more than a hundred figures from the Army, Air Force, Armed Services Committee, National Guard, Navy, Marine Corps, NATO, the CIA, the Department of Energy, the National Security Agency, and Rockwell International, a major defense contractor. (67.)

In October 1988, Ashton Carter, John Deutch and Brent Scowcroft speak at the AAAS Colloquium on Science, Arms Control and National Security. Deutch again portrays the U.S Defense Technology Base as being in danger, and Scowcroft warns what reductions in nuclear forces would mean for the security of the country. Like Augustine, Scowcroft, too, views the situation as a critical issue. (68.)

The 1988 Summer Study, and the reports and gatherings surrounding it, herald a shift. The DSB report, completed in late 1988, is presented to Sec Defs Carlucci and Cheney. It also gets presented to the National Security Council, which by 1989 includes Zelikow as a staff member. Participants from the DSB, and the authors of reports that coincide with the Summer Study, now take to warning of the threat of muslim terrorism. (Jed Babbin, the future author of books supporting the War on Terror, also worked on the DSB Summer Study. In the report, Babbin is listed as a Director for the Lockheed Corporation). (69.)

Late in 1988, Harvard figures arrange a conference at the American Assembly to discuss the changing global environment. Members of government meet with business, academic and media figures to discuss the issue. Nye and Scowcroft are on the Steering Committee for the event, which gives out papers by the presenters to be used as subjects of discussion during the conference. Nye is the Director of the Center for Science and International Affairs at the Kennedy School, and Scowcroft is on the joint Harvard / CIA Council on Intelligence and Policy. The event is sponsored by Ford Motor, Xerox, and the Olin Corporation, a leading US manufacturer of ammunition. Allison, Nye, Samuel Huntington and Rita Hauser attend, along with Charles Cooper from RAND. Graham Allison talks about restarting the US economic base, and ponders strategies for the decade ahead. Lawrence Eagleburger, President of Kissinger Associates, also speaks. John Marttila, a researcher for government and industry, notes that the public now considers terrorism to be a greater threat than the Soviet Union. Seycom Brown, an associate at Harvard’s Center for International Affairs, discusses the increasingly unstable world order. In a section of his talk, Brown - a RAND researcher and analyst for decades - talks about the growing likelihood of hijackings and acts of terror. (70.)

During the same month - according to a RAND record available online - the RAND Corporation conducts a national phone survey measuring public opinion about terror events. More than 1000 people are called, with the researchers asking 99 questions on the topic. One question judges how people feel about military interventions overseas. (71.)

“Do you think it will be best for the future of this country if we take an active part in world affairs or if we stay out of world affairs?”

Another questions asks about defense spending.

“Do you think we should spend less money for defense, more money, or do you think we currently spend about the right amount of money for defense?”

A third question asks how likely the respondents are to believe the official government story about a terrorist attack.

“You can trust the government in Washington to tell the truth about terrorist incidents.”

A later question asks whether restricting civil liberties after a terrorist attack could be justified. In December 1988, one month after the survey, the Lockerbie terrorist bombing gives respondents new information to consider. Accordingly, RAND researchers call 404 people back in May 1989 to check whether their opinions have now changed. The RAND study - THE IMPACT OF TERRORISM ON PUBLIC OPINION, 1988 TO 1989 - offers a useful snapshot of how public opinion might change after a terrorist-linked aviation disaster. In 1994, study co-author Bruce Hoffman moves to St Andrews University to direct Paul Wilkinson’s Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence. Hoffman returns to the US in 1998, and a few years later, writes an article for The Atlantic suggesting that torture is a justifiable method of gathering intelligence during the War on Terror. (72.)

 

(67.) The Harvard program, with Augustine’s speech referenced, is detailed at ADDRESS OF THE HARVARD UNIVERSITY JOHN F. KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT EXECUTIVE PROGRAM IN NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, August 23, 1988, CIA-RDP89G00720R000800100003-9 . The DSB report that Zraket participated in is the Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Military Software, September 1987. The Hudson Institute conference with Michael Ledeen is detailed in TERRORISM CONFERENCE ON 17 MAY 1984, April 24, 1984, CIA-RDP87T00434R000100010024-0

(68.) The AAAS Colloquium is detailed at AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE PROGRAM ON SCIENCE , ARMS CONTROL AND NATIONAL SECURITY, CIA-RDP89G00720R000800150015-1

(69.) Babbin is the author of In the Words of Our Enemies, Regnery Publishing, Washington, 2007.  The book purports to collect anti-American rhetoric from muslim extremists overseas.  The DSB report lists Babbin as ‘Mr. Jed L. Babbin, Director of Contract Policy, Lockheed Corporation’, see Defense Science Board 1988 Summer Study on the Defense Industrial and Technology Base. Volume 1, October 1988, Task Force Membership, section D-1

(70.) The presentations at the 1988 American Assembly are collected in America's Global Interests : A New Agenda. Allison’s presentation is ‘National Security Strategy for the 1990s’. Eagleburger’s is ‘The 21st Century: American Foreign Policy Challenges’. Martilla’s is American Public Opinion: Evolving Definitions of National Security’. Brown’s is ‘Inherited Geopolitics and Emergent Global Realities’. The American Assembly presentation three years later, with many of the same participants, will be noticeably more hawkish.

(71.) The RAND monograph is The Impact of Terrorism on Public Opinion, 1988 to 1989, by Theodore Downes-Le Guin and Bruce Hoffman, available at https://web.archive.org/web/20211129124243/https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2006/MR225.pdf

(72.) see A Nasty Business, Bruce Hoffman, The Atlantic, January 2002. The subheading of Hoffman’s article reads ‘Gathering “good intelligence” against terrorists is an inherently brutish enterprise, involving methods a civics class might not condone. Should we care?’

 


 

 

 

Edited by Anthony Thorne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Anthony Thorne said:

Anyone with an A4 sheet of paper, a few afternoons on their hands, several relevant research volumes and a handful of pertinent leads in the right directions can sketch out what likely happened on 9/11 - which would really be a story about what happened in the months and years prior, because the plot wasn't concocted the morning of the event, it was concocted earlier.

CIA/US, Israel, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia can all appear on that A4 sheet of paper depending which leads you prioritise digging in to. Some will appear more than others. But once you've done this, you need to add an additional column of commentary with various notes that distinguish some entries from the others. And that column will be comprised of phrasings you can pick from as you sift through the evidence, largely along the lines of

PLANNED IT

BENEFITED FROM IT

HELPED IT OCCUR

COLLABORATED WITH MOST FIGURES ABOVE TO HELP IT HAPPEN

COLLABORATED WITH SOME FIGURES ABOVE TO HELP IT HAPPEN

KNEW IT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN, KEPT THEIR BIG MOUTHS SHUT

SUSPECTED IT MIGHT HAPPEN, SAID NOTHING THEREAFTER WHEN IT DID

HAD NO IDEA IT WOULD HAPPEN, DOESN'T WANT TO KNOW ANYTHING MORE THAN THAT FOR MANY REASONS

and a new one which will probably dawn on some researchers if they dig deep enough into the evidence here and there, which is

KNEW SOME OF IT WOULD HAPPEN FOR PURPOSES THEY FOUND PRODUCTIVE, WAS SURPRISED WHEN SOME ADDITIONAL THINGS HAPPENED, NOT HAPPY WITH SOME OF THE ADDITIONAL THINGS THAT OCCURRED, BUT WHO CAN YOU TALK TO WITH CONCERNS ABOUT THAT IF YOU WERE ALREADY KEEPING QUIET ABOUT THE STUFF YOU KNEW ABOUT?

I gather there are some old threads that dug to a degree into the topic, various theories and so on. Possibly a new one at some point might have some fresh things to say.

Here are a few paragraphs from the 10,000 word segment that was curtailed from the COUP IN DALLAS essay. Feel free to look at the RAND essay cited below in footnote 71. It's probably pertinent to a few things here.


 

 

 

Thanks for this, an excellent post. If you were trying anyone in a Garrison style court, Philip Zelikow would be there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/30/2023 at 12:42 PM, W. Niederhut said:
        His only criticism is focused on some questions about LBJ's putative role in the murder plot, and the Israeli/Dimona nuclear proliferation angle.

If any nation and people on Earth deserved to have nuclear weapons to defend themselves, it was the Jewish state of Israel. JFK was shortsighted and morally wrong for trying to deny Israel this self-defense option. Given the Hitler-admiring, vicious nature of the leaders of Egypt, Syria, and Iraq at the time, and given the horror that the Jewish people had just experienced in the Holocaust, Israel had every rational, moral right to want to acquire a nuclear self-defense capability, the same capability we had allowed France and England to acquire.

Notice that I excluded Jordan's King Hussein from the list of vicious Arab leaders. However, when Hussein believed that Israel was about to collapse during the Six-Day War, he joined the war against Israel, thinking he would get to share in the spoils and "glory." But, his move backfired when Israeli forces drove Jordanian troops out of the West Bank and captured Jerusalem in the process. If Hussein had not joined the war against Israel, Jordan would still control the West Bank and Jerusalem.

Yes, the Israelis used signals intelligence deception to fool the Jordanians into thinking that Israel was on the verge of defeat in the Six-Day War, but nobody forced King Hussein to order the Jordanian attack on Israel. Hussein could have displayed real statesmanship and honor if he had refused to join the apparently successful Arab war effort, but he chose to join it and lost the West Bank and Jerusalem as a result. 

Edited by Michael Griffith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

If any nation and people on Earth deserved to have nuclear weapons to defend themselves, it was the Jewish state of Israel. JFK was shortsighted and morally wrong for trying to deny Israel this self-defense option. Given the Hitler-admiring, vicious nature of the leaders of Egypt, Syria, and Iraq at the time, and given the horror that the Jewish people had just experienced in the Holocaust, Israel had every rational, moral right to want to acquire a nuclear self-defense capability, the same capability we had allowed France and England to acquire.

Notice that I excluded Jordan's King Hussein from the list of vicious Arab leaders. However, when Hussein believed that Israel was about to collapse during the Six-Day War, he joined the war against Israel, thinking he would get to share in the spoils and "glory." But, his move backfired when Israeli forces drove Jordanian troops out of the West Bank and captured Jerusalem in the process. If Hussein had not joined the war against Israel, Jordan would still control the West Bank and Jerusalem.

Yes, the Israelis used signals intelligence deception to fool the Jordanians into thinking that Israel was on the verge of defeat in the Six-Day War, but nobody forced King Hussein to order the Jordanian attack on Israel. Hussein could have displayed real statesmanship and honor if he had refused to join the apparently successful Arab war effort, but he chose to join it and lost the West Bank and Jerusalem as a result. 

The 6 Day War was a preemptive strike to steal land.

Michael Griffin in America, Judeo Christianity is thought with the rewritten and edited Scofield bible. In Israel they follow reformed Judaism aka the Babylonian Talmud that was written after Jesus. Michael are you aware of what the Talmud says about Christ and Christians? Why would you support people who have suppremist views? 

Also do you remember the second commandment in the Bible is? This is why Israel has bad relations with their neighbors they literally attacked first and stole their land. Egypt wasn't going to attack, that was made up to justify the land grab that continues to this day with bulldozing people house or just out right stealing it when the Palestinian person is gone. Do you even know about that? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

If any nation and people on Earth deserved to have nuclear weapons to defend themselves, it was the Jewish state of Israel. JFK was shortsighted and morally wrong for trying to deny Israel this self-defense option. Given the Hitler-admiring, vicious nature of the leaders of Egypt, Syria, and Iraq at the time, and given the horror that the Jewish people had just experienced in the Holocaust, Israel had every rational, moral right to want to acquire a nuclear self-defense capability, the same capability we had allowed France and England to acquire.

Notice that I excluded Jordan's King Hussein from the list of vicious Arab leaders. However, when Hussein believed that Israel was about to collapse during the Six-Day War, he joined the war against Israel, thinking he would get to share in the spoils and "glory." But, his move backfired when Israeli forces drove Jordanian troops out of the West Bank and captured Jerusalem in the process. If Hussein had not joined the war against Israel, Jordan would still control the West Bank and Jerusalem.

Yes, the Israelis used signals intelligence deception to fool the Jordanians into thinking that Israel was on the verge of defeat in the Six-Day War, but nobody forced King Hussein to order the Jordanian attack on Israel. Hussein could have displayed real statesmanship and honor if he had refused to join the apparently successful Arab war effort, but he chose to join it and lost the West Bank and Jerusalem as a result. 

Michael,

     Have you read historian Alison Weir's book, Against Our Better Judgment?

     It presents the historical context of JFK's efforts to work with Nasser to mediate a balanced resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli crisis.

Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel: Weir, Alison: 0884862811789: Amazon.com: Books

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/31/2023 at 11:20 AM, W. Niederhut said:

Paul,

      Laurent Guyenot is a Sorbonne graduate, a serious scholar, whose work has little to do with anti-Semitic tropes about "Jewish bankers," etc.

     As an example, he has written in considerable detail about the history of James Angleton's close ties to the Mossad.*

     Most of us agree that the CIA was involved in JFK's assassination.  So, is it really a stretch to theorize that the Mossad may have collaborated with Angleton and the CIA in some fashion?

     The issue for JFK and Ben Gurion was Dimona, Israeli survival, and nuclear proliferation. 

     Another possible Israeli angle in the JFK assassination was Jack Ruby's association with L.A. mobster Mickey Cohen, who was, in turn, an associate of Irgun leader Menachem Begin.

*  Angleton, Mossad, and the Kennedy Assassinations, by Laurent Guyénot - The Unz Review

Hi

Edited by Lance Payette
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:

Theology being one of my primary interests, I know of Guyenot only from his anti-Jewish religious writings. He is a virulently anti-Semitic eccentric. The God of the Old Testament is both fictional and a psychopath. The Jews and their religion are "the people of the lie," their big lie being that they are God's chosen people. Jesus never existed but was a fictional character invented by the Romans to pacify the Jews. Yada yada. There is essentially no world event, including 9/11 and the JFKA, for which Zionists were not responsible.

Occasionally this forum seems to reveal a very dark underbelly.

Well I'm shocked, shocked to hear our Warren Commission Report salesman, Lance Payette, dismiss the work of French historian Laurent Guyenot with a simplistic "anti-Semitic" trope.

Is any critique of Zionism necessarily anti-Semitic?

Guyenot critiques Judaism and Christianity in atheistic, anthropological terms.

He views Zionism as a form of tribalism.

I don't happen to agree with many of Guyenot's theological views, but I was impressed by his book, From JFK to 9/11-- 50 Years of Deep State. 

He, certainly, understands the scientific data.

 

 

 

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

×
×
  • Create New...