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

[Michael Griffith]

And now for the hammer blow on the nutty anti-Semite (and Holocaust denier) L. Fletcher Prouty. Come to find out that in 1992 Prouty wrote a supportive, encouraging letter to the IHR's Holocaust-denying journal, The Journal of Historical Review (JHR). In his letter to the editor, Prouty expressed the wish that the editor was well and that the Institute (i.e., the IHR) was "busy," and he even said that the Institute's "primary goals" were never "more important" than they were at that time. Of course, one of the IHR's primary goals, if not its main goal, was to deny the Holocaust. Here's Prouty's letter:

          I trust that things are going well with you and that the Institute is as busy as ever. I never knew a time when its primary goals were more important than right now.  L. Fletcher Prouty [author of The Secret Team], Alexandria, Va. (Letters to the Editor (vho.org))

The letter appeared in the Winter 1992 edition of the JHR (vol. 12, no. 4, p. 501). The editor inserted the bracketed comment "author of The Secret Team" in Prouty's signature block. 

Don't be confused by the yellow edition-selection dropdown bar on the page (which reads 2002 by default). You can confirm the edition and page number by going to the JHR's table of contents page:

The Journal of Historical Review, Table of contents, vol. 12 (vho.org)

So, there can be no more denials of Prouty's anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. Prouty obviously was a regular reader of the JHR. Every single issue of the JHR from 1980 to 2002 contained at least one article that denied the Holocaust.  Many issues not only carried Holocaust-denial articles but also disgraceful attacks on Jews. You can confirm this fact by reading the back issues of the JHR from 1980 to 2002:

The Journal of Historical Review, Table of Contents (vho.org)

Fletcher Prouty wasn't just a nutcase and fraud who made bizarre claims, he was also an anti-Semite and a Holocaust denier who spoke at an IHR Holocaust-denial conference, who spoke at a Liberty Lobby convention, who recommended the anti-Semitic rag The Spotlight, who clearly implied that Jews should not be trusted with running air-combat targeting computers, who said he was "no authority in that area" when asked about Holocaust denial, who had one of his books republished by the IHR, who publicly praised Carto and Marcellus, and who appeared 10 times in four years on Liberty Lobby's routinely anti-Semitic and Holocaust-denying radio program. 

No one who wishes to be seen as credible and respectable should ever again cite or quote Prouty. 

Edited May 3, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

And now for the hammer blow on the nutty anti-Semite (and Holocaust denier) L. Fletcher Prouty. Come to find out that in 1992 Prouty wrote a supportive, encouraging letter to the IHR's Holocaust-denying journal, The Journal of Historical Review (JHR). In his letter to the editor, Prouty expressed the wish that the editor was well and that the Institute (i.e., the IHR) was "busy," and he even said that the Institute's "primary goals" were never "more important" than they were at that time. Of course, one of the IHR's primary goals, if not its main goal, was to deny the Holocaust. Here's Prouty's letter:

          I trust that things are going well with you and that the Institute is as busy as ever. I never knew a time when its primary goals were more important than right now.  L. Fletcher Prouty [author of The Secret Team], Alexandria, Va. (Letters to the Editor (vho.org))

The letter appeared in the Winter 1992 edition of the JHR (vol. 12, no. 4, p. 501). The editor inserted the bracketed comment "author of The Secret Team" in Prouty's signature block. 

Don't be confused by the yellow edition-selection dropdown bar on the page (which reads 2002 by default). You can confirm the edition and page number by going to the JHR's table of contents page:

The Journal of Historical Review, Table of contents, vol. 12 (vho.org)

So, there can be no more denials of Prouty's anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. Prouty obviously was a regular reader of the JHR. Every single issue of the JHR from 1980 to 2002 contained at least one article that denied the Holocaust.  Many issues not only carried Holocaust-denial articles but also disgraceful attacks on Jews. You can confirm this fact by reading the back issues of the JHR from 1980 to 2002:

The Journal of Historical Review, Table of Contents (vho.org)

Fletcher Prouty wasn't just a nutcase and fraud who made bizarre claims, he was also an anti-Semite and a Holocaust denier who spoke at an IHR Holocaust-denial conference, who spoke at a Liberty Lobby convention, who recommended the anti-Semitic rag The Spotlight, who clearly implied that Jews should not be trusted with running air-combat targeting computers, who said he was "no authority in that area" when asked about Holocaust denial, who had one of his books republished by the IHR, who publicly praised Carto and Marcellus, and who appeared 10 times in four years on Liberty Lobby's routinely anti-Semitic and Holocaust-denying radio program. 

No one who wishes to be seen as credible and respectable should ever again cite or quote Prouty. 

I am just going to highlight the obvious here. You are calling Colonel Fletcher Prouty an antI-semite, because an organisation questioning the holocaust offered him a platform for his work. You are using guilt by association. You suggest that nobody should be quoting Prouty because of this view you have. 

Interestingly, you are prepared to support and quote the US government at times when it suits you, and their security apparatus, you even served them. Yet, it obviously hasn’t occurred to you that the US government employed over 1000 Third Reich National Socialists who were involved in, and passionately supported the killing of jewish people, gypsies and Slavs. They gave them a new life and exempted them from the holocaust crimes. 
 

If we apply your ‘guilt by association’ trope, I’m afraid to tell you that you are at least as bad as Prouty, using your logic. Hypocrisy is a bitch isn’t it, Michael? Should we label you as an anti-semite and a nutcase, based on your association with the largest single employer of National Socialists after WW2? 

[W. Niederhut]

        Calling someone a "Holocaust Denier" in the 21st century is somewhat like accusing a person of being a "witch" during the Inquisition.  They aren't burned at the stake nowadays, but some of the accused have been sent to prison and/or had their academic careers and reputations destroyed for daring to question any details about Holocaust history.

        In contrast to the dogma, it sounds like the historiography of the Holocaust is a convoluted, complex subject.  Very little was written about the subject by prominent WWII historians-- including Winston Churchill and Dwight Eisenhower-- in the immediate post-WWII era.

       I have never studied this subject in great detail, but people interested in a deep dive might want to read Harvard intellectual Ron Unz's American Pravda article (and references) on the subject of "Holocaust Denial." *

       All of Unz's American Pravda articles are like college level courses on the subject, and include digitized copies of references.

       Also, Unz happens to be Jewish.

       In this American Pravda article, Ron Unz does discuss the history of The Journal of Historical Review, which Michael Griffith has referenced (above) for the purpose of continuing to defame Col. L. Fletcher Prouty.

*  https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-holocaust-denial/

Edited May 4, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Ron Bulman]

W.  Congratulations on the long running informative thread.  But is it time to give it up?  I mean Michael has 15 more posts on your own thread than you.  His posts are much longer than yours.  

I think he's already gotten Jim Di Eugenio to put him on ignore, tired of telling him JFK was not going into Vietnam and not a cold warrior.

Just kidding.  Keep up the good work, please.  

 

[James DiEugenio]

Anyone who does not understand that comments about the AWACS is on a jihad.

Mike is beginning to sound like a combination of John McAdams/Fred Litwin. On steroids.

Did not think that was possible.

Edited May 4, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Michael Griffith]

8 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

I am just going to highlight the obvious here. You are calling Colonel Fletcher Prouty an antI-semite, because an organisation questioning the holocaust offered him a platform for his work. You are using guilt by association. You suggest that nobody should be quoting Prouty because of this view you have. I

This is your answer to the disclosure of Prouty's supportive letter to the IHR's JHR??? Are you kidding me??? 

We're talking about much more than "guilt by association." This is not "guilt by association"  anyway. You folks don't appear to even know what that term means. Here's the standard definition:

          A guilt by association fallacy occurs when someone connects an opponent to a demonized group of people or to a bad person in order to discredit his or her argument. The idea is that the person is “guilty” by simply being similar to this “bad” group and, therefore, should not be listened to about anything.

Here's another definition--notice they convey the exact same meaning:

          A guilt by association fallacy occurs when someone connects an opponent to a demonized group of people or to a bad person in order to discredit his or her argument. The idea is that the person is “guilty” by simply being similar to this “bad” group and, therefore, should not be listened to about anything.

So you see that we are talking about much more than "guilt by association" when it comes to Prouty and anti-Semitic, Holocaust-denying organizations. I am not "associating" Prouty with those groups because he expressed similar ideas. I am pointing out that he participated in their events, recommended their publications, praised their leaders, had a book published by one of them, and appeared on one of their radio shows numerous times, etc., etc. 

The refusal of the Prouty apologists here to face reality proves you have no credibility and no objectivity, that you are rabid and fringe. Every single one of you. You are doing great damage to the case for conspiracy in the JFK assassination.

I am done trying to reason with you. If Prouty's letter to the IHR's JHR is not enough to bring you to your senses, then you are beyond persuasion and beyond reason. This will be my last reply in this thread. 

Edited May 4, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Sandy Larsen]

On 5/2/2023 at 3:58 PM, Michael Griffith said:

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

 

NOTE:  The following is incorrect. The correct answer is here.

 

In the personal letter, Prouty explains how an AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System) works. In a  war or conflict, all the American fighter planes are coordinated from the AWACS plane. Signals from each fighter plane travel by radio wave to the AWACS plane, then to a satellite, then to a powerful computer system located in California. The computer does complex calculations and returns control signals through the same path back to the planes.

Following that in the letter is the remainder of the topic, which I transcribe here:

 

But what about that computer in California? Suppose the guy running it is a Jewish Sgt.? Warfare has become so very complex the whole thing does not make sense anymore. One good bomb fired at that computer [site] could put all U.S. fighter planes out of action against hitting a one of them.

 

Prouty was worried about the main computer in California being bombed

When Michael Griffith reads the sentence about the Jewish guy running the computer in California, right away he sees it as an anti-Semitic slur. "The incompetent Jew is going to break the computer and we'll lose all the fighter planes!"

Problem is, Jews are not known for being incompetent.... not even to those who are anti-Semitic. In fact, Jews are known for being very competent. And in fact, that is a big part of why some people hate them.... they are jealous of Jews.

So why did Prouty put the Jewish Sgt. reference in there? I think he used it as a placeholder like "Average Joe," except in his case he wanted the placeholder to reflect a smart, competent member of the Air Force. And "Jewish Sergeant" did it for him.

Of course, for this to be the case, it is necessary that Prouty and the friend he wrote the letter to have had conversations where they came to a common understating that Jews tend to be smart, competent people.

This is not a silly idea. My best friend and I were both amazed by how successful Jews are on average when we discussed the topic back in the 1980s.

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

I am done trying to reason with you. If Prouty's letter to the IHR's JHR is not enough to bring you to your senses, then you are beyond persuasion and beyond reason. This will be my last reply in this thread. 

You never tried to reason, you just tried to slur. 

I guess it has never occurred to you that Prouty just might not give a toss about the holocaust?! Seems that way to me, that he just wanted exposure for his written works. 
 

None of that has anything to do with whether or not his written work on government and its security apparatus has merit. Thats all that matters from a research perspective. That’s what you can’t see; because of your deep biases. Prouty has no obligation to share your perspective, Michael.

I am going to repeat what I said, by your logic, if Prouty is an anti-semite by association, then you are too. As you worked for and supported an organisation (The US government), that recruited 1000 national socialists, employed them, and exempted them from justice. You can’t have it both ways. 

[Jeff Carter]

"The hammer blow"??? Has this been some kind of contest?

Griffith’s contribution to this topic began with a conclusion and proceeded to search for supporting evidence. Kind of backwards to how inquiry is supposed to work. His strident belligerent tone was curious, as he mostly cut and pasted from first an ancient list compiled by McAdams and then most recently posts which have been appearing on Litwin’s blog.

[Kirk Gallaway]

I would agree this thread should have died long ago and was probably ill conceived in the first place. At the end Michael was making the same points over and over again. Then he a produced what was really a smoking gun about Prouty's anti semitism, and no one denies the authenticity. But the most salient counter was a Jeff' "10 year long Prouty dingbat defense."

But let's let go of these sordid allegations.

 

I''m sorry I missed this earlier. There's another matter concerning  Prouty's credibility from an earlier thread started by Joe that took an unexpected turn. No less than Oliver Stone, who propped up Prouty through his Donald Sutherlin character in the forum's favorite scene from his movie "JFK " actually attacks Prouty's credibility!  As Michael said in the thread "As a matter of fact, it was a reckless, baseless charge to suggest that Lansdale played any role in JFK's murder, much less a clearly crucial role." I would agree with this statement. It was apparently the turn in this thread that incensed W. to start the present thread.

 

 

 

Of course wouldn't it be the ultimate coup  here if in fact, as Michael has suggested that Lansdale was actually liked by JFK! Essentially everybody who has come here over the last 10 years has had Lansdale portrayed, by innuendo  as a sinister figure, and learned the complete opposite, and charges against Lansdale here go as far as speculating he was nothing less than the chief of operations in Dallas  of the JFKA!, and we're also lead in that direction by Stone's movie, while those who defend it will cite artistic license.

 

And that is all largely due to the allegations of one man. As Stone attests above. Prouty filmed his assertion that a picture of a man from the back was in fact Lansdale at Dealey Plaza on 11/22, not long after the assassination. Though, there has been a number of other accusatory  things written here  about Lansdale, perhaps in some cases, spawned from that.. I recall reading something  involving his work in  the Phillipines with  Magsaysay,and references to other sordid things from other books. Of course is one expected here to just blindly accept everything one reads? It seems so some times. But there have also been books praising Lansdale, including a recent one by Max Boot,  saying  that Lansdale opposed sending large numbers of American troops to South Vietnam, opposed most of the recommendations in the Taylor-McNamara report, and even opposed bombing North Vietnam.

 

 Now I've come across this 1970 interview with Lansdale from nobody less than the JFK library. Apparently they're not so suspicious of Lansdale

 

I'm sure many here who have speculated that he was chief of operation in Dallas, will think he's just lying, (but curiously a sleazebag anti semite is of course, telling the truth?  It's a joke! ha ha!)

 

But you don't get a hint of that impression at all in this. Lansdale  doesn't ever really put down  the Kennedys, but complements them. Though he does turn out a bit self aggrandizing. But sort of a maverick, and outsider to the JCS,  which JFK would have liked! And at one point, he states some of his general philosophy, which I think JFK would have liked as well.

The link is below.I tried to take excerpts of it.It has so many scribbled notes it was like hell to copy and paste and my apologies, I've tried to edit it as close as I could, but it is a mess in parts. .

 

Lansdale:The Kennedy administration had

eliminated . a bureaucratic boondoggling

O'BRIEN:•.
LANSDALE:what the hell was that called._

OBRIEN: CB1 @Operations Coordinating Boar~(()

 

Lansdale accounts first meeting AG Bobby Kennedy.

Incidentally; in that inquiry into the Cuban bit was
the first time that I met (Robert ~ Bobby
Kennedy. For some reason or other, I didn't
connect him personally with the pictures of ·
him and so on,  and I wondered what the
youngster was doing sitting in the meeting

talking so much.
·· O'BRIEN: ?
Was he pretty tough .
LANSDALE: Well, he wasn't tough. He was the most

interested of anyone in the room there of what I

would say on things and plague me with many
questions.
O'BRIEN: How were his questions? Was he fairly naive
about the problems?
LANSDALE: No this was· on questions of how the
government would operate at a decision level;

and they weren't  naive at all. .He had a very

good understanding. He was very much concerned
about his brother getting good service in the

way of information and full details and alternatives

 and so on, on a policy decision.

 

Dulles BOP plan

O'BRIEN: Who were some o:f the inner circle people at

this point

Lansdale:Let' s see a,Oh golly. Bissell, richard Bissell was the overall chief of

chief.of the group.

 Yes, but initially it was all ·CIA. They
borrowed some military personnel to help with
the planning~earlier-~but they were _people
who had been attached to CIA for temporary
duty on other matters, and they hadn't come
in initially for this specific planning. In
, December, when the planning had .obviously'
started coming in with a beach landing and so
on, the way it turned out, I urged at that
point to · get military planning in on the
thing. I was worrying about it. 'As a matter
of fact, Allen Dulles brought his planners
to a policy meeting, a policy group meeting,
and they were explaining the concepts. My
-questioning was such that Allen Dulles pleaded
*with me not to spoil the plan at an early

stage. I remember General (Lyman L .)
Lemnitzer was sitting in on the meeting and  -
was chairman of the _JCS {Joint  Chiefs of
Staff at the time and he backed up my urging
them to get some military planing in on that~.

After that,  there was an apparent agreement among our

policy people on that, and then the JCS set up.

a  special section to plan along . with the

-Central Intelligence~ Agency on that. And who
the hell headed that?
O'BRIEN: This is yet in the Eisenhower administration.

LANSDALE: This is all back in 1960.

 

O'BRIEN:
Well, I suppose you had some conversations
with Dulles and with Bissell and some of
these people about it.
LANSDALE: Yes.
O'BRIEN: What's their feeling? You already discussed
'Dulles  and his sort of asking you to hold your criticism.
LANSDALE: Well, Bissell definitely felt the same way
Bissell was a very . hard-working, intense person.
almost high\strung type of/\individual. He
became rather impatient with my questioning

of the changed concept  when it took place.

I thought initially if they if they had the correct personnel

and· they had a correct reading of dissent
inside o! CUba, that was a fair chance . to do
something. My only concern at the time was:
did  thee CIA have Americans who could work
·with such a situation? I just didn't know
of! any, but I was assured that 1'there were such
Americans.I'm not certain that there were.
-

 

O BRIEN: Well,  in that period right

after the . Bay of Pigs--of course you had a lot
of contacts and friendships in other places
outside the Pentagon.A What kind of an impact
A~the Bay of Pigs have, let's say over in
the Agency;) and State Department, and in Defense)Land in the White House?

LANSDALE: It was a traumatic experience at top levels~~~

 

in the government.'
President Kennedy more-than any other single
"thing. It was almost a taboo subject  if you
were going in to do business and to get an
approval on some.
It was an.intensely sore subject . among all of these
people. I felt that almost all of the key
executives · in the administration must have
dreamt about it at night or something, and
during the daytime working hours they just
.didn't Want to  contemplate it• And yet
they were honest enough people that they knew

they had to face up and i look at it and . would do

so, . but it was an extremely emotional subject
with them, very much so.

******

LANSDALE:We have some wonderful.: Americans and this

was what I was trying to do which was to find
/which Americans have not only our interests
at heart but were enough interested in foreign
countries to be able to understand and have .
sympathy and really would be serving the best
interests of other countries in things. I'd\
far rather see one man get in on something
like that than send a whole team in with ~
sorts of things and sort of aggravate a
situation. Rather than do something rather simple

*******

LANSDALE:Then let's make the military establish-

ment serve the country in a much bigger way
than merely toting guns around and guarding
borders. It's usually the organization that
is nationwide and there might not be any
other organization that's nationwide in the .
country, such as agriculture~ ~ven the
-administrative structure that usually comes
under department or · ministry of the Interior
won't really have the manpower, · ~e communi-
cations) and so forth> that the military forces
'do. So, given that, why not then get the
military to start doing constructive things
around and making full use of the manpower
that you have anyhow. Have them be good

 

JFK liked his report

Lansdale:Well, . one of · the stories on Kennedy

I'd like to put in was: On my reports
from Vietnam in the very early days of- just
before he was inaugurated, and he read it
.apparently right after the inaugural--one of
the reports was a little side piece that I
did on a village in South Vietnam inhabited
by some Chinese refugees that

(Diem had located down in the midst

 

of a communist-held territory, and I was very

impressed by the~,.j' _Just as an example of
what humans will do in such a situation, I'd
written it up and turned in a separate report

on it. And about the time.. It was still

.January '61, about ten days ·after the inaugural
My telephone in  the Pentagon rang and this
voice that sounded like Kennedy's
to1d me it was President Kennedy talking 1 and
he had read this report of mine and wanted me
to' have it published in the Saturday Evening
Post. I was wondering which joker in the
Pentagon~~~ was imitating . this
Harvard, Massachusetts accent and was putting

me on)  I said, "Yes, yes, yes." I then

had my secretary check over at the White

House,and sure enough, it had been President
Kennedy, so I had to then go ahead I'd
promised to do it.figuring out I didn't
know how to get something in the Saturday
Evening Post, but quickly found out how and
they published this thing afterwards as a
report that the President wanted published in

their magagazine.

 

Lansdale approached with the job as ambassador to Vietnam?

O'BRIEN: Were you ever approached with the job

as ambassador to Vietnam?
LANSDALE: y:&s.b :.·--¥eah-:----

0 'BRIEN: Who was push~.ng that

LANSDALE: I don't know. I heard about it~ first
Saturday after the inaugural I think that's
it. It was very early in the administration.
McNamara asked me to correspond to tge.m to the 'ff.ai te
House and meet him there, and I thought it
was to brief him on something.I was·. .
working an a number of intelligence matters
in Defense at the time and I showed up; and
he asked me to just wait outside; and they
were meeting in the Cabinet roe~ ana-~s I
said, it was essentially an NSC group..And
after. a bit, they asked me to  come on in and
they had me sit opposite the president.And he looked at me) and he said, "Did Dean

[Rusk] tell you they want you to be ambassador
to Vietnam?" I said, "No, he didn't mention
that." Well,  he hadn't.
A long, painful silence and I figured, Well,
maybe he's asking me if I want to be.
If I would I accept the job. So I finally said,
"We1,1t would be a great honor, and that was
the last I ever heard of it.
Afterwards I heard that Dean Rusk

was very much opposed to it, and opposed on
the ground that I was a military man and they
didn't want military people in on the situation.

OBRIEN   yeah'

LANSDALE: And then later I met one of Rusk staff
officers at the time, and he was telling me
.that Rusk was figuring; he could get
me a job some other place or a promotion or
something to get me out of the way at the time?
 apparently, I had become a target for a lot of
gossip and rumors at the time. '' But after that;
then, they asked me~-Kennedy asked me pretty
point blank--about Durbrow; and I said, "Well,
After what you just asked me and so forth, I'm

a little hesitant, but you're the President and
you need the truth.:so I'll just tell you right
now, I think ·he's a very ill man..-

men that' s impaired by his physical condition~s

a fine professional foreign service officer.and
- -- -could be used some_place;but don't keep him on

in Vietnan. anymore. He's sick,he's on his

back a lot of the time and you need someone

very alert.

But these things would usually only come to me sort of second or

third hand or 4th. One time apparently President
Kennedy had said something to the JCS because
suddenly my relations with the Chiefs went
down to less than zero and sub-zerov and I
finally asked General (Curtis E.] Lemay of
the Air Force, because I'm an Air Force officer,
what the trouble was. And he said, "You and

your ambitions to have four stars." I said,
"'What' s this again?
·
Apparently Kennedy had
said something to the Chiefs of; what would

they think of my being given four stars and

being put in charge of operations in Vietnam?

And I didn't knew about it, and they took it
that I was pushing myself for it. I said
again that i didn't want  want to do. So this
is about the time that--, maybe [William
/Westmoreland] Westy was coming in about then;.

it was around that time

 

********.

 

 

 

It's a lot of notes, but a great read.

 

https://www.jfklibrary.org/sites/default/files/archives/JFKOH/Lansdale%2C%20Edward/JFKOH-EL-01/JFKOH-EL-01-TR.pdf

 

 

Scientology, Carto, the Jewish Sargent comment, and  reckless allegations about Lansdale.!

 

Ok, he may have written what some here consider a couple of good books.

I'm glad I didn't read any of them. And such devotion!, you guys are like hard core Trumpists.

So it's just impossible to consider that this guy couldn't be some wacko colleague that his superiors, who are not planning to kill the POTUS just occasionally got fed up with, and would decide to ship him off  to the South Pole?

 

 

Colonel Prouty, I know Donald Sutherlin, and you're no Donald Sutherlin!

heh heh

 

 

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Then [Michael Griffith] produced what was really a smoking gun about Prouty's anti semitism, and no one denies the authenticity.

 

What smoking gun?

 

[Joe Bauer]

On 5/4/2023 at 4:06 AM, Chris Barnard said:

I am going to repeat what I said, by your logic, if Prouty is an anti-semite by association, then you are too. As you worked for and supported an organization (The US government), that recruited 1000 national socialists, employed them, and exempted them from justice. You can’t have it both ways. 

Excellent point.

Anti-Semitism was rampant in our own country for a long, long time before and even up through WWII.

Millions of Americans could care less that Hitler was brutalizing them to unfathomable degrees.

Didn't we turn away thousands of them fleeing for their lives on an arriving ocean liner? Including children?

Yet, we provided refuge and financial assistance to thousands of war crime committing former Na**s right after the war?

Shameless hypocrisy...in the least.

Didn't much of our elitist corporate and Eastern Establishment wealth set hold off fully stopping their support of Hitler in various ways only until years after millions of European Jews had already been disenfranchised, incarcerated and were already being diabolically, brutally tortured, slaughtered and cleansed from the face of the earth?

Their rational being that the Jew mass murderer devil himself Hitler might be the best chance to finally removing "their biggest fear" threat...the Russian commies?

Was Hitler's mass Jew slaughter given too much of a tolerating held off pass for this American wealthy higher interest threat agenda?

Jews were historically treated horribly in our own country. 

The KKK directed their hate toward blacks and jews.

I always wondered why?

Was it partially because of Jewish liberalism on social issues and race?

Fletcher Prouty is not "the" bad guy here.

Powerful highest position American policy dictating players way beyond and above his pay grade and going back decades before Prouty's supposed post military career Jewish suffering denying deserve far more critical focus and bashing...imo anyways.

 

Edited May 6, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[Jonathan Cohen]

On 5/4/2023 at 7:03 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

Of course, for this to be the case, it is necessary that Prouty and the friend he wrote the letter to have had conversations where they came to a common understating that Jews tend to be smart, competent people.

This is not a silly idea. My best friend and I were both amazed by how successful Jews are on average when we discussed the topic back in the 1980s.

This is one the most bizarre things I’ve ever read on this forum. You first realized that you were “amazed” that Jews were “successful” in… the 1980s? Well gee, what did you think about them BEFORE the 1980s, Sandy? What type of research was necessary for you to undertake before you came to this earth-shattering conclusion? Either way, we Jews are so relieved to know you deem us to be smart and competent!

[David Josephs]

On 4/7/2023 at 11:49 AM, Michael Griffith said:

BTW, my last name is Griffith, not Griffin. You can't even get that simple fact straight.

He misses one letter, you miss the entire boat.  COINTELPRO comes to mind with every one of your posts.

Let's see... Jefferson owned slaves yet produced the Declaration of Independence.  Obviously being wrong about one thing makes it impossible to contribute and be taken seriously in any other area.  

I'd bet TikTok wouldn't even put up with you

 

[Matthew Koch]

7 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

He misses one letter, you miss the entire boat.  COINTELPRO comes to mind with every one of your posts.

Let's see... Jefferson owned slaves yet produced the Declaration of Independence.  Obviously being wrong about one thing makes it impossible to contribute and be taken seriously in any other area.  

I'd bet TikTok wouldn't even put up with you

 

Bump!