Jump to content

Lyman L Lemnitzer.


Guest Stephen Turner
 Share

Recommended Posts

Most right-wingers are strongly anti-Communist, wouldn't you say?

Yes and?

"As you point out, many right-wing groups were (and still are) strongly anti-Semitic, hence most unlikely to be pro-Israel. However, what about right-wingers who are Jewish?"

1 – We're talking about the late 50's early 60's rightwing Jews of any stripe were few and far between back then.

Do you seriously believe such a dopey statement or are you just kidding me?

2 – There is a difference between "extreme right" and "right" you did notseem to have understood my last post reread it.

"Most of Israel's strongest American based supporters were anti-Communist both then and now."

Logical fallacy a)"Most right-wingers are strongly anti-Communist" :ph34r: "Most of Israel's strongest American based supporters were anti-Communist", therefore many (most) supporters of Israel are right wingers, um no because one can be anti-Communist and not be a right winger. John Simkin and Peter Lemkin have gone on record here as being anti-Communist (or at least anti-Soviet) most American (and I believe European and Australian) progressives of that period were anti-Communist.

Most of the early Neocons were Trotskyites or leftists back then and most Jewish Zionists still are leftist or liberals and were overwhelmingly so in the period we're talking about.

"The posted reference to Lemnitzer being pro-Israel is something I have read before. I believe it's probably true."

I've read that 1) the Holocaust never happened,2) man never walked on the Moon and 3) Earth and the Universe were created by "intelligent design" before and many people believe these ideas are "probably true". Provide evidence that your belief is true. Even if true which extreme right pro-Israel groups did he associate with to the exclusion of extreme-right anti-Semitic groups?

This rant proves nothing except that you'll go to great lengths to defend Israel from any implication in JFK's assassination.

"As I said before, right-wing and pro-Israel are not mutually exclusive."

Straw man fallacy

Really? So you're now on record as stating that being right-wing and pro-Israel ARE mutually exclusive. That's a big call. Ridiculous, but a big call anyway.

"And yes, I can cite an extreme right group from that period which was pro-Israel. The Lansky crime syndicate. Not exactly bleeding heart left-wingers, were they? "

Another logical fallacy (your 3rd or 4th)"extreme-right" is not the only alternative to "bleeding heart left-wingers". Can you provide any evidence that Lansky was political one way or the other let alone rightwing let alone "extreme-right"? I've never heard anything along those lines. I would imagine that he was basically apolitical and if he took interest in politics at all it was only to further his "enterprises" i.e. he would be more interested a how amenable candidate was to doing what he wanted than his politics. Even if he was political was his gang as a group political. Have any evidence he was especially pro-Israel in this period?

You might be confusing Lansky with Bugsy Siegel who helped raise money for and smuggle arms to the Jews in Palestine after WW2 40's. But I have never heard he was political one way or the other either and since he was killed in 1947 it is highly unlikely he was involved with extreme right groups in the early 60's.

Seigel's successor Mickey Cohen was heavily involved in supporting Israel well beyond this period. His regular Hollywood companion was Menachem Begin.

Unless you can cite any evidence in support of your position this is my last post on this question, our discussion is becoming circular.

Nice closer. In the final analysis, your argument that the terms 'right wing' and 'pro-Israel' are mutually exclusive is as false now as it was when you first posted it.

A few months ago you asserted that Meyer Lansky was an insignificant underworld figure, a claim you quickly backed away from.

I give you points for consistency.

I seem to have gotten the colors mixed up in my last two replies. Apologies for the posts confusing appearance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 43
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

In April 1961 Gen Edwin walker was fired from his post by President Kennedy. He was accused of encouraging far right wing elements within his command, and distributing JBS/KKK propaganda to the troops, he was, at this time, a member of both the JBS, and the KKK. Senators including Albert Gore ® suspected that Chief of staff Lemnitzer was was also involved with Walkers extremist right wing beliefs.

Nat, is this what you mean?

Stephen, I was familiar with the Walker stuff. What I had heard much less about was Ford and Lyman in 1975. It seems an interesting appointment made by a member of the Warren Commission at a time when there may have been some worry that legislative oversight of the CIA might finally prove to be something other than an oxymoron. Any signs that this appointment was related to the assassination?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner

In 1975, President Ford appoints Lemnitzer to the Rockerfeller Committee, which looked specifically into persistant allegations that E Howard Hunt, and Frank Sturgis were CIA agents, and were present in Dallas at the time of the assassination. So Ford (W/C) gets Lemnitzer (Northwoods) to whitewash Sturgis (Cuban exile, terrorist) nice touch!!

Lemnitzer also served on the influential Committee on the present danger, along with other luminaries, Major General J Singlaub (Coca Contra) US Ambassador Clare Booth Luce, and ultra hawk Paul H Nitze.

Nathaniel, I posted this earlier in the thread. just think, if Lemnitzer was responsible for some of the planning stage, who better than he to give a coat of whitewash to two possible Dealy operatives

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 – We're talking about the late 50's early 60's rightwing Jews of any stripe were few and far between back then.

Do you seriously believe such a dopey statement or are you just kidding me?

OK prove me wrong, I didn't say rightwing Jews didn't exist just that weren't very many. If I'm wrong you should be able to cite an extensive list of rightwing Jews in the US and the names of rightwing Jewish organizations from that period.

(Mark) "The posted reference to Lemnitzer being pro-Israel is something I have read before. I believe it's probably true."

(me) I've read that 1) the Holocaust never happened,2) man never walked on the Moon and 3) Earth and the Universe were created by "intelligent design" before and many people believe these ideas are "probably true". Provide evidence that your belief is true. Even if true which extreme right pro-Israel groups did he associate with to the exclusion of extreme-right anti-Semitic groups?

(Mark) This rant proves nothing except that you'll go to great lengths to defend Israel from any implication in JFK's assassination.

No, I was pointing out a logical fallacy, one could say they have a) read something before and B) believe to be true about just about anything thus it proves nothing. Even IF Lemnitzer was pro-Israel that wouldn't implicate Israel. I assume he supported the government of Australia too.

(Mark) "As I said before, right-wing and pro-Israel are not mutually exclusive."

(me) Straw man fallacy

(Mark) "Really? So you're now on record as stating that being right-wing and pro-Israel ARE mutually exclusive. That's a big call. Ridiculous, but a big call anyway."

No, look up the meaning of, 'straw man argument' (or fallacy), a straw man argument is when you refute an argument not made by the person you are debating with. I never said that "being right-wing and pro-Israel ARE mutually exclusive"

(me) You might be confusing Lansky with Bugsy Siegel who helped raise money for and smuggle arms to the Jews in Palestine after WW2 40's. But I have never heard he was political one way or the other either and since he was killed in 1947 it is highly unlikely he was involved with extreme right groups in the early 60's.

(Mark) "Seigel's successor Mickey Cohen was heavily involved in supporting Israel well beyond this period. His regular Hollywood companion was Menachem Begin."

Cohen and Begin were both violent men with similar ethnic backgrounds; can you show that they associated because of shared politics or any indication that Cohen and his gang would otherwise be considered "extreme right" in the US? This quote from your previous post seems to indicate Cohen didn't know or care much about the differences between Israeli political factions.

"Anyway, he (Begin) makes a speech and after him just about everybody made a speech. It just goes on and on. Afterwards, these other guys from the Haganah, another underground outfit, start arguing with Begin about who's going to handle the money. So Mickey chips in and its agreed that his rabbi will handle the money and Mickey will buy guns and ammo and ship them over there"."

In any case equating a racketeering outfit with a political organization is a bit of a stretch. Did Lemnitzer hang out with Mickey Cohen?

Len

In April 1961 Gen Edwin walker was fired from his post by President Kennedy. He was accused of encouraging far right wing elements within his command, and distributing JBS/KKK propaganda to the troops, he was, at this time, a member of both the JBS, and the KKK. Senators including Albert Gore ® suspected that Chief of staff Lemnitzer was was also involved with Walkers extremist right wing beliefs.

Nat, is this what you mean?

Stephen, I was familiar with the Walker stuff. What I had heard much less about was Ford and Lyman in 1975. It seems an interesting appointment made by a member of the Warren Commission at a time when there may have been some worry that legislative oversight of the CIA might finally prove to be something other than an oxymoron. Any signs that this appointment was related to the assassination?

The bit about Lemnitzer being on the Rockefeller Commission is interesting, it goes beyond conflict of interest and makes one think of line about the fox and the hen house but Ford probably didn’t know about O. Northwoods. Didn’t they reveal MLK/Ultra?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to his biography 'Little Man', Lansky was very active raising money for Israel.
Thanks for that Norman. I guess I was wrong about that. What I really meant to say was that Lansky only started supporting Israeli later in life. If you still have the book handy or have a good memory I have few questions:

When did he start raising money for Israel? Was this an individual effort or did he involve his gang?

Was he particularly political? If so what were his leanings? Did involve his gang in his political activism?

Did Lemnitzer have any dealings with Lansky or his gang?

A. The book is at home, so I can't reference it accurately at the moment.

B. The book is a 'friendly' bio, so everything has to be taken with a grain of salt.

C. I seem to recall the Meyer's activism began while Benny Siegal was still alive.

D. Meyer's only political affiliation that I am aware of was to money. Politicians were something you buy.

E. The book really mentions very little about Meyer's Jewish associates, focusing mostly on the Italian business partners.

F. I don't recall the name Lemnitzer coming up at all.

G. I suspect that most of the 'little man's' secrets and business dealings will never be known. Growing up in Czarist Russia left its scars in the man.

H. The new book 'SuperMob' raises a lot of interesting questions about Lansky and various Chicago based Jewish business partners.

To make a long story short is there any truth to Mark’s contention that Lansky’s gang was an extreme right pro-Israel organization in the late 50’s early 60’s?

Not that I am aware of. At that point in history, I would suspect that more support for Israel came from the left than the right, given the embedded anti-semitism of the traditional right. The right only started supporting Israel after it became of military value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 – We're talking about the late 50's early 60's rightwing Jews of any stripe were few and far between back then.

Do you seriously believe such a dopey statement or are you just kidding me?

OK prove me wrong, I didn't say rightwing Jews didn't exist just that weren't very many. If I'm wrong you should be able to cite an extensive list of rightwing Jews in the US and the names of rightwing Jewish organizations from that period.

From Wikipedia: "In politics, right wing, the political right or simply the right, are terms that refer to the segment of the political spectrum often associated with any of several strains of conservatism, the religious right, libertarianism, fascism or simply the opposite of left-wing politics".

Using this definition, most of America's population would have been classified as right-wing, because left-wing, socialist and communist were odious epithets in the 50's and 60's.

That's why I believe your claim that right wing Jews of any stripe were few and far between back then is dopey. Your request that I provide a list of right wing Jews is equally silly.

(Mark) "The posted reference to Lemnitzer being pro-Israel is something I have read before. I believe it's probably true."

(me) I've read that 1) the Holocaust never happened,2) man never walked on the Moon and 3) Earth and the Universe were created by "intelligent design" before and many people believe these ideas are "probably true". Provide evidence that your belief is true. Even if true which extreme right pro-Israel groups did he associate with to the exclusion of extreme-right anti-Semitic groups?

(Mark) This rant proves nothing except that you'll go to great lengths to defend Israel from any implication in JFK's assassination.

No, I was pointing out a logical fallacy, one could say they have a) read something before and B) believe to be true about just about anything thus it proves nothing. Even IF Lemnitzer was pro-Israel that wouldn't implicate Israel. I assume he supported the government of Australia too.

Agree. If Lemnitzer was staunchly pro-Israel, it doesn't necessarily implicate Israel in the assassination. However, if he was, it would be worth noting for the record. That's all I'm saying.

(Mark) "As I said before, right-wing and pro-Israel are not mutually exclusive."

(me) Straw man fallacy

(Mark) "Really? So you're now on record as stating that being right-wing and pro-Israel ARE mutually exclusive. That's a big call. Ridiculous, but a big call anyway."

No, look up the meaning of, 'straw man argument' (or fallacy), a straw man argument is when you refute an argument not made by the person you are debating with. I never said that "being right-wing and pro-Israel ARE mutually exclusive"

Fine. I'm glad we agree that right wing and pro-Israel are not mutually exclusive.

(me) You might be confusing Lansky with Bugsy Siegel who helped raise money for and smuggle arms to the Jews in Palestine after WW2 40's. But I have never heard he was political one way or the other either and since he was killed in 1947 it is highly unlikely he was involved with extreme right groups in the early 60's.

(Mark) "Seigel's successor Mickey Cohen was heavily involved in supporting Israel well beyond this period. His regular Hollywood companion was Menachem Begin."

Cohen and Begin were both violent men with similar ethnic backgrounds; can you show that they associated because of shared politics or any indication that Cohen and his gang would otherwise be considered "extreme right" in the US? This quote from your previous post seems to indicate Cohen didn't know or care much about the differences between Israeli political factions.

"Anyway, he (Begin) makes a speech and after him just about everybody made a speech. It just goes on and on. Afterwards, these other guys from the Haganah, another underground outfit, start arguing with Begin about who's going to handle the money. So Mickey chips in and its agreed that his rabbi will handle the money and Mickey will buy guns and ammo and ship them over there"."

In any case equating a racketeering outfit with a political organization is a bit of a stretch. Did Lemnitzer hang out with Mickey Cohen?

Why is it 'a bit of a stretch'? This was a perfect example of politics and racketeering acting in concert. Raising funds for Israel was a perfectly legitimate cause for the Jewish underworld to embark on, IMO. I think it was a worthwhile patriotic cause. Remember, this was well before America became Israel's financial and military underwriter.

I don't know whether Lem hung out with Cohen. Future Israeli PM Menachem Begin did--and he was a suspected terrorist at the time.

Until recently you were denying the existence of the Kosher Nostra. At least we're making progress.

Len

In April 1961 Gen Edwin walker was fired from his post by President Kennedy. He was accused of encouraging far right wing elements within his command, and distributing JBS/KKK propaganda to the troops, he was, at this time, a member of both the JBS, and the KKK. Senators including Albert Gore ® suspected that Chief of staff Lemnitzer was was also involved with Walkers extremist right wing beliefs.

Nat, is this what you mean?

Stephen, I was familiar with the Walker stuff. What I had heard much less about was Ford and Lyman in 1975. It seems an interesting appointment made by a member of the Warren Commission at a time when there may have been some worry that legislative oversight of the CIA might finally prove to be something other than an oxymoron. Any signs that this appointment was related to the assassination?

The bit about Lemnitzer being on the Rockefeller Commission is interesting, it goes beyond conflict of interest and makes one think of line about the fox and the hen house but Ford probably didn’t know about O. Northwoods. Didn’t they reveal MLK/Ultra?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Wikipedia: "In politics, right wing, the political right or simply the right, are terms that refer to the segment of the political spectrum often associated with any of several strains of conservatism, the religious right, libertarianism, fascism or simply the opposite of left-wing politics".

Using this definition, most of America's population would have been classified as right-wing, because left-wing, socialist and communist were odious epithets in the 50's and 60's.

That's why I believe your claim that right wing Jews of any stripe were few and far between back then is dopey. Your request that I provide a list of right wing Jews is equally silly.

You're quoting Wikipedia, are you serious? Couldn't you find a definition from a more definitive source? Or did you look at several and cherry pick the one that best suited your argument? You even cherry picked (not coincidentally I would suggest) the last part of their definition. Definitions of the phrase in the order I found them:

American Heritage Dictionary

1. The conservative or reactionary faction of a group.

See

Right noun - 3. often
Right

1.The people and groups who advocate the adoption of conservative or reactionary measures, especially in government and politics. Also called
right wing
.

The opinion of those advocating such measures.

Webster's Dictionary

Function:
noun

1
:
the rightist division of a group or party

2
:
8

8 a
often capitalized
:
individuals professing support of the established order and favoring traditional attitudes and practices and conservative governmental policies
b
often capitalized
:
a conservative position

Compact Oxford English Dictionary

right wing

noun
1
the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system. see
.
2
the right side of a sports team on the field or of an army.

— DERIVATIVES
right-winger
noun.

7
(often
the Right
) treated as sing. or pl. a group or political party favouring conservative views.

So right wing is a relative expression and the standards of the US in the 50s and 60s Jews were overwhelmingly not right-wing.

Even if we would accept the definition of your favored source you are pinning your hopes and the last part of the definition "the opposite of left-wing politics". And how does Wikipedia define "left-wing politics"? Read it yourself.

"In
,
left-wing
,
the political left
or simply
the left
are terms that refer to the segment of the
typically associated with any of several strains of, to varying extents,
,
,
,
,
,
or
, and defined in contradistinction to its polar opposite, the
."

Did you simply not bother to click the link to check how Wikipedia defined "left-wing politics" or did you see it and conveniently ignore it?

The evidence suggests the vast majority of American Jews supported "American Liberalism" traditionally 90 of them voted for the Democratic party though (unfortunately) those numbers have dropped to 60 -75%

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/history_co...Republicans.htm

In the 1960's Nathan Glazer, a (liberal Jewish) sociologist, wrote "Jews are the most liberal group in the country,"

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/jewishstudies/FalkBooklet.pdf pg. 10

In 2000 a Historian who teaches at San Francisco State University concluded in a book publish by Princeton University.

"For over sixty years, Jews have ranked as the most liberal white ethnic group in American politics, figuring prominently in social reform campaigns ranging from the New Deal to the civil rights movement. Today many continue to defy stereotypes that link voting patterns to wealth."

http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/6952.html

My request is not silly, if my assertion is so obviously wrong you should easily be able to come up with contrary evidence rather than simply assert it is self evident.

In any case equating a racketeering outfit with a political organization is a bit of a stretch. Did Lemnitzer hang out with Mickey Cohen?

Why is it 'a bit of a stretch'? This was a perfect example of politics and racketeering acting in concert. Raising funds for Israel was a perfectly legitimate cause for the Jewish underworld to embark on, IMO. I think it was a worthwhile patriotic cause. Remember, this was well before America became Israel's financial and military underwriter.

I don't know whether Lem hung out with Cohen. Future Israeli PM Menachem Begin did--and he was a suspected terrorist at the time.

You have yet to turn up evidence that Cohen, let alone his gang as a group were right-wing let alone extreme right.

It's "a bit of a stretch" because as Norman pointed out (specifically in the case of Lansky) mobsters generally are not political their only interest in politics and politicians is how it and they can further their criminal enterprises.

I doubt the author of that line about Lemnitzer had criminal organizations in mind.

Mark so far you have utterly failed to turn up any evidence of pro-Israel extreme right groups in the US in the late 50's early 60's, let alone ones that Lemnitzer associated with.

"Until recently you were denying the existence of the Kosher Nostra."

Straw man

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Wikipedia: "In politics, right wing, the political right or simply the right, are terms that refer to the segment of the political spectrum often associated with any of several strains of conservatism, the religious right, libertarianism, fascism or simply the opposite of left-wing politics".

Using this definition, most of America's population would have been classified as right-wing, because left-wing, socialist and communist were odious epithets in the 50's and 60's.

That's why I believe your claim that right wing Jews of any stripe were few and far between back then is dopey. Your request that I provide a list of right wing Jews is equally silly.

You're quoting Wikipedia, are you serious? Couldn't you find a definition from a more definitive source? Or did you look at several and cherry pick the one that best suited your argument? You even cherry picked (not coincidentally I would suggest) the last part of their definition. Definitions of the phrase in the order I found them:

American Heritage Dictionary

1. The conservative or reactionary faction of a group.

See

Right noun - 3. often
Right

1.The people and groups who advocate the adoption of conservative or reactionary measures, especially in government and politics. Also called
right wing
.

The opinion of those advocating such measures.

Webster's Dictionary

Function:
noun

1
:
the rightist division of a group or party

2
:
8

8 a
often capitalized
:
individuals professing support of the established order and favoring traditional attitudes and practices and conservative governmental policies
b
often capitalized
:
a conservative position

Compact Oxford English Dictionary

right wing

noun
1
the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system. see
.
2
the right side of a sports team on the field or of an army.

— DERIVATIVES
right-winger
noun.

7
(often
the Right
) treated as sing. or pl. a group or political party favouring conservative views.

So right wing is a relative expression and the standards of the US in the 50s and 60s Jews were overwhelmingly not right-wing.

Even if we would accept the definition of your favored source you are pinning your hopes and the last part of the definition "the opposite of left-wing politics". And how does Wikipedia define "left-wing politics"? Read it yourself.

"In
,
left-wing
,
the political left
or simply
the left
are terms that refer to the segment of the
typically associated with any of several strains of, to varying extents,
,
,
,
,
,
or
, and defined in contradistinction to its polar opposite, the
."

Did you simply not bother to click the link to check how Wikipedia defined "left-wing politics" or did you see it and conveniently ignore it?

No, I didn't want to get the thread too sidetracked with tedious definitions of left and right wing politics.

Conservative is normally associated with right wing. Now prove that conservative Jews were few and far between in the 50's and 60's. You said it. You prove it.

The evidence suggests the vast majority of American Jews supported "American Liberalism" traditionally 90 of them voted for the Democratic party though (unfortunately) those numbers have dropped to 60 -75%

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/history_co...Republicans.htm

In the 1960's Nathan Glazer, a (liberal Jewish) sociologist, wrote "Jews are the most liberal group in the country,"

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/jewishstudies/FalkBooklet.pdf pg. 10

In 2000 a Historian who teaches at San Francisco State University concluded in a book publish by Princeton University.

"For over sixty years, Jews have ranked as the most liberal white ethnic group in American politics, figuring prominently in social reform campaigns ranging from the New Deal to the civil rights movement. Today many continue to defy stereotypes that link voting patterns to wealth."

http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/6952.html

My request is not silly, if my assertion is so obviously wrong you should easily be able to come up with contrary evidence rather than simply assert it is self evident.

Yes, many Jews have been active social reformers and many traditionally vote Democrat. But that's not what you said, was it? You said "rightwing Jews of any stripe were few and far between then". Prove it. Good luck.

In any case equating a racketeering outfit with a political organization is a bit of a stretch. Did Lemnitzer hang out with Mickey Cohen?

Why is it 'a bit of a stretch'? This was a perfect example of politics and racketeering acting in concert. Raising funds for Israel was a perfectly legitimate cause for the Jewish underworld to embark on, IMO. I think it was a worthwhile patriotic cause. Remember, this was well before America became Israel's financial and military underwriter.

I don't know whether Lem hung out with Cohen. Future Israeli PM Menachem Begin did--and he was a suspected terrorist at the time.

You have yet to turn up evidence that Cohen, let alone his gang as a group were right-wing let alone extreme right.

It's "a bit of a stretch" because as Norman pointed out (specifically in the case of Lansky) mobsters generally are not political their only interest in politics and politicians is how it and they can further their criminal enterprises.

Thanks for pointing out the bleeding obvious. Of course the main reason criminals infiltrate political parties is to further their criminal enterprises. Luciano and Lansky used their influence to help FDR win the Democratic nomination in '32, for example.

This example alone shows the folly of your statement "equating a racketeering outfit with a political organisation is a bit of a stretch". Racketeers have dabbled in politics ever since Prohibition made them rich enough to do it.

If you think equating racketeers with political parties is a bit of a stretch, you are more naive than I thought.

I doubt the author of that line about Lemnitzer had criminal organizations in mind.

Mark so far you have utterly failed to turn up any evidence of pro-Israel extreme right groups in the US in the late 50's early 60's, let alone ones that Lemnitzer associated with.

I don't have to because that's not what I said, was it? You've failed to show that right wing groups cannot be pro-Israel. That's the debate. You've totally failed to prove your highly questionable hypothesis.

"Until recently you were denying the existence of the Kosher Nostra."

Straw man

You can call it a straw man but it's still an accurate statement, isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conservative is normally associated with right wing. Now prove that conservative Jews were few and far between in the 50's and 60's. You said it. You prove it.

[…]

Yes, many Jews have been active social reformers and many traditionally vote Democrat. But that's not what you said, was it? You said "rightwing Jews of any stripe were few and far between then". Prove it. Good luck.

Politics in the US is of course dominated by 2 parties the Democrats who are considered the liberal party and the Republicans the conservative party. I already cite a source indicating that traditionally 90% of American Jews from the period in question voted for the Democrats. [

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/history_co...Republicans.htm ]

In that same period less than half of Americans traditionally voted for the Democrats. I guess it depends on how you define "few and far between" but to me 1 in 10 qualifies. By American standards a person who consistently voted for Republican candidates would be considered conservative or rightwing, one who alternated their vote a centrist and one who consistently voted for the Democrats or leftist candidates liberal/left. The exception would be conservative white southerners who reflexively voted for the Democrats because the Republicans were the "party of Lincoln" and till about 1924 the more progressive / less regressive party on racial issues. Southerners who from 1924 till about 1964 voted for Democratic presidential candidates can be divided into 2 groups, 1) white conservatives who voted for them out of habit and 2) white liberals and African Americans who supported their politics. There were relatively few Jews in the south and presumably most of them belong to the 2nd group

We can look at how Jews compared to Americans in general voted in presidential elections. A more legible version of the table below can be downloaded by clicking the following link .

Popular vote in US presidential elections 1924 - 76 Jews -Gen. Pop.

1924

-Coolidge ®-27-54

-Davis (D)-51-29

-La Folette (Progressive)-22-16

1928

-Hoover ®-28-58

-Smith (D)-72-41

1932

-Hoover ®-18-40

-Roosevelt (D)-82-57

1936

-Landon ®-15-36

-Roosevelt (D)-85-61

1940

-Wilkie ®-10-44

-Roosevelt (D)-90-55

1944

-Dewey ®-10-46

-Roosevelt (D)-90-53

1948

-Dewey ®-10-45

-Truman (D)-75-50

-Wallace (Progressive)-15-3(?)

1952

-Eisenhower ®-36-55

-Stevenson (D)-64-44

1956

-Eisenhower ®-40-57

-Stevenson (D)-60-42

1960

-Nixon ®-18-49.5

-Kennedy (D)-82-49.7

1964

-Goldwater ®-10-38

-Johnson (D)-90-61

1968

-Nixon ®-17-43.4

-Humphrey (D)-81-42.7

-Wallace (I)-2-13.5

1972

-Nixon ®-35-60.2

-McGovern (D)-65-37.3

1976

-Ford ®-27-48

-Carter (D)-71-50

-McCarthy (I)-2-2

Data for Jewish vote from http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/jewvote.html

Data for popular vote from "United States History: Search For Freedom" and http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/compare.php?type=national&year=1924&f=1&off=0&elect=0

In this period 10% of Jews consistently voted for the Republican candidate or a candidate to his right (G. Wallace '68), 60% consistently voted for the Democrat or a candidate to his left (La Folette '24, H. Wallace '48, McCarthy '76) ', 30 % alternated their votes. Thus based on their presidential votes by American standards 10% of Jews were rightwing, 30 centrist and 60% liberal. If we look at the period 1932 – 1968 we can see that only one Republican candidate, Ike, got more than 18% of the vote getting 36 and 40 % in '52 and '56. I imagine most of this shift was due to his status as a national hero as the "liberator of Europe" which would have been especially compelling to Jews a mere 7 and 11 years after the horrors of the Holocaust were revealed. Thus we could say of that period 60% voted consistently for liberal/leftist candidates, 22% only voted Republican when Ike was the candidate, 8% alternated between liberal and conservative candidates in other elections, 10 consistently voted for the Republican candidate. By this standard 82% were left/liberal, 8% centrists and 10% conservative. If we compare this to the general population from the same period (1932 -68) 38% consistently voted Republican, 42 voted Democrat and 20 varied their vote, it should be noted that a significant portion of the Democrats popular vote 1924 – 1960 were conservative white southerners.

(me) Did you simply not bother to click the link to check how Wikipedia defined "left-wing politics" or did you see it and conveniently ignore it?

(Mark) No, I didn't want to get the thread too sidetracked with tedious definitions of left and right wing politics.

So instead you used a definition which better suited your argument and ignored the definition used by your souce. That's turning logic on its head

"If you think equating racketeers with political parties is a bit of a stretch, you are more naive than I thought."

This question is becoming circular. Even getting involved with politicians doesn't make racketeers political. I obviously meant that in context of groups having a political view point (e.g. liberal, conservative, extreme right). Provide evidence that Cohen's gang had a political orientation.

(me)Mark so far you have utterly failed to turn up any evidence of pro-Israel extreme right groups in the US in the late 50's early 60's, let alone ones that Lemnitzer associated with.

(Mark) I don't have to because that's not what I said, was it?

Effectively you did. That's what I said (see post 19) and what you challenged (see post 23)

"You've failed to show that right wing groups cannot be pro-Israel. That's the debate. You've totally failed to prove your highly questionable hypothesis."

That's not what I said. I referred explicitly to EXTREME right (as opposed to merely right) in the late 50's early – 60's.

If you want to end this debate I acknowledge that:

1) There probably were conservative groups back then which supported Israel, I never denied this.

2) Depending on how you define "extreme right" there could be some extreme right groups that are pro-Israel. I did deny this in my 1st post but my emphasis was always on the period before the assassination.

Are you willing to acknowledge that 1) most (if not all) extreme right groups in the early 60s were anti-Semitic and anti-Israel and 2) you can't produce any evidence of exceptions?

(Mark)"Until recently you were denying the existence of the Kosher Nostra."

(me) Straw man

(Mark)You can call it a straw man but it's still an accurate statement, isn't it?

No, it's not. If it were accurate it wouldn't be a straw man.

Len

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...
...

The bit about Lemnitzer being on the Rockefeller Commission is interesting, it goes beyond conflict of interest and makes one think of line about the fox and the hen house but Ford probably didn’t know about O. Northwoods. Didn’t they reveal MLK/Ultra?

Hey hey hey, let's show the proper respect. After all, you're talkin' about a Recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, awarded by President Ronald Reagan on April 21, 1987. And he received his reward...I mean award the same time John McCone got his. He sure fell in with the right crowd:

"The President today announced his intention to award the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award of our government, at a luncheon to be held at the White House on June 23, 1987. The following individuals will be given this prestigious award by the President:

...

General Lyman Lemnitzer, for his contributions of outstanding military service to his country.

Mr. John McCone, for his contributions in the fields of public service and national interests of the United States as former Director of CIA."

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/spee...987/042187e.htm

I guess LLL made an important connection when he and Reagan served on the Rockefeller Commission together, huh?

"President Gerald R. Ford created the Commission on CIA Activities within the United States on January 4, 1975. He directed the Commission to determine whether or not any domestic CIA activities exceeded the Agency's statutory authority and to make appropriate recommendations. He appointed Vice President Nelson A. Rockefeller chairman of the Commission. (The Commission is often referred to as the "Rockefeller Commission.") Other members were ...Lyman L. Lemnitzer, Ronald Reagan...

http://www.ford.utexas.edu/library/guides/...20-%20Files.htm

The Warren Commission and Rockefeller Commission sure were well stocked with right wingers who hated President Kennedy because he fired them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a copy of the Northwoods memo, called "The Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba", dated 13 March 1962.

It is disturbing indeed to think that the US military would consider committing acts of terrorism against its own citizenry and blaming it on a foreign enemy, as a pretext to war. It is even more disturbing in light of the tragedy of 9/11 and our current quagmire in Iraq.

The memo states, " We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington."

In his book, "The Man Who Knew Too Much", author Dick Russell tells us of a plot to kill Kennedy in the Washington, DC area at the end of September, 1963. He also tells us that Oswald was at a meeting held sometime between August 23rd and August 27th, where the subject of killing Kennedy was discussed.

In addition, according to Russell, Oswald communicated to the Communist Party, USA and the Socialist Workers Party, that he and "his family had planned to move to the Washington-Baltimore area at the end of September".

Interestingly enough, CPUSA and the SWP were both targets for the FBI's COINTELPRO, the counter-intelligence program which included the opening of the target's mail.

Under these circumstances, one needs to ask the question: "Was Oswald sending a coded message to the FBI warning them that his "family" of assassins were planning to kill Kennedy in the "Washington-Baltimore area" at the "end of September" ?

Operation Northwoods did provide for the "attempts on lives" and "wounding" of Cuban refugees.

on page 9 of the document, it states:

"We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government".

What happens when we change a few words in that last statement and apply it to the JFK assassination ? Would it make sense ? Let's see.

We could foster attempts on the life of President Kennedy in the United States even to the extent of assassination to be widely publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in Dealey Plaza, the arrest of a "Castro sympathizer" and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government".

It is my opinion that Kennedy's assassination was right out of the pages of Operation Northwoods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a copy of the Northwoods memo, called "The Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba", dated 13 March 1962.

It is disturbing indeed to think that the US military would consider committing acts of terrorism against its own citizenry and blaming it on a foreign enemy, as a pretext to war. It is even more disturbing in light of the tragedy of 9/11 and our current quagmire in Iraq.

The memo states, " We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington."

In his book, "The Man Who Knew Too Much", author Dick Russell tells us of a plot to kill Kennedy in the Washington, DC area at the end of September, 1963. He also tells us that Oswald was at a meeting held sometime between August 23rd and August 27th, where the subject of killing Kennedy was discussed.

In addition, according to Russell, Oswald communicated to the Communist Party, USA and the Socialist Workers Party, that he and "his family had planned to move to the Washington-Baltimore area at the end of September".

Interestingly enough, CPUSA and the SWP were both targets for the FBI's COINTELPRO, the counter-intelligence program which included the opening of the target's mail.

Under these circumstances, one needs to ask the question: "Was Oswald sending a coded message to the FBI warning them that his "family" of assassins were planning to kill Kennedy in the "Washington-Baltimore area" at the "end of September" ?

Operation Northwoods did provide for the "attempts on lives" and "wounding" of Cuban refugees.

on page 9 of the document, it states:

"We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government".

What happens when we change a few words in that last statement and apply it to the JFK assassination ? Would it make sense ? Let's see.

We could foster attempts on the life of President Kennedy in the United States even to the extent of assassination to be widely publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in Dealey Plaza, the arrest of a "Castro sympathizer" and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government".

It is my opinion that Kennedy's assassination was right out of the pages of Operation Northwoods.

Interesting thoughts Gil. I've wondered about Oswald's planned move to DC. It would make sense if they were moving him into patsy position.

Any idea why the DC assassination did not take place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
Guest Stephen Turner
 

A Certain Arrogance

2006.... by George Michael Evica

Xlibris Corporation

www.Xlibris.com

Epilogue

<Quote>

A Certain Arrogance is a recitation of eight essays on the history of international

intelligence (primarily U.S. espionage), on Allen Dulles, John Foster Dulles, and their

manipulation of religious groups and individuals to achieve U.S.elitist goals, on the

development of U.S. psychological warfare operations, and on the sacrificing of Lee Harvey

Oswald in the assassination of John F Kennedy.

The Dulles Brothers

American Spymaster Allen Dulles, based in Switzerland, had abused religious individuals and

institutions for U.S. intelligence through two world wars and the subsequent "Cold-War." His

brother, John Foster Dulles also used major religious groups from 1937 to 1959 to further

both his own and the American establishment's political and economic goals.

Noel Field

One religious individual, Noel Field (American Quaker, Unitarian and Marxist) was used by

Allen Dulles to manipulate religious relief organizations in World War ll, and in the

post-war period Dulles finally utilized Field to help destabilize Communist Eastern Europe.

Dulles apparently collaborated in this plan with Jozef Swiatlo, a Communist, CIA double

agent, who later surfaced in the Warren Commission's Kennedy assassination investigation of

Lee Harvey Oswald.

Albert Schweitzer College, the Unitarians, and U.S. Intelligence

Swiss-based Albert Schweitzer College had major religious origins that were both social and

political. Post-war liberal Protestant movements in Europe, including the International

Association for Religious Freedom, helped to create the college in Switzerland, the country

at the center of Allen Dulles' fifty-year spy program. In the U.S. the college was supported

by a powerful coalition of American religious liberalism, primarily the Unitarian Church,

the Unitarian Service Committee, and the American Friends of Albert Schweitzer College.

Albert Schweitzer College's history strongly suggests that American espionage assets helped

establish the college and then used it, possibly with the knowledge and even cooperation of

some of it's supporters in the Unitarian Church movement and those who worked for the

college in Switzerland.

One leading Unitarian who worked closely with both U.S. intelligence and the military in the

40's and 50's was President of the American Friends of Albert Schweitzer College, exactly

when Lee Harvey Oswald applied. That same intelligence -connected Unitarian worked with a

second influential Unitarian to help control U.S. space programs, including the U.S.

overflights, and in the 60's, that intelligence -connected Unitarian fronted for a major CIA

proprietary. Those who set policy for Albert Schweitzer College were, therefore elite

members of the establishment and allies of the CIA,. In 1959, Lee Harvey Oswald registered

to attend Albert Schweitzer College and therefore became a direct link between the college

and American intelligence.

Whoever masterminded the Oswald college action was knowledgeable about both the OSS's and

the CIA's use of Quakers, officials of the World Council of Churches, and Unitarians as

contacts, assets, and informants (often as double- agents) AND about the FBI's

responsibility in tracking down and identifying Soviet illegal and double agents. Oswald

was, therefore, a creature of someone in American counter intelligence who possessed

precisely that double body of knowledge.

Oswald: the Imperfect Prospect

At the same time that the Albert Schweitzer College was extending its international

recruiting effort, both the Soviet and American Illegals and False Identity programs were

operating. For those espionage groups, Lee Harvey Oswald initially looked like a candidate

for their intelligence operations. But Oswald was an imperfect False Identity/Illegals

prospect. A faulty False Identity operation had apparently been carried out using Lee Harvey

Oswald and run by a branch of American intelligence.

Oswald's imperfections were certain to trip counterespionage alarm wires. The context of the

Oswald "legend" game was Switzerland, earlier the center of massive spy operations run by

Allen Dulles in two world wars and the following cold war.

Oswald had called maximum attention to his strange exit from the Marines, his dubious trip

to Europe, his suspicious registration to the Albert Schweitzer College, his failure to

arrive at the college, and his so-called defection to the Soviet Union. In a very short

time, Oswald pilled up obviously faulty documents and suspect postal communications. What

followed was a major FBI inquiry in 1959 and 1960 that apparently attempted to find then

missing Oswald. Oswald's Marine Corps record, including his Pacific duty experience and U-2

service, made him a prime candidate for Soviet civilian and military intelligence, and both

American and Soviet intelligence groups were aware of his candidacy.

Oswalds' espionage activities most probably included information he gave the Soviets

concerning U-2 flights, leading to the collapse of imminent Soviet/American peace talks. He

was also apparently scheduled to play a part in exposing Soviet intelligence moles in

activist student movements and liberal Protestant institutions like Albert Schweitzer

College in both Europe and the United States.

>From the moment Oswald registered to attend Unitarian sponsored Albert Schweitzer College,

and without ever setting foot in Switzerland, Oswald moved (or was moved) to the center of a

complex and dangerous double-agent operation.

Lee Harvey Oswald looked-possibly too obviously like a false defector. When he returned to

the United States as a redefector from the Soviet Union, he was suspect: at least five

intelligence agencies (the GRU, KGB, CIA, FBI and ONI) found his curious false-identity

profile highly suspicious. But that same profile was extremely well-suited to those who

ultimately planned to murder President John F. Kennedy. Oswald could be manipulated, like

the religious institutions that American intelligence had used through fifty years, in a

half-dozen ways and in a half-dozen on-going espionage games.

Oswald: Perfect Patsy

Why had Oswald become the designated lone assassin patsy in the JFK murder?

Six years (or more) of complex and questionable U.S. intelligence and espionage activities

with their initiators, sponsors, and handlers were threatened if a full investigation of

Oswald were held after the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

The threat ran from the very top of the American establishment to the grunt levels of the

American military and intelligence.

After the JFK murder, a real investigation of Lee Harvey Oswald would have been closely

covered, for example, his probable "Marine" intelligence activity, his Cuban contacts, his

mail coverage by the CIA's HTLINGUAL program, the Agency's multiple "mole" inquiries, the

real origins of Albert Schweitzer College, Oswald's Fair Play For Cuba Committee

connections, and his plot against President Eisenhower. A real investigation would have

closely examined the persuasive but circumstantial evidence of his employment (after his

return to the United States from the Soviet Union) by a yet-to-be-discovered "private

investigative agency doing industrial-security work and funded by either U.S. intelligence

in the U.S. military. Peter Dale Scott has called attention to the "numerous signs that

Oswald's [post-defection] employment recurrently coincided with opportunities for

surveillance of FBI subversive targets."

But Oswald apparently was the field asset of "other investigative agencies as

well....[including] the Alcohol. Tobacco, and Firearms unit...of the U.S. Treasury. Though

Oswald's targets were or seemed to be those of the FBI, he was more likely to have one

federal government agency. Therefore, any examination of Oswald's real work history, after

returning from the Soviet Union would have been a disaster, not only for government

intelligence, but also for private "intelligence" in the industrial-security" area.

Each node of any real post-assassination investigation would have registered multiple

extensions, each of those nodes would have been recognized, for example, as a psychological

warfare operation. Examining HTLINGUAL, in depth would have required a close look at U.S.

illegal and False Identities operations, to U.S. Intelligence to U.S. intelligence's misuse

of domestic and foreign postal systems, to the abuse of liberal Protestant institutions in

the U.S. and in Europe, and to the grey history of Albert Schweitzer College. And examining

the oil/intelligence/Unitarian complex in Dallas would have meant exposing the Osborn

family, character witnesses for Ruth and Michael Paine, as intimate associates of the U.S.

elite establishment, the U.S. military, U.S. Intelligence, the government's psychological

warfare and behavior modification programs, an its key Cold War covert operations.

At the end of each of these potential investigative extensions was the enigmatic Oswald. Lee

Harvey Oswald became, therefore the perfect patsy, manipulated finally in the deadliest game

of all in Dallas, on November 22, 1963.

<Unquote>

Thought I'd revive this, a certain arrogance take from a couple of years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...