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

[Kirk Gallaway]

Jeff: What you left out is the fact that "the critic" referred  has engaged a process of insults and name-calling from the start in the interest of reputational disparagement,

 

The other day, for example," the critic" offered a  list of twelve bullet points to bolster his argument,

 

Hmmm, "Process of insults and name calling." Wasn't the first title to this thread something to in effect to say, that only crackpots don't believe Fletcher Prouty? Do you think such an autocratic title may have set a tone? Did you ever consider, Jeff, that maybe you were entering a personal vendetta that one member was driven to post against another to settle some butthurt score?

 

Ok, but let's get back to substance.

 

Jeff, Your first paragraph, I couldn't stand. Why are you calling him "the critic?" His name is Michael, Jeff. It looked like you were trying to skirt around not answering Michael's points, and attacking Michael personally, and hiding it by not giving him a name.

 

Ok, but in the next paragraph, I congratulate you for making the first substantive counterpoint against Michael. For almost 2 pages I saw Michael make a case, and it was met with total BS responses, making Michael the issue.

I'll deal with what I think are Jeff's major points.

 

Jeff: for example, the characterization of a “close and prolonged” relationship with the Lobby's top leadership when there is no record to even suggest the parties had ever met or corresponded in any way.

 

So "close and prolonged" is a quotation from Michael? As far as "close" , it  might be difficult without direct quotes or evidence that they vacation with each other, for example. But as far as prolonged, the duration of speaking engagements does mean something.

 

But in fairness, Micheal does answer back in spades, concerning Mark Lane and implicating Prouty.

Mark Lane never, but Prouty has!

 

-- never recommended that people read The Spotlight-------Did Prouty?, do you have the quote, Michael?

-- never praised Carto and Marcellus          ----------Again, a direct quote?

-- never blamed high oil prices on the Israelis and associated them with a "High Cabal" bent on world domination                        

-- never had a book published by the Holocaust-denying IHR and never said he was "proud" of having done so                   

Ok, for these 4 charges, can you provide any direct quotes, dates and places, Michael?.

 

-- never sat on a Liberty Lobby board    Well, that should be easy to prove. Jeff responds with Prouty's outright denial. Prouty:  "I never go to their own meetings"

 

****

And of course, fair is fair Jeff. Why did you snip out this sentence from your Liberty Lobby, wikipedia submission?

"Critics also charged the newspaper with subtly incorporating antisemitic and white racialist undertones in its articles, and with carrying advertisements in the classified section for openly neo-N-azi groups and books."

 

Next point:

Jeff: Or cite a willingness to be a “character witness” which not only never materialized but there is also no contextual information available to describe the process by which that allegedly occurred. (the only reference is in an article which itself serves as a prosecutor's brief)

Michael, what proof do you have of that?

Jeff:(the only reference is in an article which itself serves as a prosecutor's brief)

That's vague Jeff, what article?, maybe you can further explain that.

 

 

I do like your overview, Jeff.

Jeff: That said, using the Liberty Lobby as a stick is an effective point of argument as it, by default, puts a cross-examination on the backfoot, in a “when did you stop beating your wife?” kind of way." Faced with that sort of inflamed rhetoric, one might decide is is best to avoid the topic altogether and forego any sort of cross-examination.

 

Sure, you seem confident that Michael is very aware, and doing his "prosecutor brief " very adeptly.

 

Jeff's quote of Prouty: That sole speech was years ago and was no different than the speech I gave at the Holocaust Memorial Conference.  ---If true, a very good point as to Prouty's non partisanship on the issue.

Prouty:"I do admit to having been a rather active public speaker for all types of audiences, on a commercial except for Rotary".  "They (Libert Lobby) had a national convention at which asked me to speak and they paid me very, very well. I took my money and went home and that's it. I go to the meeting, I go home, I don't join.

 

This sounds like it's coming from a guy, whose very conscious of charges that will be leveled on him in the future, and his excuse is, he goes where the money is. Watching him fold in that hearing, makes me a little more uneasy.

 

Anyway, this is actually what a discussion would be, people listening to each other and responding to their points.

 

[Michael Griffith]

11 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Jeff: What you left out is the fact that "the critic" referred  has engaged a process of insults and name-calling from the start in the interest of reputational disparagement,

 

The other day, for example," the critic" offered a  list of twelve bullet points to bolster his argument,

 

Hmmm, "Process of insults and name calling." Wasn't the first title to this thread something to in effect to say, that only crackpots don't believe Fletcher Prouty? Do you think such an autocratic title may have set a tone? Did you ever consider, Jeff, that maybe you were entering a personal vendetta that one member was driven to post against another to settle some butthurt score?

 

Ok, but let's get back to substance.

 

Jeff, Your first paragraph, I couldn't stand. Why are you calling him "the critic?" His name is Michael, Jeff. It looked like you were trying to skirt around not answering Michael's points, and attacking Michael personally, and hiding it by not giving him a name.

 

Ok, but in the next paragraph, I congratulate you for making the first substantive counterpoint against Michael. For almost 2 pages I saw Michael make a case, and it was met with total BS responses, making Michael the issue.

I'll deal with what I think are Jeff's major points.

 

Jeff: for example, the characterization of a “close and prolonged” relationship with the Lobby's top leadership when there is no record to even suggest the parties had ever met or corresponded in any way.

 

So "close and prolonged" is a quotation from Michael? As far as "close" , it  might be difficult without direct quotes or evidence that they vacation with each other, for example. But as far as prolonged, the duration of speaking engagements does mean something.

 

But in fairness, Micheal does answer back in spades, concerning Mark Lane and implicating Prouty.

Mark Lane never, but Prouty has!

 

-- never recommended that people read The Spotlight-------Did Prouty?, do you have the quote, Michael?

-- never praised Carto and Marcellus          ----------Again, a direct quote?

-- never blamed high oil prices on the Israelis and associated them with a "High Cabal" bent on world domination                        

-- never had a book published by the Holocaust-denying IHR and never said he was "proud" of having done so                   

Ok, for these 4 charges, can you provide any direct quotes, dates and places, Michael?.

 

-- never sat on a Liberty Lobby board    Well, that should be easy to prove. Jeff responds with Prouty's outright denial. Prouty:  "I never go to their own meetings"

 

****

And of course, fair is fair Jeff. Why did you snip out this sentence from your Liberty Lobby, wikipedia submission?

"Critics also charged the newspaper with subtly incorporating antisemitic and white racialist undertones in its articles, and with carrying advertisements in the classified section for openly neo-N-azi groups and books."

 

Next point:

Jeff: Or cite a willingness to be a “character witness” which not only never materialized but there is also no contextual information available to describe the process by which that allegedly occurred. (the only reference is in an article which itself serves as a prosecutor's brief)

Michael, what proof do you have of that?

Jeff:(the only reference is in an article which itself serves as a prosecutor's brief)

That's vague Jeff, what article?, maybe you can further explain that.

 

I do like your overview, Jeff.

Jeff: That said, using the Liberty Lobby as a stick is an effective point of argument as it, by default, puts a cross-examination on the backfoot, in a “when did you stop beating your wife?” kind of way." Faced with that sort of inflamed rhetoric, one might decide is is best to avoid the topic altogether and forego any sort of cross-examination.

 

Sure, you seem confident that Michael is very aware, and doing his "prosecutor brief " very adeptly.

 

Jeff's quote of Prouty: That sole speech was years ago and was no different than the speech I gave at the Holocaust Memorial Conference.  ---If true, a very good point as to Prouty's non partisanship on the issue.

Prouty:"I do admit to having been a rather active public speaker for all types of audiences, on a commercial except for Rotary".  "They (Libert Lobby) had a national convention at which asked me to speak and they paid me very, very well. I took my money and went home and that's it. I go to the meeting, I go home, I don't join.

 

This sounds like it's coming from a guy, whose very conscious of charges that will be leveled on him in the future, and his excuse is, he goes where the money is. Watching him fold in that hearing, makes me a little more uneasy.

 

Anyway, this is actually what a discussion would be, people listening to each other and responding to their points.

 

I've already supplied all the evidence/sources that Jeff Carter requests. He just keeps ignoring them. I suggest he re-read my previous seven replies in this thread. His refusal to deal honestly with the facts about Prouty and Liberty Lobby/IHR/Spotlight is very sad, to say the least. Here are some additional sources on Prouty and his relationship with Liberty Lobby/IHR, ones that I haven't cited yet:

RIGHT-WOOS-LEFT-Berlet-Report.pdf (politicalresearch.org)

Toxic to Democracy

Transcript: When 'Populism' Has a Right-Wing Agenda (radioproject.org)

JFK Article-Print Version (edwardjayepstein.com)

You make a good point about Prouty's attempt to explain why he spoke at a Liberty Lobby convention. He liked to mention that he also spoke at a Holocaust memorial conference, but it's clear that he did so only for money, and perhaps as cover for his anti-Semitic associations, because the speech he gave at the memorial conference was very different from the one he gave at the Liberty Lobby convention. Prouty conveniently failed to mention this.

Prouty also failed to mention that he appeared on Liberty Lobby's radio show, Radio Free America, 10 times over a four-year period. When Prouty was asked about serving on a Liberty Lobby board, he claimed he never actually attended. When he was advised that his name still appeared on the list of board members and was asked if he would ensure that his name was removed, he declined. Prouty also forgot to mention that he once blamed high oil prices on the Israelis.

I haven't even talked about Prouty's comical use of the fictional Iron Mountain Report. He didn't realize the report was a complete hoax. Prouty even claimed he spoke with a member of the Iron Mountain Special Study Group! That's amazing, since the group never existed! Liberty Lobby distributed thousands of copies of the Iron Mountain Report. I'm guessing that Prouty learned of the report from Liberty Lobby. 

Finally, when Prouty was asked about Carto's belief that the Holocaust was a hoax, what did he say? Did he say, "Well, of course, I reject that. That's crazy"? Nope. Did he at least say, "If he believes that, he's wrong"? Nope. When asked about Carto's denial of the Holocaust, Prouty would only say, "I'm no authority in that area" (Item 02.pdf (hood.edu). ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

This is just one of several statements that indicate Prouty shared the anti-Semitic views of his buddy Carto.

Edited April 15, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[W. Niederhut]

14 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

The following is Fletcher Prouty's own response to accusations of extremist ties, from April 1996:

"Esquire magazine published an article, in which they just made up these things, I've never written for Liberty Lobby. I've spoken as a commercial speaker, they paid me to speak and then I left. They print a paragraph or two of my speech same as they would of anybody else, but I've never joined them. I don't subscribe to their newspaper, I never go to their own meetings, but they had a national convention at which asked me to speak and they paid me very, very well. I took my money and went home and that's it. I go to the meeting, I go home, I don't join.

That sole speech was years ago and was no different than the speech I gave at the Holocaust Memorial Conference. I spoke my own words and ideas. I do admit to having been a rather active public speaker for all types of audiences, on a commercial except for Rotary, They're gratuitous from my point of view.

"The funny thing was two months earlier I had spoken at the Holocaust Conference for the second annual meeting of the Holocaust Group which I learned later the Liberty Lobby is completely opposed to. Dr. Littel, of the Holocaust Memorial organization invited me to attend and make a few comments,as others were requested.

Well, they put all this in this Esquire magazine but did it all backwards, as though I was a member, writing with these people or joining them. The only club I've joined is the Rotary Club !

The attempt of character assassination is a sign you have become a small threat. Others, at the levels I know of, have played up that as though I had been converted to something. It is just their "gentlemanly" tactic of dealing with people they can't handle otherwise.. In fact it is a CIA characteristic trait...as I well know. When they can't handle you, they attack your character.

 

 

Jeff,

      Thanks for delivering this knockout punch to Michael Griffith's mcadams.edu, Prouty-defaming nonsense.

      Hopefully, Kirk Gallaway will eventually figure out that "Liberty Lobby" Griffith has been knocked out.

      (I'm not holding my breath.)

Edited April 15, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Jeff Carter]

There's a lot of innuendo on display here. From what I can tell, an alleged "close relationship" sources to an article by Chip Berlet from the early 90s. Berlet was attempting, with this article, to bolster his thesis that right-wing conspiracists had in the 1980s made common cause with anti-semitic organizations. This article is the source mentioning Prouty quotes appearing in Spotlight - which according to Prouty, were published in the wake of his paid speaking engagement at Spotlight's initiative, not his. Berlet's article is also the source for the claim that Noontide republished Secret Team. Here's the thing: I cannot find any material evidence that such edition ever existed - it's not on Noontide's own list of publications, there's no image available of a cover, such an edition does not appear in lists of printing history, etc 

The alleged "close relationship" appears to boil down to a paid commercial speaking engagement and a few appearances on a nationally syndicated radio program. The charge may well be that Prouty should have known the radio program's ultimate sponsors, but there is no evidence that he did know this. Just as there is no evidence that Prouty held anti-semitic views, or was even what could be described as "right-wing". 

[Michael Griffith]

33 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Jeff,

      Thanks for delivering this knockout punch to Michael Griffith's mcadams.edu, Prouty-defaming nonsense.

      Hopefully, Kirk Galloway will eventually figure out that "Liberty Lobby" Griffith has been knocked out.

      (I'm not holding my breath.)

LOL! This is beyond comical. So you consider a "knockout punch" to be a reply that relies on Prouty's denials?! Really?! In short, whatever Prouty said, you will gullibly and gladly gobble up, no matter how absurd and demonstrably false it was. I notice you did not address a single point I made in my previous reply, nor did Jeff Carter. 

Tell me: Do you believe Prouty when he said that he interviewed a member of the secret Iron Mountain Special Study Group? Hint: There was no such group, and the Iron Mountain Report, reprinted by Liberty Lobby, was later exposed as a hoax.

What would you say if someone asked you, "What do you think of Willis Carto's claim that the Holocaust never happened?" Any normal, halfway educated person in the Western world would say, "that's absurd and obscene." But when Prouty was asked this question, he would only say, "I'm no authority in that area." A sickening and revealing dodge.

Why didn't Prouty ever explain why he appeared on Liberty Lobby's radio show 10 times in four years? Why didn't he explain why he said he was "proud and privileged" to have the IHR republish his nutty book The Secret Team? Why didn't he explain why he praised Carto and Marcellus for having the courage and vision to republish his nutty book?

 

Edited April 15, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Joe Bauer]

Could someone here in this debate offer an explanation/theory as to the when, how and why Prouty went from being a highly respected and very high responsibility tasked military officer for decades ( who obviously wasn't considered a mentally off-centered person during his duty time ) to the type of extreme fringe conspiracy kook character person he is being labeled as in his post-military civilian years here?

Was Prouty of the same post-military mind set in his military time but just keeping it to himself out of career self-preservation?

It seems a curious conundrum to me how highest command people like Marine Corp Commandant general Victor Krulak could have such a career long respect relationship with Colonel Prouty as well as dozens of other high position military ( for sure at least some of the Joint Chiefs ) intel agency and even civilians similarly inclined, where common sense tells you these no nonsense by-the-book big shots would never have countenanced the fringe public spoutings and associations Michael Griffith has so extensively ascribed to the civilian FP.

The philosophical belief stand of the retired civilian FP seems so contrary to that which most all of Prouty's military career counterparts would have found irrational and unacceptable.

Did FP have some type of paranoid conspiracy believing nervous breakdown after his military service? Did the JFKA and maybe even the RFKA trigger this?

Did he just succumb to the financial gain temptation of writing outrageous claims regards the JFKA and other subjects of high controversy which would increase his book selling interests and advance and royalty income?

General Walker was who he was consistently throughout his military and retired civilian life.

I don't see that with Prouty...do you?

 

Edited April 15, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[Greg Doudna]

I cannot speak to Prouty or the issue of his association with Carto, Liberty Lobby, and IHR, but I can say solidly that Michael Griffith is accurate on the anti-semitism and holocaust denial that some here--amazingly and jaw-dropping to me--are denying was really the case, as if this might be a case of a few bad apples in an otherwise pluralistic organization and publication.

Not so. I lived in Los Angeles in the 1970s, and I used to see copies of Spotlight, the mass-circulation newspaper. Apart from a few guest columnists recruited by the publication who may not personally have shared the actually fascist, anti-semitic core raison d'etre of Spotlight, there was no non-antisemitic component of Liberty Lobby and Spotlight. This was not like the John Birch Society where that would be accurate description (that is, non-antisemitic extreme conservatives as a part of the core mix of JBS which itself institutionally sought to suppress anti-semitism internal to its own; not so with Liberty Lobby).

Carto behind the whole thing of Liberty Lobby had actual connections and ideological lineage from the European far-right, neo-fascist political parties which exist in Britain and most nations in Europe.

This was not minor or collateral but core to what Carto and Liberty Lobby were about.

Any denials by Liberty Lobby that Liberty Lobby was anti-semitic are just wrong. This was a toxic organization, sucking in readers by populist-conspiracy type issues, every issue of Spotlight mixing those "outreach" articles with anti-Jewish and anti-black (yes, racist against blacks) articles, often in the form of mocking reporting on news stories.

I was at a party once in Los Angeles and met a prominent local hard-core libertarian who was on one of the boards of the IHS (Institute for Historical Studies, the holocaust-denial group of Carto and Liberty Lobby). He cheerfully described himself to me as "their token non-antisemite" on their board.

That is, everybody knew what Liberty Lobby was about. He knew. That's why he called himself, which he thought was humorous, their "token non-antisemite" invited on for appearances.

Nobody then reading Spotlight who had what a friend long ago liked to call "an IQ two points above plant life" could read that publication and not see that this was anti-Jewish and anti-black, racist and, with only a slight bit more discernment, an American outreach of old-fashioned post-WW2 European National Socialism.

I disagree with Michael Griffith on many things, and again I am not speaking to the issue of Prouty, but on Spotlight and Liberty Lobby and IHR, the pushback against Griffith on those organizations' descriptions as anti-semitic and toxic et al, is just astonishing. It is either ignorance or denial, but it is not truthful. On those points, Griffith is just plain right.  

[Jeff Carter]

45 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Could someone here in this debate offer an explanation/theory as to the when, how and why Prouty went from being a highly respected and very high responsibility tasked military officer for decades ( who obviously wasn't considered a mentally off-centered person during his duty time ) to the type of extreme fringe conspiracy kook character person he is being labeled as in his post-military civilian years here?

Was Prouty of the same post-military mind set in his military time but just keeping it to himself out of career self-preservation?

It seems a curious conundrum to me how highest command people like Marine Corp Commandant general Victor Krulak could have such a career long respect relationship with Colonel Prouty as well as dozens of other high position military ( for sure at least some of the Joint Chiefs ) intel agency and even civilians similarly inclined, where common sense tells you these no nonsense by-the-book big shots would never have countenanced the fringe public spoutings and associations Michael Griffith has so extensively ascribed to the civilian FP.

The philosophical belief stand of the retired civilian FP seems so contrary to that which most all of Prouty's military career counterparts would have found irrational and unacceptable.

Did FP have some type of paranoid conspiracy believing nervous breakdown after his military service? Did the JFKA and maybe even the RFKA trigger this?

Did he just succumb to the financial gain temptation of writing outrageous claims regards the JFKA and other subjects of high controversy which would increase his book selling interests and advance and royalty income?

General Walker was who he was consistently throughout his military and retired civilian life.

I don't see that with Prouty...do you?

 

The short answer is that the characterization of Prouty as an "extreme fringe conspiracy kook" is entirely inaccurate and slanderous, and largely the creation of a backlash directed at the "JFK" film. 

[Sandy Larsen]

20 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

I can say solidly that Michael Griffith is accurate on the anti-semitism and holocaust denial that some here--amazingly and jaw-dropping to me--are denying was really the case....

 

I haven't seen anybody here denying that Liberty Lobby was anti-Semitic.

 

[Michael Griffith]

27 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

I cannot speak to Prouty or the issue of his association with Carto, Liberty Lobby, and IHR, but I can say solidly that Michael Griffith is accurate on the anti-semitism and holocaust denial that some here--amazingly and jaw-dropping to me--are denying was really the case, as if this might be a case of a few bad apples in an otherwise pluralistic organization and publication.

Not so. I lived in Los Angeles in the 1970s, and I used to see copies of Spotlight, the mass-circulation newspaper. Apart from a few guest columnists recruited by the publication who may not personally have shared the actually fascist, anti-semitic core raison d'etre of Spotlight, there was no non-antisemitic component of Liberty Lobby and Spotlight. This was not like the John Birch Society where that would be accurate description (that is, non-antisemitic extreme conservatives as a part of the core mix of JBS which itself institutionally sought to suppress anti-semitism internal to its own; not so with Liberty Lobby).

Carto behind the whole thing of Liberty Lobby had actual connections and ideological lineage from the European far-right, neo-fascist political parties which exist in Britain and most nations in Europe.

This was not minor or collateral but core to what Carto and Liberty Lobby were about.

Any denials by Liberty Lobby that Liberty Lobby was anti-semitic are just wrong. This was a toxic organization, sucking in readers by populist-conspiracy type issues, every issue of Spotlight mixing those "outreach" articles with anti-Jewish and anti-black (yes, racist against blacks) articles, often in the form of mocking reporting on news stories.

I was at a party once in Los Angeles and met a prominent local hard-core libertarian who was on one of the boards of the IHS (Institute for Historical Studies, the holocaust-denial group of Carto and Liberty Lobby). He cheerfully described himself to me as "their token non-antisemite" on their board.

That is, everybody knew what Liberty Lobby was about. He knew. That's why he called himself, which he thought was humorous, their "token non-antisemite" invited on for appearances.

Nobody then reading Spotlight who had what a friend long ago liked to call "an IQ two points above plant life" could read that publication and not see that this was anti-Jewish and anti-black, racist and, with only a slight bit more discernment, an American outreach of old-fashioned post-WW2 European National Socialism.

I disagree with Michael Griffith on many things, and again I am not speaking to the issue of Prouty, but on Spotlight and Liberty Lobby and IHR, the pushback against Griffith on those organizations' descriptions as anti-semitic and toxic et al, is just astonishing. It is either ignorance or denial, but it is not truthful. On those points, Griffith is just plain right.  

Thank you for this, Greg. Yes, it is jaw dropping to see some people in this thread denying the ugly facts about Liberty Lobby and their newspaper The Spotlight and the IHR.

I would just again repeat the fact that Prouty

-- Appeared 10 times in a four-year period on Liberty Lobby's radio program (as the ADL noted)

-- Allowed the IHR to republish his book The Secret Team via its publishing arm Noontide Press, which also published numerous Holocaust-denying books 

-- Praised Carto and Marcellus and said he was "proud" and "privileged" to have the IHR republish his book

-- Lined up to be a character witness for Carto in his lawsuit with the IHR (IHR sued Carto for embezzlement and won)

-- Recommended that people read Liberty Lobby's newspaper The Spotlight (the newspaper itself proudly advertised this fact)

-- And when asked about Carto's denial of the Holocaust, would only say, "I'm no authority in that area." 

I've provided sources for every one of these points. 

It is especially disturbing to see a moderator chiming in and defending this garbage. Indeed, he just made the amazing statement that "I haven't seen anybody here denying that Liberty Lobby was anti-Semitic." Perhaps reading comprehension lessons are in order.

Edited April 15, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Berlet's article is also the source for the claim that Noontide republished Secret Team. Here's the thing: I cannot find any material evidence that such edition ever existed - it's not on Noontide's own list of publications, there's no image available of a cover, such an edition does not appear in lists of printing history, etc 

 

I don't know if Noontide republished Secret Team or not. But I couldn't find anything either. And it made me wonder why it is that Michael makes all of these anti-Prouty claims without doing a fact-check.

 

[Michael Griffith]

2 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I don't know if Noontide republished Secret Team or not. But I couldn't find anything either. And it made me wonder why it is that Michael makes all of these anti-Prouty claims without doing a fact-check.

 

Oh, sheesh. Go read the Wikipedia article on Prouty:

     Prouty also sold the reprint rights for The Secret Team to the Noontide Press, the publishing arm for the Institute for Historical Review, a holocaust denial organization.^[28][27]

Edited April 15, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Greg Doudna]

Sandy, point of order, what is this business of you claiming "I haven't seen anybody here denying that Liberty Lobby was anti-Semitic." Have you so short of memory that you yourself were saying that just that two days ago on this thread?

On 4/13/2023 at 8:17 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

Paul,

I dispute that Liberty Lobby was overtly an anti-Semitic organization. Its founder Willis Carto was. In the court cases Michael cited, the courts basically declared that Liberty Lobby could be treated as being anti-Semitic because it promoted a lot of Carto's publication that were indeed anti-Semitic.

I contend that most likely there were numerous members of Liberty Lobby who were far-right but not anti-Semitic. And that Liberty Lobby itself wasn't known to be anti-Semitic.

Had it been known that Liberty Lobby was anti-Semitic, then why is it that Liberty Lobby bothered with suing those news publishers that claimed Liberty Lobby was anti-Semitic?

Had it been known that Liberty Lobby was anti-Semitic, then why is it that investigations were conducted to find evidence indicating that it indeed was?

Had it been known that Liberty Lobby was anti-Semitic, then why is it they were invited to contribute to a Congressional report? ("The Role of Gold in the Domestic and International Monetary Systems" , search for Liberty Lobby.)

Had it been known that Liberty Lobby was anti-Semitic, then why is it that C-SPAN chose to broadcast a Liberty-Lobby hosted speech given by a former Mossad agent? ("Mossad Influence on U.S. Policy" .)

And on and on.

 

[Paul Brancato]

Greg and Michael - no one, no one, is denying who Carto, Liberty Lobby, Spotlight mag were or what they stood for. I think all of this does in fact stem from an Esquire hit piece on Stone’s JFK. It seems that we are supposed to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Chip Berlet, referenced by Michael, has written many interesting articles analyzing the far right incursion into the progressive left. It’s been going on for over 3 decades, and we can see the results in Trump’s victory. I have many friends who have become quite confused due to this infiltration. But none of them are anti-Semitic Holocaust denying fascists. There are many instances of progressive thinkers distancing themselves when they realized what was taken place. But there is another way of looking at this. The common cause that the far right uses is frustration with government and endless wars. Then they slip in their anti-Zionist message and it rings a bell. A lot of leftists, myself included, are anti- Zionist. Not anti-Semitic, not Holocaust deniers, just pissed off at Israel. I include many if not most of my Jewish friends in this camp, and I grew up with them and have lifelong friendships with the children of survivors. 
The far right has been far better organized and funded over these several decades, going back to the John Birch Society, than any Leftist organizations. But ideologically it’s we on the left who should be DP finding common cause with the anti- establishment right, while insisting that they have mis-defined their grand conspiracy. Overall, we should try to find common cause, as we are incidentally doing right now with Morley’s lawsuit and the lone Republican in Congress willing to put forth a challenge to Biden. The whole left right thing needs to be rethought. It’s a tool used by the ACTUAL power elite, who are not left or right, just Empire driven and wealth oriented. They made common cause with N… Germany in their thirst for power and money. 
i still recall how annoyed I was when I first heard the Larouche types talking about the New World Order. Why? Because it wasn’t in some feared future, it was already here and had been for a damn long time. 

[Jeff Carter]

6 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

I haven't even talked about Prouty's comical use of the fictional Iron Mountain Report. He didn't realize the report was a complete hoax. Prouty even claimed he spoke with a member of the Iron Mountain Special Study Group! That's amazing, since the group never existed! Liberty Lobby distributed thousands of copies of the Iron Mountain Report. I'm guessing that Prouty learned of the report from Liberty Lobby. 

This is again, as a slander directed against Prouty, completely incorrect. It derives here from the Epstein article, but was sourced elsewhere. The premise has been entirely refuted:

Epstein - “While Prouty quotes accurately from the Report from Iron Mountain, he fails to realize it was a complete hoax…a brilliant spoof by political satirist Leonard Lewin.”

Prouty:  “…a novel written by Leonard Lewin entitled "Report From Iron Mountain" and published by Dial Press in 1967…when my book "The Secret Team" was published in 1973 by Prentice-Hall my editor was an old friend of Leonard Lewin. During a conversation, some years later, my publisher asked me if I had read "Report From Iron Mountain"? When I said, "No", he said that he would send me a copy. I read the book and was amazed to discover how much of the language and "small talk" discussions attributed to people in Washington during Kennedy's time, sounded so real and periodically distinct…In a Book Review item in the March 19, 1972 New York TIMES Lewin himself wrote:  ‘Most reviewers, relatively uncontaminated by exposure to real-politik, were generous to what they saw as the author's intentions: to expose a kind of thinking in high places that was all too authentic, influential, and dangerous, and to stimulate more public discussion of some of the harder questions of war and peace…’ WWith his closing sentence, Lewin states "that the work is fictitious." He had written a remarkable novel… (Epstein’s source) attempts to have his readers believe that I had been taken in by this ‘Hoax’. To come to this academic conclusion he totally overlooks the facts of the case. I heard of Lewin from his old friend my Prentice-Hall editor during the Seventies. I corresponded and spoke with Lewin many times after that.”