Why Col. L. Fletcher Prouty's Critics Are Wrong

[Jeff Carter]

Let’s be clear here: Griffith joined this topic and began expressing his strong views 4-5 weeks ago and immediately established he didn’t know what he was talking about. His engagement proceeded as a defence of Lansdale whereby he claimed there was a body of scholarship which expressly criticized and rejected the “JFK” film based exclusively on the Lansdale portrayal influenced by Prouty. Griffith needed to be corrected over several assumptions, including the wholly speculative nature of the portrayal and the documented presence of Lansdale in a Dallas suburb at the time in question (of which was entirely unaware), There is also no “body” of scholarship on this topic as he asserted.

Instead of incorporating these corrections, Griffith instead doubled down and apparently began scouring the internet for negative information on Prouty, dredging up a thirty year old list of derogatory talking points originally published by John McAdams. Presenting these items in a cut and paste fashion, Griffith revealed he was wholly unaware this list had been thoroughly debunked more than a quarter century ago ( and he persists to cite some of these long exposed misconceptions). This list led him to next denounce Prouty for presumed ties to Scientology, a position requiring a rejection of the legal definition of “expert witness”. In turn, he discovered a brief association with the Liberty Lobby which he has transformed into a harsh and absolutist accusation of “anti-semitism”, a position which not even McAdams dared to descend. This ugly smear is presented with fanatical certainty, based on an expertise which is all of five weeks old and has required constant correction of basic facts.

[Michael Griffith]

Here is the documentation that Prouty spoke at the October 1990 IHR conference along with three (other) Holocaust deniers--it comes from the IHR's own magazine, The Journal of Historical Review:

LINK

And here is the letter that Prouty wrote in 1981 in which he expressed concern about what would happen if a "Jewish sgt." (i.e.,, sergeant) were running the targeting computer during air combat operations--the Jewish sergeant remark appears on the first page (next to the red arrow):

LINK

Seriously, how can anyone in their right mind cite Prouty as a source knowing that he spoke at a Holocaust-denial conference, and that he voiced concern about a Jewish sergeant running an air-combat targeting computer? 

This is in addition to his speaking at a Liberty Lobby conference, appearing on Liberty Lobby's radio show 10 times in four years, recommending The Spotlight, having a book republished by the IHR, etc., etc. 

[Matthew Koch]

34 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

Here is the documentation that Prouty spoke at the October 1990 IHR conference along with three (other) Holocaust deniers--it comes from the IHR's own magazine, The Journal of Historical Review:

LINK

And here is the letter that Prouty wrote in 1981 in which he expressed concern about what would happen if a "Jewish sgt." (i.e.,, sergeant) were running the targeting computer during air combat operations--the Jewish sergeant remark appears on the first page (next to the red arrow):

LINK

Seriously, how can anyone in their right mind cite Prouty as a source knowing that he spoke at a Holocaust-denial conference, and that he voiced concern about a Jewish sergeant running an air-combat targeting computer? 

This is in addition to his speaking at a Liberty Lobby conference, appearing on Liberty Lobby's radio show 10 times in four years, recommending The Spotlight, having a book republished by the IHR, etc., etc. 

Uhh.. it's a private letter, did read the rest of it?

He mentions that he would like to work with Mae Brussell.. you are aware who that is right? Hardly someone that a holocaust denier would want to work with. This tells me more about you Michael than Prouty. 

Edited May 2, 2023 by Matthew Koch

[Kirk Gallaway]

3 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Here is the documentation that Prouty spoke at the October 1990 IHR conference along with three (other) Holocaust deniers--it comes from the IHR's own magazine, The Journal of Historical Review:

LINK

And here is the letter that Prouty wrote in 1981 in which he expressed concern about what would happen if a "Jewish sgt." (i.e.,, sergeant) were running the targeting computer during air combat operations--the Jewish sergeant remark appears on the first page (next to the red arrow):

LINK

Seriously, how can anyone in their right mind cite Prouty as a source knowing that he spoke at a Holocaust-denial conference, and that he voiced concern about a Jewish sergeant running an air-combat targeting computer? 

This is in addition to his speaking at a Liberty Lobby conference, appearing on Liberty Lobby's radio show 10 times in four years, recommending The Spotlight, having a book republished by the IHR, etc., etc. 

 

First off, I have absolutely no dog in this fight, so I may have some clarity about this. Though I'm definitely not one of the herd on this issue and expect that might be made an issue rather than directly addressing my points.

 

Wow, it will be interesting to see how the fiercely pro Prouty sleuths reacts to this information. I would think the best tack you can take is to attack the authenticity of it, otherwise you're faced some serious questions about what kind of character Prouty really is.

 

There's absolutely no question at all about what the beliefs of this group is, it appears  plastered all over the first page. That Prouty never read it, and never addressed it until he was confronted with it is beyond rational belief.

 

His rantings are just the kind of old man crank thinking that sometimes passes on this forum as "conspiracy wisdom". Which is not to say there aren't elements of it I'm in complete agreement with.

My guess is they'll be no attack on the authenticity of this document but absolutely no revision among the active naysayers to Michael on this thread.

 

Of those who are not well versed in Holocaust denier propaganda, I suggest you might read the specific headline articles from Carlos Mattogno, William Grimstad and James J. Martin, which I haven't,  and see if you counter Micheal's arguments by spinning the authors commentaries to be just not "pro Israel."

 

But otherwise, in the face of such evidence, and the subsequent inability that I suspect, to question the authenticity of this document. I think you're best defense was probably stated by Chris earlier, that he may even be complete Anti Semite crank, and yet that doesn't mean his suspicions aren't entirely correct.

 

And yet, his complete denial when confronted with these Anti Semite charges supported with this document, completely reminded me of how he folded, and betrayed at least me (and apparently no one else)during his hearing.

 

In a corporation, results are measured by the bottom line, and if a inept person becomes CEO, his performance will show  for all to see. This thread started with Prouty's resume  which sounds very impressive, but would it be near as impressive as J. Edgar Hoover? or Alan Dulles?, or as Michael pointed out Curtis LeMay? Has any one here ever considered that in government, there are people who are allowed to keep power and in some cases, ruthlessly rule for decades?

 

Doesn't the tenor of that last page sound a bit like a bitter old man who was very ambitious but didn't have any people skills, was maybe a little quirky, or maybe just couldn't kiss ass to his superiors and was forever bitter  he was passed by for lesser beings? That's not completely conclusive, by any means but try reading it again.

 

Ok, I've suggested your best directions, in opposition. Let's see what you got.

 

* Hint: To read this whole thing and come out of it  merely invoking his relation to Mae Brussel is not good sleuthing!

 

 

 

 

 

[W. Niederhut]

6 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Let’s be clear here: Griffith joined this topic and began expressing his strong views 4-5 weeks ago and immediately established he didn’t know what he was talking about. His engagement proceeded as a defence of Lansdale whereby he claimed there was a body of scholarship which expressly criticized and rejected the “JFK” film based exclusively on the Lansdale portrayal influenced by Prouty. Griffith needed to be corrected over several assumptions, including the wholly speculative nature of the portrayal and the documented presence of Lansdale in a Dallas suburb at the time in question (of which was entirely unaware), There is also no “body” of scholarship on this topic as he asserted.

Instead of incorporating these corrections, Griffith instead doubled down and apparently began scouring the internet for negative information on Prouty, dredging up a thirty year old list of derogatory talking points originally published by John McAdams. Presenting these items in a cut and paste fashion, Griffith revealed he was wholly unaware this list had been thoroughly debunked more than a quarter century ago ( and he persists to cite some of these long exposed misconceptions). This list led him to next denounce Prouty for presumed ties to Scientology, a position requiring a rejection of the legal definition of “expert witness”. In turn, he discovered a brief association with the Liberty Lobby which he has transformed into a harsh and absolutist accusation of “anti-semitism”, a position which not even McAdams dared to descend. This ugly smear is presented with fanatical certainty, based on an expertise which is all of five weeks old and has required constant correction of basic facts.

Excellent post, Jeff.

And Michael Griffith also falsely claimed that Prouty had not worked with Ed Lansdale-- a rather astonishing falsehood by a guy who claimed that he had read Prouty's book on JFK, the CIA, and Vietnam.

Prouty wrote in considerable detail about his work with Lansdale, and his familiarity with many details about Lansdale's storied career as Allen Dulles's favorite black ops expert.

 

Edited May 3, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Jeff Carter]

3 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

 

First off, I have absolutely no dog in this fight, so I may have some clarity about this. Though I'm definitely not one of the herd on this issue and expect that might be made an issue rather than directly addressing my points.

 

Wow, it will be interesting to see how the fiercely pro Prouty sleuths reacts to this information. I would think the best tack you can take is to attack the authenticity of it, otherwise you're faced some serious questions about what kind of character Prouty really is.

 

There's absolutely no question at all about what the beliefs of this group is, it appears  plastered all over the first page. That Prouty never read it, and never addressed it until he was confronted with it is beyond rational belief.

 

His rantings are just the kind of old man crank thinking that sometimes passes on this forum as "conspiracy wisdom". Which is not to say there aren't elements of it I'm in complete agreement with.

My guess is they'll be no attack on the authenticity of this document but absolutely no revision among the active naysayers to Michael on this thread.

 

Of those who are not well versed in Holocaust denier propaganda, I suggest you might read the specific headline articles from Carlos Mattogno, William Grimstad and James J. Martin, which I haven't,  and see if you counter Micheal's arguments by spinning the authors commentaries to be just not "pro Israel."

 

But otherwise, in the face of such evidence, and the subsequent inability that I suspect, to question the authenticity of this document. I think you're best defense was probably stated by Chris earlier, that he may even be complete Anti Semite crank, and yet that doesn't mean his suspicions aren't entirely correct.

 

And yet, his complete denial when confronted with these Anti Semite charges supported with this document, completely reminded me of how he folded, and betrayed at least me (and apparently no one else)during his hearing.

 

In a corporation, results are measured by the bottom line, and if a inept person becomes CEO, his performance will show  for all to see. This thread started with Prouty's resume  which sounds very impressive, but would it be near as impressive as J. Edgar Hoover? or Alan Dulles?, or as Michael pointed out Curtis LeMay? Has any one here ever considered that in government, there are people who are allowed to keep power and in some cases, ruthlessly rule for decades?

 

Doesn't the tenor of that last page sound a bit like a bitter old man who was very ambitious but didn't have any people skills, was maybe a little quirky, or maybe just couldn't kiss ass to his superiors and was forever bitter  he was passed by for lesser beings? That's not completely conclusive, by any means but try reading it again.

 

Ok, I've suggested your best directions, in opposition. Let's see what you got.

 

* Hint: To read this whole thing and come out of it  merely invoking his relation to Mae Brussel is not good sleuthing!

 

 

 

 

 

Kirk - you have little to no knowledge of Prouty’s work, yet deign to offer “best defence” and other unsolicited advice to handle or deflect what is essentially  a half-forgotten thirty year old controversy originally propagated in an Esquire Magazine hit piece designed to blunt the impact of Stone’s “JFK” film in general and to disavow Prouty’s insider account of NSAM 263/273 specifically.

Prouty wrote several books, dozens of essays, and was the subject of many dozen interviews. Nowhere in that voluminous collection appears any content which could be credibly described as containing anti-semitic or holocaust denying concepts. None of his critics have ever produced or referred to such content. Instead, their tact is entirely associative, with an implied logic which equates association, fleeting or otherwise, with positive endorsement. This line of attack was most famously directed against Noam Chomsky in what became known as the Faurisson Affair (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faurisson_affair).

For his part, Prouty acknowledged, to his later regret, appearing at a Liberty Lobby event as a “paid speaker” and permitting “Secret Team” to be republished by IHR. These events occurred over the course of a few months in 1990. He otherwise, according to his account, had limited contact with the organization. That his name occasionally appears in related publications - attached to a conference, attached to an advisory board, or said to be a confirmed “character witness” - appear more as institutional self-promotion, and there is no evidence Prouty was even cognizant of the circumstances. He certainly never appeared in a courtroom, never attended an advisory board meeting, and I strongly doubt he ever appeared at a Revisionist Conference. The announcement in question was published six or so months ahead of the event and does not constitute either a confirmation of Prouty’s actual participation or his awareness of the event particulars.

In sum, these renewed accusations lack any evidentiary basis other than associative links which notably have no context. How exactly Prouty was introduced to this orbit and who or what he thought he was dealing with is, at this point in time, largely unknowable. However, nothing in his extensive work suggests the status of an intellectual “fellow traveller” with the Liberty Lobby milieu as is being implied, and no one who actually knew him has ever endorsed such a characterization.

[James DiEugenio]

Len and Jeff have gone and countered these slams long ago. 

And we should ask where they came from: Epstein, Anson and McAdams.

Look, Fletcher Prouty wrote more than one valuable book, in fact some people consider The Secret Team to be a classic.

He wrote many valuable essays that were ahead of their time. Although it seems that no one here has read them.

He was attacked and smeared for one reason and one reason only: his consultations with Oliver Stone for the film JFK..

Smearing him was a way of getting at the film.  Except the stuff he contributed to the film turned out to be accurate.  

What the ARRB did to him was a disgrace. And that people in the so called critical community went along with that was simply inexcusable.

 

 

[Michael Griffith]

13 hours ago, Matthew Koch said:

Uhh.. it's a private letter, did read the rest of it?

He mentions that he would like to work with Mae Brussell.. you are aware who that is right? Hardly someone that a holocaust denier would want to work with. This tells me more about you Michael than Prouty. 

In other words, you and your fellow Prouty apologists don't care that Prouty expressed concern about a Jewish sergeant running an air-combat targeting computer. That was raw, naked anti-Semitism. The self-evident fact that his letter was private makes his racist comment all the more damning and revealing, but you guys are so determined to defend this anti-Semitic nutjob that you don't care.

Similarly, you folks don't care that Prouty actually spoke at a Holocaust-denial conference held by the Holocaust-denying IHR. You folks just don't care because if you repudiate Prouty, you repudiate your main source for the nutty, obscene theory that Ed Lansdale played a key role in the JFK murder plot because JFK was supposedly going to abandon South Vietnam after the election. 

You guys keep using the pitiful line that these "slams" come "from Epstein, Anson, and McAdams," but you know that's a dishonest dodge. These "slams" come from Prouty's own mouth and from the pro-Prouty publications of Liberty Lobby and the IHR. The fact that McAdams and Anson, etc., became aware of this information and repeated it is no excuse for dismissing it.  Fact is fact, regardless of who reports it. The ADL has documented the fact that Prouty appeared on Liberty Lobby's radio show 10 times in four years. Are you suggesting that this "slam" can be ignored because the ADL reported it? 

Quote

James DiEugenio: What the ARRB did to him was a disgrace. And that people in the so called critical community went along with that was simply inexcusable.

That is ridiculous. Such misleading spin shows a total lack of objectivity and credibility. No educated, objective person who reads Prouty's ARRB interview will agree with such nonsense. Instead, they will see that the ARRB interviewers were cordial and respectful toward Prouty, that Prouty repudiated numerous bogus claims that he'd been making for years, that he refused to identify the man who supposedly recognized Lansdale in a Dealey Plaza tramp photo, and that Prouty failed to produce the notes he'd claimed in writing that he'd taken of his alleged "stand down" call with the 112th and offered no explanation for why he had failed to safeguard these putatively historic notes (and I'd point out that the ARRB interviewers did not press him on this point, although they should have). 

I must say that one can't help but wonder about how you folks feel about anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial, given the way you have responded to the evidence of Prouty's anti-Semitism and his close associations with the IHR and Liberty Lobby.  

Your apparent lack of concern about anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial is especially troubling because many of you have also repeated extremist attacks on Israel, the same attacks that have been made by neo-N-azi groups and Muslim extremists for years. Could this be an indication of why you don't seem to care that Prouty made anti-Semitic comments and spent years palling around with anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers, even to the point of speaking at two of their conferences, appearing on one of their radio shows 10 times over a four-year period, recommending one of their newspapers, and having one of his books republished by the IHR?

Edited May 3, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Matthew Koch]

13 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

In other words, you and your fellow Prouty apologists don't care that Prouty expressed concern about a Jewish sergeant running an air-combat targeting computer. That was raw, naked anti-Semitism. The self-evident fact that his letter was private makes his racist comment all the more damning and revealing, but you guys are so determined to defend this anti-Semitic nutjob that you don't care.

Similarly, you folks don't care that Prouty actually spoke at a Holocaust-denial conference held by the Holocaust-denying IHR. You folks just don't care because if you repudiate Prouty, you repudiate your main source for the nutty, obscene theory that Ed Lansdale played a key role in the JFK murder plot because JFK was supposedly going to abandon South Vietnam after the election. 

You guys keep using the pitiful line that these "slams" come "from Epstein, Anson, and McAdams," but you know that's a dishonest dodge. These "slams" come from Prouty's own mouth and from the pro-Prouty publications of Liberty Lobby and the IHR. The fact that McAdams and Anson, etc., became aware of this information and repeated it is no excuse for dismissing it.  Fact is fact, regardless of who reports it. The ADL has documented the fact that Prouty appeared on Liberty Lobby's radio show 10 times in four years. Are you suggesting that this "slam" can be ignored because the ADL reported it? 

That is ridiculous. Such misleading spin shows a total lack of objectivity and credibility. No educated, objective person who reads Prouty's ARRB interview will agree with such nonsense. Instead, they will see that the ARRB interviewers were cordial and respectful toward Prouty, that Prouty repudiated numerous bogus claims that he'd been making for years, that he refused to identify the man who supposedly recognized Lansdale in a Dealey Plaza tramp photo, and that Prouty failed to produce the notes he'd claimed in writing that he'd taken of his alleged "stand down" call with the 112th and offered no explanation for why he had failed to safeguard these putatively historic notes (and I'd point out that the ARRB interviewers did not press him on this point, although they should have). 

I must say that one can't help but wonder about how you folks feel about anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial, given the way you have responded to the evidence of Prouty's anti-Semitism and his close associations with the IHR and Liberty Lobby.  

Your apparent lack of concern about anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial is especially troubling because many of you have also repeated extremist attacks on Israel, the same attacks that have been made by neo-N-azi groups and Muslim extremists for years. Could this be an indication of why you don't seem to care that Prouty made anti-Semitic comments and spent years palling around with anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers, even to the point of speaking at two of their conferences, appearing on one of their radio shows 10 times over a four-year period, recommending one of their newspapers, and having one of his books republished by the IHR?

You didn't answer my question instead you proceeded to double down on your nothing burger.. do you even know who Mae Brussel is? 

[Michael Griffith]

1 hour ago, Matthew Koch said:

You didn't answer my question instead you proceeded to double down on your nothing burger.. do you even know who Mae Brussel is? 

I didn't answer your question??!!!  Holy cow, you once again just brushed aside as meaningless the fact that Prouty spoke at an IHR conference and expressed worry about having a Jewish sergeant running an air-combat targeting computer! You call those disturbing, damning facts a "nothing burger"! 

Who in the devil are you people? Huh? This is not normal. This is aberrant. This is crazy. Reasonable, credible, normal people do not ignore clear evidence of anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial on the part of someone they've been quoting and citing--they repudiate that author in a split-second. They don't keep defending him and ignoring the ugly truth about him. 

Yes, I know who Mae Brussell was. Do you? You could start by spelling her name correctly. She was a fringe conspiracy theorist who frequently floated wild and extravagant theories, so naturally Prouty said he liked most of her research. However, Prouty also said she didn't have the whole picture and didn't have the experience to understand all the things she knew, but that he could fill in most of the gap, etc., etc. Furthermore, given Prouty's habit of exaggerating and fabricating, we don't even know how much he really knew about Brussell's writings and broadcasts. 

Prouty's qualified praise of Brussell does not change the facts about his anti-Semitic statements and his long and close associations with anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers. An expression of support for Brussell does not cancel out his ugly "Jewish sergeant" comment, his speaking appearances at not one but two anti-Semitic conferences, his sleazy dodge when asked about Holocaust denial, his numerous appearances on Liberty Lobby's nutjob radio show, his recommendation that people read The Spotlight, his public praising of Carto and Marcellus, his having a book republished by the IHR, his sleazy defense of Scientology and Ron Hubbard, etc., etc.

[Matthew Koch]

13 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

I didn't answer your question??!!!  Holy cow, you once again just brushed aside as meaningless the fact that Prouty spoke at an IHR conference and expressed worry about having a Jewish sergeant running an air-combat targeting computer! You call those disturbing, damning facts a "nothing burger"! 

Who in the devil are you people? Huh? This is not normal. This is aberrant. This is crazy. Reasonable, credible, normal people do not ignore clear evidence of anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial on the part of someone they've been quoting and citing--they repudiate that author in a split-second. They don't keep defending him and ignoring the ugly truth about him. 

Yes, I know who Mae Brussell was. Do you? You could start by spelling her name correctly. She was a fringe conspiracy theorist who frequently floated wild and extravagant theories, so naturally Prouty said he liked most of her research. However, Prouty also said she didn't have the whole picture and didn't have the experience to understand all the things she knew, but that he could fill in most of the gap, etc., etc. Furthermore, given Prouty's habit of exaggerating and fabricating, we don't even know how much he really knew about Brussell's writings and broadcasts. 

Prouty's qualified praise of Brussell does not change the facts about his anti-Semitic statements and his long and close associations with anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers. An expression of support for Brussell does not cancel out his ugly "Jewish sergeant" comment, his speaking appearances at not one but two anti-Semitic conferences, his sleazy dodge when asked about Holocaust denial, his numerous appearances on Liberty Lobby's nutjob radio show, his recommendation that people read The Spotlight, his public praising of Carto and Marcellus, his having a book republished by the IHR, his sleazy defense of Scientology and Ron Hubbard, etc., etc.

 

Imagine discussing Mae Brussell in this context and leaving out the fact that she is Jewish and most of her research was about the Odessa Network and (N)azi and Fascist connections, pretty dishonest if you ask me.

But I guess when your attempting to assassination someone's character being honest isn't part of the game. You come off very neurotic and sheltered with your claims.. Remember they're the same as you and your racist Ron Paul Connections Michael grasping at straws. I mean you couldn't even find anything acutally anti semitic just someone worried that Mossad and Israeli intel could get a hold of sensitive information which is valid in light of all the Israeli spying and AmDox Scandal. https://rumble.com/v2f4aj2-israeli-spying-ring-connected-to-911-hijackers.html

 

Can you give us something that rises to the level of what Nick Fuentes said or these comedy sketches because I'm not a Chistian Zionist Neo Con like you are so this doesn't rise to the level of "canceling" someone's life work.. It's not even close to what Patton said💯

 

[Michael Griffith]

10 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

For his part, Prouty acknowledged, to his later regret, appearing at a Liberty Lobby event as a “paid speaker” and permitting “Secret Team” to be republished by IHR. These events occurred over the course of a few months in 1990. He otherwise, according to his account, had limited contact with the organization. That his name occasionally appears in related publications - attached to a conference, attached to an advisory board, or said to be a confirmed “character witness” - appear more as institutional self-promotion, and there is no evidence Prouty was even cognizant of the circumstances. He certainly never appeared in a courtroom, never attended an advisory board meeting, and I strongly doubt he ever appeared at a Revisionist Conference. The announcement in question was published six or so months ahead of the event and does not constitute either a confirmation of Prouty’s actual participation or his awareness of the event particulars.

This is just hogwash, jaw-dropping hogwash, and you know it. 

You keep skipping over the fact that Prouty appeared on Liberty Lobby's nutcase radio show 10 times in four years. That goes way beyond "limited contact with the organization." And he was certainly "cognizant of the circumstances" when he did so.

Oh, yes, when Prouty was confronted with having had a book published by the IHR, he conveniently claimed he regretted it. Gee, that's not what he said just after the book was published. He publicly praised Carto and Marcellus for having the guts and courage to republish his book. And he was certainly "cognizant of the circumstances" when he did so. 

So now your claim is that the IHR falsely listed Prouty as a speaker at their upcoming conference?! Really? Really? I doubt you actually believe that. 

I notice you ignored Prouty's racist "Jewish sergeant" remark in his letter. I guess you could not even think of a flimsy excuse for that comment, so you ignored it.

I also notice you ignored Prouty's sleazy dodge of "I'm no authority in that area" when he was asked point-blank about Willis Carto's Holocaust denial. And notice that Prouty didn't even say, "Oh, I wasn't aware that Willis denied the Holocaust." No normal, sane, credible, educated person would say "I'm no authority in that area" when asked about Holocaust denial. But Prouty did.

I know it is pointless to say this, but I am astounded that the moderators are still allowing these false denials and evasions about Prouty's obscene, disgraceful associations and nutty claims to be posted. 

Edited May 3, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Jeff Carter]

24 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

This is just hogwash, jaw-dropping hogwash, and you know it. 

You keep skipping over the fact that Prouty appeared on Liberty Lobby's nutcase radio show 10 times in four years. That goes way beyond "limited contact with the organization." And he was certainly "cognizant of the circumstances" when he did so.

Oh, yes, when Prouty was confronted with having had a book published by the IHR, he conveniently claimed he regretted it. Gee, that's not what he said just after the book was published. He publicly praised Carto and Marcellus for having the guts and courage to republish his book. And he was certainly "cognizant of the circumstances" when he did so. 

So now your claim is that the IHR falsely listed Prouty as a speaker at their upcoming conference?! Really? Really? I doubt you actually believe that. 

I notice you ignored Prouty's racist "Jewish sergeant" remark in his letter. I guess you could not even think of a flimsy excuse for that comment, so you ignored it.

I also notice you ignored Prouty's sleazy dodge of "I'm no authority in that area" when he was asked point-blank about Willis Carto's Holocaust denial. And notice that Prouty didn't even say, "Oh, I wasn't aware that Willis denied the Holocaust." No normal, sane, credible, educated person would say "I'm no authority in that area" when asked about Holocaust denial. But Prouty did.

I know it is pointless to say this, but I am astounded that the moderators are still allowing these false denials and evasions about Prouty's obscene, disgraceful associations and nutty claims to be posted. 

The items you have presented do not live up to the maximalist interpretations you seek to attach.

The poster for the Revisionist Conference was drawn up well in advance of the event, as can be confirmed by the date of the publication (Spring 1990) and the offer of “early-bird tickets”. Objectively, all that could be said is that an IHR publication attached Prouty to the event some months before it actually occurred. The extent to which Prouty knew of or understood what this event was is unknown. It is extremely doubtful that he participated, and this can be averred with some confidence due to the presence at that time (1990-92) of at least four identified individuals - the Esquire author, Berlet, the ADL researcher, John McAdams - motivated and active in presenting Prouty in a bad light who would have jumped on such participation and waved it like a red flag. None of them did so.

Next, there is a private letter from which you have isolated a brief phrase - “a Jewish Sgt.” - and again applied a maximalist interpretation. It is immediately obvious the context informing the use of this phrase is missing. Prouty is responding to something from a previous communication (“what about that computer in California?”). The phrase in question is entirely meaningless without the context, without knowing what exactly “that computer in California” is referring to.

You have hijacked the thread from the start with vicious character assassination buttressed by an extremely poor scholarly methodology. What you have presented to date doesn’t rise much above the constant iteration of a nasty ill-informed opinion. It is becoming increasingly obvious why you have been removed from other forums.

[Michael Griffith]

Let's get real and start being honest. Sheesh, the IHR would not have listed Prouty as a speaker at their upcoming tenth annual conference in 1990 unless they had already arranged and confirmed this with Prouty. They wanted an "all-star" lineup for the conference, since it was going to be their tenth annual gathering. Also, the IHR republished Prouty's nutty book The Secret Team one month before the conference. So it makes perfect sense that they invited Prouty to speak and that he accepted. 

And I don't think The Spotlight was lying when it reported that Prouty and Bo Gritz were both prepared to appear as "character witnesses" for Willis Carto in the Mermelstein lawsuits against Carto and Liberty Lobby.

Recall that during the 1990 Liberty Lobby convention, Prouty not only spoke (and blamed Israel for high oil prices and decried "usury") but hosted a panel discussion with Gritz after he spoke.

It was at the 1990 convention that Prouty recommended that people read The Spotlight, as The Spotlight proudly reported, quoting Prouty: “If anybody really wants to know what’s going on in the world today, he should be reading Spotlight" and “one of the first enemies we have in this country is usury” (Spotlight, 10-8-90, page 14).

Did you catch the attack on "usury"? Prouty's anti-Semitic audience surely knew what he was talking about. Neo-N-azis and other anti-Semites have long accused Jews of usury. But I'm sure that you Prouty apologists will say, "Oh, that was a just another coincidence! He wasn't alluding to Jews!" Nah, of course not. 

 

Edited May 3, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Joe Bauer]

Hillary Clinton always promoted herself as a champion of social disparity injustices. "It takes a village."

Greedy, 1% wealth protecting and promoting Wall Street has always been the opposite mentality and policy agenda big bad wolf in that social injustice scenario.

So it was surprising when, on Wednesday, Clinton seemed like she'd been caught off guard when asked during a CNN Democratic town hall why she had accepted $675,000 in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs.

Here's the exchange between Clinton and the host, Anderson Cooper:

Cooper: "You were paid $675,000 for three speeches (to Goldman). Was that a mistake? Was that a bad error in judgment?"

Clinton: "Look, I made speeches to lots of groups. I told them what I thought. I answered questions."

Cooper: "But did you have to be paid $675,000?"

Clinton: "Well I don’t know. That’s what they offered ... Every secretary of state I know of has done that."

Cooper: "But that's usually when they're not running for office ... you must have known?"

Clinton: "To be honest I wasn't — I wasn’t committed to running. I didn’t know whether I would run or not."

Edited May 3, 2023 by Joe Bauer