Old Wine in New bottles: Fletcher Prouty's New Critics recycle the Past

[Gil Jesus]

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

Well, we've been through this a few months back where Michael relentlessly made a solid case that Prouty is anti semitc. His points were completely unopposed leaving the pro Prouty faction paralyzed, and unable to dispute any of Michael's facts, and  left to just hurl insults at Michael, impugning his character with shrieks of MCADAMS! which was very childish as it's obvious Michael isn't an LNer. And it's happening again. This isn't the way you win arguments.

 

At one point, I suggested that pro Prouty group should stop their hemorrhaging  and just concede, and say, "Ok he's not perfect, but his politics and apparent prejudices are another matter entirely. We believe him as a very credible witness." In my mind that would have been the end of the bulk of it. But the inability to counter any of Michael's charges and yet the denial was almost MAGA like.

 

The only substantive response to Michael was Jeff Carter, so it comes as no surprise Jeff would sink considerable time in defending Prouty and Jim would out his work here and start this  thread.

 

Jeff, I applaud that you've done considerable time on this. And you've covered of few of the oppositions points, but you have in now way refuted Prouty's right wing ties. I bet none of you guys will read Michael's links, which are really more specific and substantial.

 

Jeff was thorough in bringing up the oppositions points, but mostly, didn't really effectively counter them. Yes the fact that Prouty would criticize his government for having a "jew" in a very prominent position in the defense department obviously indicates a distrust to having Jews in  in high sensitive National Security positions. It is very disparaging when someone  has probably worked all of his life to have  risen to such a high position is then summarily judged for his ethnicity and questioned for his patriotism.

 

If you choose the complete denial route. I think the next most defensible position is that , despite all of his associations and his denial about knowing the first thing about his right wing associations, (which he's really good at, because you can witness how much he folded like an armchair and in essence betrayed us before Wray and company's questioning !)we can't know for sure what's going on in Prouty's mind.

But I'd say, just look for such patterns in behavior. By looking for such patterns, some of us were magically able to get it right and  were able to connect the dots on  recent figures that have come to prominence in Politics and Broadcast Journalism.

 

 

heh heh

[Paul Brancato]

Heh heh. Prouty directly addressed the Liberty Lobby issue, as quoted by Jeff Carter. 
meanwhile, Mervyn would like to be a cult leader. Maybe he could publish his works like James has. 
Jeff - isn’t there one unaddressed issue about Prouty regarding his sharing of what he saw from his lofty insider perch? I’m not dismissing his general views, just wondering what more he knew that he didn’t reveal. 

[Jeff Carter]

31 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Jeff was thorough in bringing up the oppositions points, but mostly, didn't really effectively counter them. Yes the fact that Prouty would criticize his government for having a "jew" in a very prominent position in the defense department obviously indicates a distrust to having Jews in  in high sensitive National Security positions. It is very disparaging when someone  has probably worked all of his life to have  risen to such a high position is then summarily judged for his ethnicity and questioned for his patriotism.

 

Kirk - you unfortunately fundamentally misunderstand the source and context of this particular complaint, and therefore your opinion as expressed is entirely misguided. Footnote #43 from my essay addresses the source quote and its immediate context - the controversial AWACS sale to Saudi Arabia early in the Reagan administration.

[Joe Bauer]

8 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Well, we've been through this a few months back where Michael relentlessly made a solid case that Prouty is anti semitc. His points were completely unopposed leaving the pro Prouty faction paralyzed, and unable to dispute any of Michael's facts, and  left to just hurl insults at Michael, impugning his character with shrieks of MCADAMS! which was very childish as it's obvious Michael isn't an LNer. And it's happening again. This isn't the way you win arguments.

 

At one point, I suggested that pro Prouty group should stop their hemorrhaging  and just concede, and say, "Ok he's not perfect, but his politics and apparent prejudices are another matter entirely. We believe him as a very credible witness." In my mind that would have been the end of the bulk of it. But the inability to counter any of Michael's charges and yet the denial was almost MAGA like.

 

The only substantive response to Michael was Jeff Carter, so it comes as no surprise Jeff would sink considerable time in defending Prouty and Jim would out his work here and start this  thread.

 

Jeff, I applaud that you've done considerable time on this. And you've covered of few of the oppositions points, but you have in now way refuted Prouty's right wing ties. I bet none of you guys will read Michael's links, which are really more specific and substantial.

 

Jeff was thorough in bringing up the oppositions points, but mostly, didn't really effectively counter them. Yes the fact that Prouty would criticize his government for having a "jew" in a very prominent position in the defense department obviously indicates a distrust to having Jews in  in high sensitive National Security positions. It is very disparaging when someone  has probably worked all of his life to have  risen to such a high position is then summarily judged for his ethnicity and questioned for his patriotism.

 

If you choose the complete denial route. I think the next most defensible position is that , despite all of his associations and his denial about knowing the first thing about his right wing associations, (which he's really good at, because you can witness how much he folded like an armchair and in essence betrayed us before Wray and company's questioning !)we can't know for sure what's going on in Prouty's mind.

But I'd say, just look for such patterns in behavior. By looking for such patterns, some of us were magically able to get it right and  were able to connect the dots on  recent figures that have come to prominence in Politics and Broadcast Journalism.

 

 

heh heh

So, are you saying Prouty was quite possibly or even probably anti-Semitic?

Yet, in your opinion this doesn't totally discredit him and his proclamations of JFKA guilty parties?

Isn't it true that thousands of American men in highest levels of wealth, power, position and influence going generations back 100 years were anti-Semitic?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jeff Carter]

16 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Heh heh. Prouty directly addressed the Liberty Lobby issue, as quoted by Jeff Carter. 
meanwhile, Mervyn would like to be a cult leader. Maybe he could publish his works like James has. 
Jeff - isn’t there one unaddressed issue about Prouty regarding his sharing of what he saw from his lofty insider perch? I’m not dismissing his general views, just wondering what more he knew that he didn’t reveal. 

All I know is what Len Osanic shared with me, and what Prouty said to the ARRB:

He respected the limits of his signed confidentiality agreements.

[Mervyn Hagger]

57 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Heh heh. Prouty directly addressed the Liberty Lobby issue, as quoted by Jeff Carter. 
meanwhile, Mervyn would like to be a cult leader. Maybe he could publish his works like James has. 
Jeff - isn’t there one unaddressed issue about Prouty regarding his sharing of what he saw from his lofty insider perch? I’m not dismissing his general views, just wondering what more he knew that he didn’t reveal. 

Paul, you are getting very desperate. If you took time to read anything I have previously published you would know that I don't 'join' organizations and I don't create them. The fact of the matter is that your own convoluted world of conspiracy theories is so tied up in knots that it is now coming back to strangle its creator. David Von Pein is an Establishment man. You belong to the wooly-bully of nonsense that requires a new conspiracy to explain holes in your previous conspiracy. The laugh is on you.

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Well, we've been through this a few months back where Michael relentlessly made a solid case that Prouty is anti semitc. His points were completely unopposed leaving the pro Prouty faction paralyzed...

Huh, Kirk?  What have you been smoking?

Go back and study our lengthy EF thread entitled, Why Col. L. Fletcher Prouty's Critics Are Wrong.

We completely debunked Michael Griffith's deflective McAdams propaganda tropes on that thread.

I posted references to Prouty's own comments on the subject, Oliver Stone's Esquire interview, and Prouty's published letter to the Washington Post that Griffith had misconstrued as "anti-Semitic."

Edited September 1, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Sandy Larsen]

On 8/31/2023 at 5:51 AM, Michael Griffith said:

These indisputable facts alone should convince any rational person that we must repudiate Prouty.

 

Michael,

Please quote here some of Prouty's anti-Semitic rhetoric. You know.... so that we know that he really was anti-Semitic and not just paid by anti-Semitic folks to speak at their functions.

 

[W. Niederhut]

10 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Michael,

Please quote here some of Prouty's anti-Semitic rhetoric. You know.... so that we know that he really was anti-Semitic and not just paid by anti-Semitic folks to speak at their functions.

 

Yes, the same Liberty Lobby folks who paid Mark Lane to represent them in that E. Howard Hunt case.

Do Michael Griffith and Kirk also believe that Mark Lane was an anti-Semite?

[Sandy Larsen]

9 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Prouty wrote a warm, positive letter to the editor of the IHR's Holocaust-denying journal in which he spoke approvingly of the journal's primary goals.

 

What did Prouty say in that letter that is anti-Semitic?

 

9 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Prouty spoke at an IHR conference that focused on denying the Holocaust.

 

What did Prouty say in that speech that is anti-Semitic?

 

9 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Prouty spoke at a convention of the far-right anti-Semitic Liberty Lobby.

 

What did Prouty say in that speech that is anti-Semitic?

 

9 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Prouty had one of his books published by the IHR and praised Carto and Marcellus for their "vision" and "courage" in being willing to publish his book. This is a matter of record.

 

What did Prouty write in his book that is anti-Semitic?

 

9 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Prouty expressed, in writing, his concern about Jewish sergeants manning military targeting systems. We have the letter. I have posted a link to it.

 

I have already addressed this on another thread. The meaning of "Jewish Sargent" is unclear. Anybody can interpret it as being anti-Semitic if they so choose. Likewise, anybody can interpret it is not being anti-Semitic if they so choose.

 

9 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Prouty's bizarre, sleazy defense of L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology is a matter of record, including his bogus, erroneous interpretation of Hubbard's military records.

 

Can you prove that Prouty was wrong about L. Ron Hubbard's military records?

 

9 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Prouty's royal back-peddling on key claims he'd been making for years when he was interviewed by the ARRB is a matter of record.

 

This is covered by Jeff's paper.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

Regarding Prouty's "Jewish Sargent" Reference

I think I finally get what Jeff has been trying to say about this.

First, regarding the personal letter in which Prouty wrote "Jewish Sargent," Jeff points out that the the context of the letter was the AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System) that the Reagan Administration was selling to Saudi Arabia.

Prouty explains in the letter how an AWACS works. In a  war or conflict, all the 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 in California] could put all U.S. fighter planes [owned by Saudi Arabia] out of action against hitting a one of them [their targets].

Prouty was worried about the main computer in California being bombed. Or if it was manned by some "Jewish Sargent" who might sabotage the operation in a conflict with Israel. This is clearly what Prouty was talking about.

Fletcher Prouty's one and only suspected anti-Semetic Semitic slur is thereby proven not to be anti-Semitic.

Therefore, there is not one single known incident of Fletcher Prouty saying anything anti-Semitic

Associations with racists do not make people racists.

Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to believe that Fletcher Prouty was anti-Semitic.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

7 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Well, we've been through this a few months back where Michael relentlessly made a solid case that Prouty is anti semitc. His points were completely unopposed leaving the pro Prouty faction paralyzed, and unable to dispute any of Michael's facts....

 

Solid case that Prouty was anti-Semitic?

I don't think so Kirk.

Do you think that hanging out with racists makes a person a racist?

 

[Paul Brancato]

On 9/1/2023 at 12:24 PM, Mervyn Hagger said:

Paul, you are getting very desperate. If you took time to read anything I have previously published you would know that I don't 'join' organizations and I don't create them. The fact of the matter is that your own convoluted world of conspiracy theories is so tied up in knots that it is now coming back to strangle its creator. David Von Pein is an Establishment man. You belong to the wooly-bully of nonsense that requires a new conspiracy to explain holes in your previous conspiracy. The laugh is on you.

You talking to me? I’m one of the few here who have read what you’ve written and interacted with you, not just this sojourn here but past ones too. Of course your pov has morphed. But whatever it is at the moment, with you it’s always the right one. You don’t play well with others.

Edited September 2, 2023 by Paul Brancato

[Kirk Gallaway]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Suppose the guy running it is a Jewish Sgt.

Uh huh, why mention "Jewish" at all?

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Or if it was manned by some "Jewish Sargent" who might sabotage the operation in a conflict with Israel. This is clearly what Prouty was talking about

Exactly, implying that as a Jew, he's a high risk of being a traitor, but certainly throughout our lives and the entire 20th century there were Jews in the highest levels of government. A few have run for President.

Sandy I remember in the previous incarnation of this thread, you thought anti semitism was some prejudice of Jewish "incompetence." It's the complete opposite. It's Prouty's expressed fear that a very competent foe is in a very sensitive National Security position. Believe me anyone in such a position would have been checked out 6 ways to Sunday!

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Regarding Prouty's "Jewish Sargent" Reference

I think I finally get what Jeff has been trying to say about this.

I still am not. Jeff , as I say I applaud your effort, and on the whole I enjoyed reading it. I went to your footnote when I first read it. And it opened to a 35 page document I don't have time to read.

It's very unclear. Certainly there was no specific dialog there attributed to Prouty. What point are you making? Can you give me  a specific page you want to direct me to? Are you making Sandy's point?

As I've already said, you can just say.

"Ok he's not perfect, but his politics and apparent prejudices are another matter entirely. We believe him as a very credible witness."