RIP James Garner

GarnerWeed

h/t The Garner Files

Follow @BuelahMan

BuelaHuh?

Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the upper right hand corner of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or WordPress.com

Why Senator Joe McCarthy Had to Be Destroyed

Why Senator Joe McCarthy Had to Be Destroyed

by DC Dave

woodrowwilson-216x300The more I learn, particularly when it involves history over about the past two centuries, the more I discover that things are almost the opposite of what we have been led to believe they were. Historians, for instance, consistently rank Woodrow Wilson as one of America’s best presidents, but now we have a very well reasoned argument from David Stockman that almost everything bad that happened in the 20th century resulted from Wilson’s decision to involve us needlessly in what was known at the time as the Great War. And Stockman even omits any mention of the Balfour Declaration, whose promises Great Britain could not have made good upon without U.S. entry into the war, and the endlessly troublesome state of Israel would not have been created.

The Wilson administration also gave us the federal income tax and the Federal Reserve. But Wilson got a lot of his countrymen killed toiling on the winning side of a war, and that was good enough to merit a place in the presidential pantheon for the power worshippers of academia. Just look at the company he keeps there, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and George Washington.

Speaking of the Balfour Declaration, in which the British government promised a home to world Jewry in their ancestral land of Palestine, assuming the Brits could grab it from the Ottoman Empire, who were allies of the Germans in the Great War, the latest best evidence indicates that Palestine is not the ancient home of the Jews, after all. According to Shlomo Sand, a very diligent Cover_Shlomo_SandIsraeli history professor and author of The Invention of the Jewish People, virtually all of the so-called “Jewish diaspora” are descendants of converts to Judaism, products of the era in which it was a proselytizing religion almost as much as was Christianity. And if that were not bad enough for the conventional wisdom, Sand tells us that, in all likelihood, many if not most of today’s Arab Palestinians are the descendants of the Biblical Israelites (along with Philistines, Hittites, Samaritans, and offspring of various conquerors and local women) who were given a very strong incentive to convert by the conquering Arabs. Initially, the caliph taxed only non-believers in Islam.

 

Lied to about McCarthy

See what we mean by everything being the opposite of what we’ve been told? And that brings us back to Joe McCarthy. Has any American elected official ever been so completely vilified as has the junior Senator from Wisconsin? He is best known today for the term of opprobrium that A.Word.A.Day defines as, “The practice of making unfounded accusations against someone,” and backs up with this etymology: “After US senator Joseph McCarthy (1909-1957) known for making unsubstantiated claims accusing people of being Communists, spies, and disloyal.”

19460800_Joe_McCarthy_For_Senate

With his finger held carefully to the political winds an execrable young academic careerist by the name of Matthew A. McNiece could refer in his 2008 dissertation, without fear of contradiction, to “the burgeoning anticommunist hysteria that bred all manner of conspiracy theories–culminating most recognizably in McCarthy‘s unverified claim of widespread communist infiltration of the federal government.”

mccarthy-9

McCarthy with Lattimore

The fact of the matter is that McCarthy’s claims were “unsubstantiated” or “unverified” only to the extent that the Truman—and later the Eisenhower—administration, with the aid of allies in the Senate and the news media, put up all manner of obstacles to McCarthy’s attempt to show publicly what he had learned privately, mainly from the FBI. An example of how the obstacles were placed and the history of the period distorted is shown in my 2011 article, “M. Stanton Evans on Good Night and Good Luck.

What McCarthy was up against, and some appreciation of the degree of Communist and pro-Communist infiltration and, indeed, takeover of key levers of power by the end of the 1940s can be had by examining the 1952 report of the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which, McCarthy was never a member. These conclusions are completely supported by the testimony of the independent-minded private citizen, Alfred Kohlberg, who lays heavy blame upon the Institute for Pacific Relations (IPR) for the fall of China to the Communists in 1949. One of the key members of the IPR mentioned in the report was Owen Lattimore, who was also one of McCarthy’s main targets. The primary avenue of Lattimore’s influence upon government policy on China was through his close associate, Lauchlin Currie, who had been revealed to the White House as a Soviet agent by Communist defector Whittaker Chambers in 1939 at a time that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were allies.

 

INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS REPORT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY*

SECOND SESSION

JULY 2 (legislative day JUNE 27), 1952.—Ordered to be printed.

CONCLUSIONS

The Institute of Pacific Relations has not maintained the character of an objective scholarly and research organization.

*   *   *

The IPR has been considered by the American Communist Party and by Soviet officials as an instrument of Communist policy, propaganda and military intelligence.

*   *   *

The IP disseminated and sought to popularize false information including information originating from Soviet and Communist sources.

*   *   *

A small core of officials and staff members carried the main burden of IPR activities and directed its administration and policies.

*   *   *

Members of the small core of officials and staff members who controlled IPR were either Communist or pro-Communist.

*   *   *

There is no evidence that the large majority of its members supported the IPR for any reason except to advance the professed research and scholarly purposes of the organization.

*   *   *

Most members of the IPR, and most members of the Board of Trustees, were inactive and obviously without any influence over the policies of the organization and the conduct of its affairs.

*   *   *

IPR activities were made possible largely through the financial support of American industrialists, corporations, and foundations, the majority of whom were not familiar with the inner workings of the organization. (Emphasis added)

*   *   *

The effective leadership of the IPR often sought to deceive IPR contributors and supporters as to the true character and activities of the organization.

Owen Lattimore was, from some time beginning in the 1930’s, a conscious articulate instrument of the Soviet conspiracy.

Owen Lattimore testified falsely before the subcommittee with reference to at least five separate matters that were relevant to the inquiry and substantial in import.

Owen Lattimore and John Carter Vincent were influential in bringing about a change in United States policy in 1945 favorable to the Chinese Communists.

Many of the persons active in and around the IPR, and in particular though not exclusively Owen Lattimore, Edward C. Carter, Frederick V. Field, T.A. Bisson, Lawrence K. Rosinger, and Maxwell Stewart, knowingly and deliberately used the language of books and articles which they wrote or edited in an attempt to influence the American public by means of pro-Communist or pro-Soviet content of such writings.

*   *   *

The net effect of IPR activities on United States public opinion has been such as to serve international Communist interests and to affect [sic] adversely the interest of the United States.

Look again at the passage I have emphasized: “IPR activities were made possible largely through the financial support of American industrialists, corporations, and foundations, the majority of whom were not familiar with the inner workings of the organization.” The committee coyly leaves the reader with the impression that those providing the funding for the IPR were duped by the Communist staff members, just as IPR member Kohlberg had been duped before he began to take a more careful look at the organization.

 

Tune Callers Identified

But we all know that the old saying is usually valid that “he who pays the piper calls the tune.” Forget about the majority of contributors providing financing; what about the key minority of contributors who provided the majority of the financing? The committee is strategically silent on that absolutely crucial question. For that, we must turn to the pages of Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time by the very well connected Georgetown University historian, Carroll Quigley:

51458BPRMWL

In 1951 the Subcommittee on Internal Security of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the so-called McCarran Committee, sought to show that China had been lost to the Communists by the deliberate actions of a group of academic experts on the Far East and Communist fellow travelers whose work in that direction was controlled and coordinated by the Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR). The influence of the Communists in IPR is well established, but the patronage of Wall Street is less well known.

The IPR was a private association of ten independent national councils in ten countries concerned with affairs in the Pacific. The headquarters of the IPR and of the American Council of IPR were both in New York and were closely associated on an interlocking basis. Each spent about $2.5 million dollars over the quarter-century from 1925 to 1950, of which about half, in each case, came from the Carnegie Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation (which were themselves interlocking groups controlled by an alliance of Morgan and Rockefeller interests in Wall Street). Much of the rest, especially of the American Council, came from firms closely allied to these two Wall Street interests, such as Standard Oil, International Telephone and Telegraph, International General Electric, the National City Bank, and the Chase National Bank. In each case, about 10 percent of income came from sales of publications and, of course, a certain amount came from ordinary members who paid $15 a year and received the periodicals of the IPR and its American Council, Pacific Affairs and Far Eastern Survey.

The financial deficits which occurred each year were picked up by financial angels, almost all with close Wall Street connections. The chief identifiable contributions here were about $60,000 from Frederick Vanderbilt Field over eighteen years, $14,700 from Thomas Lamont over fourteen years, $800 from Corliss Lamont (only after 1947), and $18,000 from a member of Lee, Higginson in Boston who seems to have been Jerome D. Greene. In addition, large sums of money each year were directed to private individuals for research and travel expenses from similar sources, chiefly the great financial foundations.

Most of these awards for work in the Far Eastern area required approval or recommendation from members of IPR. Moreover, access to publication and recommendations to academic positions in the handful of great American universities concerned with the Far East required similar sponsorship. And, finally, there can be little doubt that consultant jobs on Far Eastern matters in the State Department or other government agencies were largely restricted to IPR-approved people. The individuals who published, who had money, found jobs, were consulted, and who were appointed intermittently to government missions were those who were tolerant of the IPR line. The fact that all these lines of communication passed through the Ivy League universities or their scattered equivalents west of the Appalachians, such as Chicago, Stanford, or California, unquestionably went back to Morgan’s influence in handling large academic endowments.

It was this group of people, whose wealth and influence so exceeded their experience and understanding, who provided much of the frame-work of influence which the Communist sympathizers and fellow travelers took over in the United States in the 1930’s. It must be recognized that the power that these energetic Left-wingers exercised was never their own power or Communist power but was ultimately the power of the international financial coterie, and, once the anger and suspicions of the American people were aroused, as they were by 1950, it was a fairly simple matter to get rid of the Red sympathizers. Before this could be done, however, a congressional committee, following backward to their source the threads which led from admitted Communists like Whittaker Chambers, through Alger Hiss, and the Carnegie Endowment to Thomas Lamont and the Morgan Bank, fell into the whole complicated network of the interlocking tax-exempt foundations. The Eighty-third Congress in July 1953 set up a Special Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations with Representative B. Carroll Reece, of Tennessee, as chairman. It soon became clear that people of immense wealth would be unhappy if the investigation went too far and that the “most respected” newspapers in the country, closely allied with these men of wealth, would not get excited enough about any relevations to make the publicity worth while, in terms of votes or campaign contributions. An interesting report showing the Left-wing associations of the interlocking nexus of tax-exempt foundations was issued in 1954 rather quietly. Four years later, the Reece committee’s general counsel, Rene A. Wormser, wrote a shocked, but not shocking, book on the subject called Foundations: Their Power and Influence. (Emphasis added)

So, the missing names from the Senate Committee reports were primarily the big Wall Street connected foundations of the Rockefellers and J.P. Morgan. The Senate Judiciary Committee knew how far they could go in belling the cat, but McCarthy didn’t know how far he could go. Quigley, himself, as a member of the established American academic history community, was also a lot like the Committee in his circumspection. My quotes are from pp. 945-956 of his book, which can be found on the Internet here. One can see there that in the midst of his shocking revelations Quigley creates a red herring and lets loose a blast at those who have drawn what would appear to be quite plausible conclusions:

carroll quigley

Carroll Quigley

The radical Right version of these events as written up by John T. Flynn, Freda Utley, and others, was even more remote from the truth than were [Communist defectors Louis] Budenz’s or [Elizabeth] Bentley’s versions, although it had a tremendous impact on American opinion and American relations with other countries in the years 1947-1955. This radical Right fairy tale, which is now an accepted folk myth in many groups in America, pictured the recent history of the United States, in regard to domestic reform and in foreign affairs, as a well-organized plot by extreme Left-wing elements, operating from the White House itself and controlling all the chief avenues of publicity in the United States, to destroy the American way of life, based on private enterprise, laissez faire, and isolationism, in behalf of alien ideologies of Russian Socialism and British cosmopolitanism (or internationalism).

In the great mass of Quigley’s verbiage, though, is the simple truth that the heavy hitters of Wall Street knowingly funded a massive sell-out to the Communists in the Far East. One might speculate as to what their purposes were in doing so, but it would appear that the fact they did so is indisputable. Noticeably absent from the pages of his work is the name of Alfred Kohlberg, a businessman with no particular ideological axe to grind, whose description of the IPR as a thoroughly Communist and very influential outfit accords quite closely to what Quigley suggests is a “radical Right fairy tale.”

A View from Down Under

Fortunately, we don’t have to depend upon Quigley’s muddy and sometimes contradictory prose to see who destroyed Joe McCarthy and why they did it:

Ralph Edward Flanders

Ralph Edward Flanders

The deathblow to McCarthy’s campaign was instigated not by some Party hack at the Daily Worker, but by Sen. Ralph

Flanders, who introduced the resolution for Senate censure of McCarthy. This was backed by Sen. Herbert Lehman, son of Mayer Lehman, founder of Lehman Brothers international investment bank, of which Herbert was a partner.

Sen Herbert Lehman

Herbert Lehman

Lehman, like the Warburgs, Schiffs, et al., was one of those who intermarried among the banking dynasties, marrying Edith Louise Altschul, the daughter of the head of the New York branch of Lazard Frères, the Paris-based banking house. He was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his campaign against Sen. McCarthy, as was the anti-McCarthy cartoonist Herbert Block.

Sen. Flanders as the introducer of the Senate death blow to McCarthy himself had an interesting background, not as some “progressive” or liberal Democrat, but as a Republican, an industrialist and a banker.

McCarthy’s most dangerous enemies were, in this writer’s opinion, not the Soviet spies and American Communist Party functionaries he was exposing, but those whom he had not even yet got around to targeting, the power elite and their agents.

Flanders had been president of the Boston Federal Reserve Bank for two years prior to being elected Senator for Vermont. In 1_boston_seal1942 he was appointed to the Committee for Economic Development, which was established to formulate US post-war economic policy, including the role of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

Keep in mind at this stage that both Flanders and Lehman were members of the Council on Foreign Relations, which CFR official historian Peter Grosse described as “the US foreign policy cfr-logoestablishment.” Flanders had been involved in a CFR study committee on post-war US foreign policy set up in 1940. Flanders was also a member of the Business Advisory Council, another association of significance that will be considered shortly.

Other CFR study group members included Lauchlin Currie and Benjamin V Cohen both from the US State Department, Asia expert Prof. Owen Lattimore, and economist Leo Pasvolsky, special assistant for post-war planning to the US Secretary of State. All of these CFR advisers were to come to the attention of Sen. McCarthy’s investigations into subversion.

This CFR connection is a primary key to understanding McCarthy’s political destruction….

All of these quotes (with links supplied by me) are from the well-documented November 2013 article, “Joe McCarthy & the Establishment Bolsheviks,” by New Zealand writer Kerry Bolton, and I commend it to readers in its entirety. Here is Bolton’s conclusion:

McCarthy was finished off by a coalition of Big Business, CFR, Business Advisory Council, US Administration, New York Times, Washington Post, CIA. He carried on as Senator for a further several years during which time he was ostracised and his speeches boycotted in the Senate. McCarthy was wrecked emotionally and physically by the campaign against him, Fred J Cook describing him as “a pale ghost of his former self”; he died in 1957 at the age of 48. E Merrill Root cogently described the situation with which McCarthy was probably unknowingly confronted: “. . . I do not think that the Senator ever quite saw the real nature of the enemy within, the full scope of the Conspiracy in New York and Washington . . ..”

A different perspective on Joe McCarthy: Mrs Jean McCarthy thanks the Marine Corps for the honours that were accorded to her late husband, showing a man of tolerance, bravery and humour. Note Mrs McCarthy’s references to the DCF and the Air Medal Four Stars, and the citation for bravery written by Admiral Nimitz. The letter is featured on the website of The 8th & I Reunion Association of the US Marine Corps. McCarthy, a Judge at the time of World War II, had volunteered for Service, despite his exemption. One of the major smears against McCarthy continues to be that he had not seen active service, that the image of “Tail Gunner Joe” was a myth, and that he had faked the Nimitz citation for bravery

Joe McCarthy might be a prophet without honor in his own land, but it’s good to see that that is not the case in at least one small corner of New Zealand.

To my mind, the biggest indicator of Senator McCarthy’s naiveté is that he allowed himself to be treated at Bethesda Naval Hospital, considering the fate that had befallen James Forrestal there. For evidence that McCarthy’s death may not have been any more natural than was Forrestal’s, see The Assassination of Joe McCarthyby Medford Evans and the section entitled “McCarthy’s Death at Bethesda” in my article “James Forrestal and Joe McCarthy.”

 


 

*This report is Appendix L of the very illuminating book, The China Lobby Man: The Story of Alfred Kohlberg by Joseph Keeley. The appendices alone are worth the price of the book. Kohlberg’s Senate testimony was also a Keeley appendix as was the JFK speech around which I built the article, “John F. Kennedy on the Loss of China.” There’s something very curious about this book, though. If you go to the Amazon.com page for the unbound version, what you will see there represented as an illustration of the cover is actually a picture of the cover of one of the most worthless books ever written, Quotations from Chairman Bill: the Best of William F. Buckley, Jr. I know that it is worthless because when I ordered the Keeley book from a used book company, what they sent me was the Buckley abomination instead. Naturally, I complained and requested that I get what I had ordered. The sellers told me not to bother even sending the Buckley book back and they then sent me the requested Keeley work.

What’s going on? To find out, go to BookFinder.com and search for the book using author and title. When the Keeley book comes up its ISBN will accompany it. Now go back and do the search again, but this time only by that ISBN. All you get is that lousy Buckley book. The two books have the same ISBN. The Keeley book came first, but the Buckley book has been given its ISBN and now seems to have been given priority. A more suspicious mind than mine might conclude that someone is steering us away from the story of the China Lobby Man and those valuable appendices.

 

David Martin

July 17, 2014

 

Follow @BuelahMan

BuelaHuh?

Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the upper right hand corner of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or WordPress.com

Jews Back Down Seven Foot Pussy

Unlike DC Dave (who is a player, coach and fan of basketball), I am not as much a fan. I never played (other than one on one),much less coached. And since I feel like professional sports of all types are tax payer drains and the fact that many of the players are obnoxious morons that happen to be very tall and athletic, but seem to be as dumb as rocks, has kept me from ever having a hero or idol found within (20 years ago I was a huge pro football fan… so I do understand).

howard

So, I hear about this guy named Dwight Howard (he’s actually 6′ 11″) who wrote a simple tweet that said:

howardtweetI thought that maybe someone with some people listening has FINALLY said something to hopefully make people think. But the pussy took it down in 15 minutes after the Jews had a hissy fit over those two words.

There are lots of stuff being hidden from you, to bolster your view of Israel and degrade your view of Palestinians. Don’t be fooled.

It doesn’t matter that many (including the Mossad) think that the Israeli government set off this false flag to begin with. Or that the response is more akin to destroying the entire area, instead of retaliation of that false flag. Or that the stinking Jews started the shit 60 or 70 years ago with mass murder and torture to innocent people. Or that since it has continued with raw abandon. Or that they have hemmed these people up in the world’s largest open air prison. Or that Israel now smells Natural Gas off the coast of Gaza.

No.

None of that matters. All that matters is that EVERYONE believe the lies they spew. ANYONE who says differently is ignorant or a hater. Truth be gone.

Howard has  Jew playmate who took him to task over his tweet, saying Howard was lying. Obviously, the Jew uses Jewish technique by LYING through omission. He said that the numbers don’t lie:

CasspiHe’s right about the numbers, unfortunately he is either ignorant or a hater (ouch).

Patrick Slattery explains the REAL NUMBERS:

Since July 8, Hamas has fired over 600 missiles, killing zero. There is a report of a 74-year-old Israeli who died of a heart attack after being startled by the noise of a warning siren. One rocket set fire to a gas station. No injuries were reported.
Israel, by admission of its military, has launched over 1,200 air strikes, killing at least 156 and injuring over 900. Among the dead are children, the elderly, and the disabled. The death toll has been confirmed by the Palestinian Ministry of Health which only adds names and identities to the list if doctors can physically access the body. There are many more Palestinians rumored to be stuck underneath the rubble.

So let’s get this straight. Three Israeli Settler teenagers (one was an American), who are known to terrorize and brutalize Palestinians for decades, goes to the wrong place at the wrong time and gets some of what Israel pours out on that innocent population daily. I hate it for those kids and their families, but we need to understand something… this was not state sponsored. They don’t know for sure who did it. But the retaliation response IS state sponsored. And this is a regular occurrence. Always finding some reason or another to invade and take down even more infrastructure, aid and other important every day needs.

Never-mind that Palestinian teens have been kidnapped, beaten, tortured and burned alive in response to the three Israeli teens’ deaths. No, the ghouls with yarmulkes are going to rid themselves of these Palestinians and take their resources, as they have ALWAYS done since they stole the people’s land to begin with.

The following is from a previous attack, but is indicative of the blood lust these monsters have in their hearts (there is no goodness found within them):

In a scab-pulling-off fashion, I wonder if the Jew that used to frequent here will read this and ask me to put back up the “anti-Semite” placard he wrote for me years ago? His bitch was that I didn’t say enough about Palestine.

Well, ole buddy, you got your wish. Thanks to you and all your Facebook Jew buddies for showing me via actions, words and deeds what jews are really all about.

 

Follow @BuelahMan

BuelaHuh?

Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the upper right hand corner of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or WordPress.com

ZIONISM: Demonic Jewish Death Cult by Arthur Topham

 

ZIONISM: Demonic Jewish Death Cult

By

Arthur Topham

July 14th, 2014

ZionistDeathCult

 

Recently my wife and I  had the wonderful opportunity to spend some time with my daughter and our granddaughter at our home here in the Cariboo region of beautiful British Columbia. It had been four years since we were able to do this as my constant legal battle with the Jewish Lobby group B’nai Brith Canada over the past eight years placed me in a position where we were unable to travel and visit family.

Finally seeing our ten year old granddaughter was a joy indeed and a very heart-warming reminder of just how precious one’s family truly is.

But all the while that we were enjoying each others’ company and having fun and reminiscing about past times and future plans, across the world in Gaza, Palestine, the Israeli Jews were busy with their endless blood-letting and slaughter of Palestinian children, women and men in their diabolical and insane effort to murder every non-Jew in the former Holy land that stands in their way of gaining absolute control over lands and resources that never ever belonged to them from day one.

MoreDeadKids

As I watched and listened and prayed for the cessation of bombing and mayhem I looked in vain to the West for some display of outrage but, beyond those who have always stood up for the Palestinian people and their just cause to remain the owners of the lands stolen from them since 1948, I looked in vain.

Where was (and is) my government as this slaughter of children and defenceless adults goes on daily with sickening and disgusting furor?

Please read the rest at the link.

This is a powerful “rant” that each and every human being on Earth needs to hear and understand. Just substitute American criminals’ names for the Canadian ones. Its all the same when it comes to serving the murderous Jews of Israel.

Follow @BuelahMan

BuelaHuh?

Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the upper right hand corner of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or WordPress.com

Holocaust Survivor Stories by Karl Radl

 

Holocaust Survivor Stories

 

(Week Ending: 13/07/2014)

by Karl Radl of Semitic Controversies

shoamoneybag_zpse3db3540

And we are back; after an enforced hiatus, with more lame-brained, imagined and often simply impossible nonsense from the world’s most famous fibbers (aka ‘Holocaust Survivors’). Before we begin this week we should first note that Jack Rubin over at bat-shit insane jews anonymous (aka the Jerusalem Post) is now claiming that after paying billions upon billions of dollars in official; as well as billions upon billions of unofficial, compensation: the German people should foot the bill (yet again) for all the ‘needs’ of ‘holocaust survivors’.

Hey Jackie: get your facts right deary.

Germany has paid a huge amount of money to jews and Israel already (probably something close to a year or twos worth of GDP over the course of the last seven decades) for ‘crimes’ that nobody can show any actual evidence its former government committed. Demanding that Germany pay yet more money when your so-called ‘Claims Conference’ can’t even hide the fact that it has been fiddling its account books for the last decade or so (and still has millions upon millions in assets) so that ‘untold millions of dollars’ has been lost to ‘morally upright’ jews who can’t resist getting their greasy paws on gentile gold.

It is Shoah business though: ain’t it?

If you want more money: how about you show a bit of gumption and ask the international jewish community for donations? You know you really should otherwise you will give the lie the hoary old canard common to philo-Semitic literature that jews are ‘great philanthropists’ and donate to charity more than gentiles do.

blood-moneyAt least one ‘holocaust survivor’; Gertrude Stanley, who died recently had a £1.3 million fortune, while an Israeli ‘holocaust survivor’; David Azrieli, who died this week had billions of dollars

How about the jews use that to pay the expenses of the few million ‘holocaust survivors’ who still seem to be alive currently?

Perhaps you should practice what you preach?

My my… wouldn’t that be a change?

Don’t hold your breath though readers: Jack Rubin and the circumcised intellectual pond life that actually take his twaddle seriously won’t part with any of their fancy five course kosher dinners to support their own kind. Instead they will insist that is all your fault and therefore you should pay for everything (like these gullible Americans in Israel):

It is called a confidence trick and by god are the jews good at it!

Now moving on from a bunch of crazy jews to one who is quite clearly suffering from paranoid delusions that the ‘Natzis’ were out to get him.

Blue Hitler by Irving Kamrat

Blue Hitler by Irving Kamrat

I will quote this verbatim as it has be read to believed.

‘In the beginning, Nasya Kamrat recounts, her goal was to memorialize her grandfather’s story. Irving Kamrat’s life was saved by a German guard: Towards the end of the war, the Nazis were killing people by playing a “game” in which Jews had to count off, and were killed if they got the “wrong” number. One day, Irving was picked and taken to a room where he was supposed to be killed by hanging. The German guard, who he had gotten to know well, hid him in a bin filled with laundry from previously killed inmates, and snuck him out of the room. The camp was liberated shortly thereafter.’

Now lets apply some common sense to this: if the Germans wanted to kill people they would have just killed people dependent on their lack of usefulness to the Reich’s war effort. Lining people up and then killing them dependent on what numbers they call out is just simply absurd, both because it defies logic and also because the camp; was Kamrat states, was just about to be liberated.

Why randomly kill jews just before you are going to be overrun by the Red Army?

Why not either march them off on one of the so-called ‘death marches’ (aka making jews walk distances as opposed to being carried in trucks and trains [Oy Vey!]) or kill them all?

It simply makes no sense does it?

You either kill all the jews and get out of there or you march out of there with the jews as fast as you can.

You don’t hang around sadistically killing random people given that you are aware that; as a member of the SS, if you are caught by the Red Army then you will be automatically executed per their standing orders.

Yes lets hang around randomly killing people in sadistic games and wait to be executed ourselves.

Makes no sense: does it?

As to the other bit of the story concerning the ‘hiding in the laundry bin': well that again is implausible given that it seems rather unlikely that a supposed ‘mass extermination camp’ would allow; presumably large, containers and hampers to go unchecked given the high likelihood of escape attempts and so forth.

Also given that a laundry hamper is a fairly light thing even when full of dirty clothes: wouldn’t everyone notice and become suspicious if it was seriously heavy, because there was a person inside it (whether or not it could be pushed or had to be carried)?

I mean come on: this story is blatantly made up. No ifs or buts about it: it simply doesn’t make any sort of logical or historical sense, but veritably reeks of an embellished story of ‘personal heroics’ that many so-called survivors appear to have concocted as a way of giving their life meaning.

Another such story is that of Charles Middenberg who; in a recent engagement at Warm Springs Middle School in West Virginia, claims that

JOSHUA RIDER & CHARLES MIDDLEBERG

Joshua Rider and
Charles Middleberg

he ‘knows’ his mother was ‘gassed to death’. We can even infer from the wording of the report; which claims these are his ‘memories’, that he believes he witnessed said ‘gassing’ (which would make sense as otherwise how does he know his mother was ‘gassed’?), but yet he was allegedly pretending; according to the same report, to be masquerading as a Catholic with a gentile Polish family at the time!

Whoops… contradicted yourself there didn’t you Charlie?

It is even stranger than that considering that even orthodox holocaustian historians acknowledge; however reluctantly, that they don’t know who was gassed and who was not in the camps.

More precisely they can’t actually prove any gassings of human beings took place in any of the German camps and they have to resort to what they like to call ‘convergence of [selected circumstantial] evidence’ to support the alleged ‘gassings’ taking place as opposed to actual evidence that they did indeed happen (which; considering the scale of the alleged killings, should be abundant but has been lacking for seventy years even after huge resources of manpower and money have been expended trying to find it).

It is unfortunate that the students at Warm Springs Middle School have yet to be trained in the critical interpretation of evidence (and nobody can blame them for taking Middenberg fanciful inventions as the ‘truth’), but the teachers and parents should be ashamed of having put someone who is obviously a bald-faced liar in front of their students/children as if he was actually genuine.

All they would have needed to do is read an orthodox account of the ‘holocaust’ to know that his ‘memories’ were fake!

Meanwhile a ‘holocaust survivor’ resident in Canada ironically named Pinchas Gutter has been promoted as the subject of a ‘documentary’ titled ‘Political, Polish Jew: The Story of Pinchas Gutter’ by the Polish-Jewish Heritage Foundation of Canada. In this documentary Gutter; who was born in 1932 into a Hasidic family in Poland, relates his experiences thus:

‘After the Nazis began terrorizing the Jewish population of Lodz, Gutter’s father sent his wife and two children to live with a relative in Warsaw, believing, incorrectly, that it would be safer there for his family. Eventually, he joined them in Warsaw

In the Warsaw ghetto, they endured terrible hardships. “We were like chickens in a coop,” Gutter recalls.

They survived the big deportations of 1942, but after the 1943 ghetto uprising was suppressed, they were caught by the Germans and sent to the Majdanek extermination camp. Gutter’s mother and sister were murdered. He thought he would meet the same fate, but muddled through. His father, however, was killed.

“I cried,” he says in a reference to his death. “I was 11 years old.”

To this day, Gutter finds it inconceivable that a crime so heinous as the Holocaust could have been committed.

In the wake of his father’s murder, he was savagely beaten by a German guard. He was then sent to a nearby labor camp, where ammunition and mines were manufactured for the German army. Toward the close of the war, he found himself in Buchenwald, which he describes as “hell on earth.” He was subsequently transported to a labor camp in Germany and forced to participate in a death march to Theresienstadt.’

>Heart-wrenching: isn’t it?

It just a shame that is all quite clearly nonsense given that firstly Majdanek wasn’t a death camp; and there is precious little evidence it could have been one as it was captured intact with no gas chambers (yet it has been the subject of numerous ‘holocaust survivor’ gassing stories), and that secondly the Germans wouldn’t have killed his father and left him; an 11 year old, alive considering that an 11 year old is a far less precious labour resource than a grown man.

Why leave the young child alive, but the fully-grown father not?

Also why kill Gutter’s sister and not Gutter if child labour was so useful to the war effort?

Much of a contradiction there?

I’d say so!

It doesn’t make any sense whatsoever: does it?

Then a German guard predictably beat him up; which is one of those absurd tropes of all ‘holocaust survivor’ stories in that a nasty Nazi badly beat them at least one, and to top it off he survived a ‘death march’ (aka requiring jews to actually walk a reasonable distance rather than waddle to the nearest train station or catch a taxi).

Pinchas’ ‘memories’ are quite clearly a bunch of nonsense pretending to be ‘recollections’ given that he uses all the standard tropes of ‘survivor’ ‘experiences’ and his claims defy any kind of logic to them and; as I have above demonstrated, actually contradict one another.

So much for the ‘power of memory’: huh?

Pinchas Gutter

Pinchas Gutter

Oh and just to cap off this week’s edition of ‘Holocaust Survivor Stories’ we should note that in Sydney, Australia an elderly jew is claiming that he is a ‘double’ ‘holocaust survivor’ because… wait for it… he was a homosexual and a jew.

Next he’ll be coming out claiming he a sexual relationship with one of his SS guards or something (as we all know SS personnel had sex with jewish inmates at the drop of a hat since jews are apparently so damn attractive and generally desirable that even those who hate them want to breed with them).

That’s it for this week folks.

 

Please visit Karl’s site for extremely in-depth analysis of past and current Semitic Controversies. Excellent site!

Follow @BuelahMan

BuelaHuh?

Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the upper right hand corner of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or WordPress.com

Its All About The Children

I’m not sure that a $6,000/month tax free reimbursement is enough?

Do You?

ORR1

I have two rental houses (3BR 2BA) that I charge but $550/month for.

Wonder if I ought to get me some new renters?

 

h/t MotherBarbarian

Follow @BuelahMan

BuelaHuh?

Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the upper right hand corner of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or WordPress.com

Man Awarded Ph. D. for Trashing Martin, Forrestal

Man Awarded Ph. D. for Trashing Martin, Forrestal

by DC Dave

In its pursuit of excellence in academic endeavors, Howard Payne University employs as its faculty individuals who exemplify a commitment to Christian ideals and who are dedicated to the search for and dissemination of truth. – from the catalog of Howard Payne University.

Ask you what provocation I have had?

The strong antipathy of good to bad.

       – Alexander Pope

 

His name is Matthew A. McNiece. He is now the chairman of the Department of History, Political Science, and Geography at Howard Payne University in Brownwood, Texas. His doctoral dissertation is entitled “Un-Americans” and “Anti-Communists,”: The Rhetorical Battle to Define Twentieth-Century America. It was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the AddRan College of Humanities and Social Sciences of Texas Christian University in December of 2008 and approved, permitting the then 29-year-old McNiece to proudly introduce himself ever after as “Doctor Matthew McNiece.”

His Dissertation Adviser was Mark T. Gilderhus, Professor and LBJ Chair of History. The other members of the committee putting their stamp of approval upon the document were Stephen E. Woodworth, Professor of History, Peter Worthing, Associate Professor of History, Todd M. Kerstetter, Associate Professor of History, and Brad E. Lucas, Assistant Professor and Associate Chair of English.

 

What McNiece Says I Said

Cutting straight to the chase, here’s what Dr. McNiece has to say about me concerning my inquiries into the violent death in May 1949 of America’s first secretary of defense, James V. Forrestal:

Perhaps the World Wide Web‘s most dogged proponent of an alternative Forrestal narrative is “DC Dave” David Martin (www.dcdave.com). Self-styled as a poet, economist, and political commentator, Martin self-publishes various articles on the illegitimacy of the “official” story. His website exemplifies the complexity of conspiracy mythmaking, as all new evidence is collaborated into existing webs of information which point to a more sensational explanation for Forrestal‘s death. Martin successfully petitioned the U.S. Navy, via the Freedom of Information Act, to release the Willcutts Report in 2004. Instead of using its findings as the Navy did, to exonerate those in command of Forrestal‘s care of significant wrongdoing leading to his death, Martin pulls a variety of quotes to suggest that Forrestal‘s doctors did not consider him “insane.” Even so, rather than using them to perpetuate the “surprise” element of Forrestal‘s suicide, Martin deploys these statements in a contradictory way. While the doctors were presumably wrong in detaining Forrestal for hospitalization in the first place, here their judgment appears as infallible–if the doctors did not think Forrestal would commit suicide, surely he did not and was instead murdered. Similarly, Martin points to contemporary press accounts of “scuffs” or “scuff marks” on either the building‘s exterior or the sill of the kitchen window as signs of a struggle, like the “broken glass” that was reported in Forrestal‘s room but removed by the time a picture– included in the Willcutts Report–of the scene was taken a few hours later. Yet, nothing in the room or in the kitchen bore signs of a failed hanging, leaving unexplained the knotted sash around Forrestal‘s neck, so tightly tied that it had to be cut to be removed from the corpse. Here, the conspiracist‘s question is, if so tightly tied around the neck, how could it slip from its mooring in the kitchen without disturbing something? While Occam‘s Razor suggests attributing these seeming inconsistencies to innocent mistakes in the rush to publish the first facts of Forrestal‘s death, or of the tragic misdiagnosis of Forrestal by fallible medical professionals, Martin coalesces them to prove there is, as the old conspiracist‘s bromide maintains, “more to the story.”

Yes, it’s all one paragraph, and it contains one reference, a footnote at the end directing the reader simply to http://www.dcdave.com, my home page.

I know what you’re thinking, “That is some really bad writing.” Indeed it is, but I have had the misfortune of having seen it many times before in the early years of my career when I taught economics in college. It is actually fairly typical of the work of the students who were destined to fall into the lower half of the class when final grades were handed out. A student demonstrating such a writing capability in an economics class might work really hard, reading everything put before him and doing all his assignments, but the writing would give him away and let him down.

As they say in Spanish, “Si falta la palabra, falta la idea.” It’s not a literal translation, but here it fits best to render it in English as “Poor writing betrays poor thinking.”

Almost as bad as the lack of clarity in his writing is his improper use of showy words. He might be in the right ballpark meaning-wise with “collaborated” and “coalesces,” but they aren’t transitive verbs and one can’t use them that way just because he wants to. You’d think that at least the English professor on his committee wouldn’t have let it pass. Concerning “bromide” and “Occam’s Razor,” I gather only that they are things that, for safety’s sake, should be kept away from him in the manner of the childproofing of a house.

Yes, the writing is bad, but from reading this passage and the rest of his Chapter 4, appallingly titled with an allusion to the sound Forrestal’s body made at the end of his fatal fall, “’Things that Go Bump in the Night’: The Social Construction of an Anticommunist Hero,” I have a hard time deciding which is worse, his writing, his reasoning, his scholarship, or his character.

 

What I Really Said

Concerning the scholarship, for starters, what he represents as my case for suspicion concerning the belt or sash around Forrestal’s neck, and then shoots down, is not my case at all. Cornell Simpson said something about reported scuffmarks on the window ledge in his book, The Death of James Forrestal, but I considered it of such small consequence that I left it out of my analysis. McNiece even puts the terms “scuffs” and “scuff marks” in quotes as though those were my precise words, but you may search Parts 1 and 2 of “Who Killed James Forrestal?” or my entire web site and you won’t find them anywhere.

Here is what I do have to say about the matter in Part 1, before I obtained the Willcutts Report:

And to this day no one in authority has told us what that sash was doing there. Might that be because the attempted hanging scenario is not just nonsensical, but it is impossible? If Forrestal was bent on killing himself, wouldn’t he have simply dived out the window, particularly when the attendant was likely to return at any minute? After the sash had been wrapped and tied tightly around his neck, was there enough of it left over for it to also have been tied at one time around the radiator beneath the window? Were there any indications from the creases in the sash that an attempt had been made to tie it around something at one end? How likely is it, anyway, that Navy veteran Forrestal would have been so incompetent at tying a knot that it would have come undone? Most importantly, how do we know that skilled assassins, working for people with ample motives to silence this astute and outspoken patriot (more about those people later) did not use the sash to throttle and subdue Forrestal before pitching him out the window?

In Part 2, devoted primarily to an analysis of the Willcutts Report, I have a short section on the subject entitled “The Suspicious Cord”:

          The general approach of the review board from the beginning seems to be to take it as a given that Forrestal took his own life and that it is their job to come up with some explanation as to how he was able to get away with it. The exception to that rule is in their treatment of the bathrobe cord that was tied around Forrestal’s neck. They certainly knew that this had to look very, very suspicious, that someone might have used it to throttle Forrestal in his bed and then throw him out of the window. If Forrestal was bound to kill himself, was he so addled that he did not realize that throwing himself out a 16th floor window, by itself, would do the job?

The first person to testify about it was Hospitalman William Eliades:

When the doctor shone the light you could see one end was tied around his neck and other end extended over toward the left part of his head. It was not broken in any way and didn’t seem to be tied on to anything. I looked to see whether he had tried to hang himself and see whether a piece of cord had broken off. It was all in one piece except it was tied around his neck.

Eliades and several succeeding witnesses are asked how tight the cord was, and the consensus seems to be that it was tight, but not all that tight. One of the doctors who saw the body when the cord was still on is asked if he saw any signs of asphyxia, and he responded in the negative. Finally, Captain William M. Silliphant, the autopsy doctor, is called upon to lay to rest all speculation that Forrestal was first choked to death and then thrown out of the window:

Q. Was there any evidence of strangulation or asphyxia by strangulation?

A. There was absolutely no evidence external or internal of any strangulation or asphyxia.

That still leaves open the possibility that Forrestal was subdued and quieted by use of the cord and then thrown out of the window. If both carotid arteries taking blood to the brain are blocked, unconsciousness can occur within ten seconds. Maybe this is what happened in Forrestal’s case, with insufficient bodily evidence remaining for the autopsy doctor to notice. There is also the possibility that Captain Silliphant was not telling the truth. Those of us familiar with the performance of the autopsy doctor in the aforementioned Foster case, and in the John F. Kennedy case by Navy doctors in that same Bethesda Naval Hospital, are not inclined to believe autopsy doctors implicitly.

It would have helped if someone had gone to the trouble to determine if there was enough cord left over after “one end” was tied around Forrestal’s neck for the other end to have been tied to the radiator below the window for the man to hang himself out the window. And if an attempt had been made to so attach it, the cord might have left telltale creases where the failed knot had been. This avenue of inquiry, needless to say, was not explored.

In 2011, well after McNiece had written his dissertation, I would discover an April 1967 review of Simpson’s book by Medford Evans. Beginning with the review’s second paragraph, he provides perhaps the most common-sense explanation that has yet been given as to why the story of the aborted self-hanging made no sense:

I was living in metropolitan Washington at the time of the defenestration of Forrestal.  I remember being convinced immediately that he had not committed suicide—which was the official story—but had been murdered.  My reason was simple, but for myself, conclusive.  The first report I read, in the Washington Post, said that Forrestal’s body had been found on the hospital roof below the open sixteenth-story window of the tower, clad in pajamas and robe, with the bathrobe cord knotted about his neck.  The theory was, said the Post, that he had hanged himself out the window, and then the cord had slipped from the radiator or whatever it was tied to inside the window.

I didn’t believe it.  I believe that men hang themselves, or that they jump out sixteenth-story windows.  But I don’t believe that they hang themselves out sixteenth-story windows.

On the other hand, it is no trouble at all to imagine a murderer in orderly’s habit garroting a man with his own bathrobe cord, then heaving him out the window—perhaps with semi-maniacal haste and strength on hearing or thinking he heard approaching footsteps.

McNiece is right that I talk about signs of a struggle. How could he miss it when it’s the first section heading in Part 2? But I talk about it entirely with respect to the broken glass in Forrestal’s room, not with respect to the scene in and around the kitchen window through which he left the hospital. He is wrong to say that it had been removed by the time photographs were taken. The glass on the bed had been removed, as had the bedclothes and who knows what else, but the broken glass on the carpet at the foot of the bed had not. See the first of the crime scene photographs.

exhibit2E

Concerning McNiece’s poor reasoning, one need not be versed in the Forrestal case or in my writings about it to readily detect the flaws in McNiece’s argument concerning my supposed contradictory deployment of statements in the Willcutts Report by the doctors at the Bethesda Naval Hospital. In the first place, he seems to believe that the doctors were somehow responsible for Forrestal’s commitment. While the lead doctor, Captain George Raines, might have assumed some responsibility for it, I present evidence in Part 1 that the White House was behind it. President Truman’s secretary Matthew Connelly says flat out that it was the White House’s decision. Furthermore, I show in Part 1 that the decision to put Forrestal on the 16th floor came from the White House and it was over the objection of the doctors. I do not write of the doctors as if they were of one mind, either. Captain Raines consistently paints Forrestal’s condition in the worst light. His second in command, Captain Stephen Smith, paints it in the best light. The weight of the opinion of the other doctors about Forrestal’s mental and emotional condition leans rather clearly in Smith’s direction, in my opinion.

I never discuss the condition in terms of whether he was “sane” or “insane.” Those are McNiece’s inventions. Once again, do the search. You won’t find those words or even their synonyms or near synonyms in my articles.

McNiece also needs to know that it is not necessarily contradictory to use the same person’s testimony as authoritative in one instance and not authoritative in another. When Captain Raines volunteered to the Willcutts Review Board that the handwriting in the transcription of a morbid poem looked like Forrestal’s handwriting his words carry no authority. What would he know about handwriting analysis and how familiar would he have been with Forrestal’s handwriting, anyway? What that statement suggests is that he is bending over backward to support the official story.

When Raines also tells us that Forrestal talked of contemplating suicide, in light of what he has volunteered about the handwriting, we should be skeptical of that as well (not to mention the fact that the handwriting actually looks nothing like Forrestal’s).

JohnOHara

Note from James Forrestal to John O’Hara

HarryTruman2

Note from James Forrestal to Harry Truman

HarryTruman4

Note from James Forrestal to Harry Truman

poem

Willcutts Report poem

Captain Raines is a military man and it looks very much like he has been tasked with selling the suicide story.

Precisely because of that fact, when Raines flatly denies that Forrestal had attempted suicide four times before entering Bethesda Naval Hospital and that Forrestal had run out into the night screaming that “the Russians are coming” as influential columnist Drew Pearson wrote, his words carry particularly heavy weight. When a witness for the prosecution gives testimony that supports the case for the defense it should be taken especially seriously.

It’s really quite remarkable how many things McNiece could get wrong in one short passage. But as they say in the infomercials, “Wait, there’s more.”

He is quite right to say that the Navy used the Willcutts Report to exonerate those responsible for Forrestal’s care of any wrongdoing. Did anyone expect anything different from the Navy’s in-house inquiry? He gives readers the impression, though, that this is something new, learned only after the report was released in 2004. In fact, they gave us those conclusions in 1949, albeit almost six months after having completed their work.

With his implied endorsement of what little the Navy had told us way back in 1949, McNiece would have us believe that there was nothing of any real importance in the full report in 2004. He reinforces that impression with the incoherent mishmash that he falsely represents as a summary of my analysis.

He is wrong, as well, to miss the fact that the review board—in what it released in 1949 and in the full report released in 2004—did not conclude that Forrestal committed suicide. It concluded only that the fall caused his death. It has nothing to say as to what might have caused his fall. In a very real sense, then, when I dispute the conclusion that Forrestal committed suicide I am not challenging the official story. It is the conclusion of the opinion molding community in the press, academia, and elsewhere in the United States; it is not the Navy’s official conclusion.

McNiece is able to suggest that, in contrast to the Navy, I used the Willcutts Report in an abusive and irresponsible way only by misrepresenting my work so completely that it would not be wrong to say that he simply lied about it. Even with his demonstrably limited intellectual capacity, he had to know better.

McNiece submitted his dissertation in December of 2008. In January of 2008, I published Part 5 of “Who Killed James Forrestal,” which contains a telling exchange between Professor David Kaiser of the Navy War College and me. One can read the entire exchange in the article, which is subtitled, “Press and historians close ranks, minds,” on my web site. My response to Kaiser lists the most important things in the Willcutts Report that undermine the suicide conclusion.

First we have part of Professor Kaiser’s response to my email objecting, among other things, to his writing as a matter of fact that Forrestal had committed suicide, in light of what we now know after the release of the Willcutts Report:

Your email states that the [Willcutts] report casts doubt on Forrestal’s suicide, but I can’t see that it did that in the slightest—the only doubt seemed to be about whether he purposely jumped out the window or was trying to hang himself.

Here is the key part of my response to him:

May I take it, then, that with regard to whether or not Forrestal committed suicide, you consider of no consequence the revelations that:

1. the handwriting of the transcribed poem, which, for the press, served as his suicide note, does not resemble Forrestal’s at all

2. that broken glass was on his bed and on the carpet at the foot of the bed

3. that Forrestal’s room was not photographed until many hours after he was found dead and that when it was it did not resemble the room that the nurse who first got a good look at the vacated room described. The photos show a bed with nothing but a bare mattress and pillow on them, whereas Nurse Turner testified that, as one might expect, “The bed clothes were turned back and towards the middle of the bed and I looked down and [the slippers] were right there as you get out of bed.” No slippers or any other sign that the room had been occupied are evident in the photographs, either.

4. that the influential biographer, Arnold Rogow, apparently fabricated the story that the guard saw Forrestal transcribing the morbid poem when he last looked in on him, because the guard testified that when he last looked in the room Forrestal was apparently sleeping and the lights had been off and Forrestal apparently did no reading or writing during the guard’s time of duty which began at midnight

5. that the influential newspapers reporting on the death apparently fabricated the story that the transcription ended in the middle of the word “nightingale” or, depending on which article in The Washington Post you read, the transcription included the lines, “When Reason’s day sets rayless–joyless–quenched in cold decay, better to die, and sleep the never-ending sleep than linger on, and dare to live, when the soul’s life is gone.”

6. that the findings of the Willcutts Report were not issued until several months had passed and then, the findings did not include the conclusion that Forrestal had committed suicide

7. that photographs of Forrestal’s body were first withheld from the FOIAed material on the grounds that they might disturb Forrestal’s surviving loved ones, and when told that there were no surviving loved ones the Navy changed its story and claimed that they were lost

8. that the book from which Forrestal supposedly copied the damning poem does not appear in official evidence nor is the supposed discoverer of either the book or the transcription ever officially identified

9. that the Willcutts Report was kept secret for 55 years, when its whole purpose was to clear the air and establish the facts publicly concerning the nature of Forrestal’s death?

It’s been more than six years and Kaiser has not responded to the questions, so it is pretty clear at this point that he is not going to respond. He’s smart enough to see that there’s nothing he could say if he remains determined to defend the suicide story.

 

McNiece’s Crucial Character Problem

This brings us back to young Dr. McNiece. It’s not a sin to be intellectually challenged. It’s nature. As surely as the sun rises in the east, the normal curve of the distribution of abilities within the human population determines that there must be those who are down on the left (lower) end when it comes to intellect. It is the dishonesty, showing his lack of character, that is most troubling. We see both those glaring shortcomings on display in the last and only other time he mentions my work, kind of like the grand finale of a fireworks display:

Ironically, even [Evan] Hause‘s opera on Forrestal‘s defenestration would raise the ire of conspiracist Dave Martin. Titled “Nightingale,” Hause‘s opera recalls the long-standing belief that Forrestal copied lines from Sophocles‘ “Chorus from Ajax” in a sort of substitute suicide note. Hoopes and Brinkley suggest that Forrestal stopped after writing the word “nightingale,” which perhaps sparked recognition of a similarly named secret military program dealing with amnesty for the WWII Ukrainian death squads and for which Forrestal bore responsibility as Secretary of Defense. While Martin‘s conspiracy theory long centered around apparent inconsistencies between the copied text of the poem and other, confirmed samples of Forrestal‘s handwriting, columnist Hugh Turley added in December 2007 that the stanza stopped well short of the lines referencing a nightingale. Here again one sees the social construction of conspiracy mythology that replaces confirmed knowledge in an environment of anticommunist hysteria and ambiguous public awareness–even the Washington Post, as Martin and Turley both chide, continued reporting the “nightingale” connection as recently as on the fiftieth anniversary of Forrestal‘s death.

The usual McNiece failings in writing, reasoning, and scholarship are so evident here to any minimally educated reader that, in the interests of brevity, we shall skip over those and go straight to the honesty problem. That should have been evident to the members of his committee had they bothered to look at his footnote. They didn’t even need to read what was in the footnote’s referenced material. The references are two: once again to my home page, and to Turley’s Hyattsville Life and Times article that bears the title, “Handwriting Tells Dark Tale?

The title by itself tells you that Turley’s article stresses the fact, as I do, that the handwriting in the poem transcription that the press and the historians have sold us as a sort of surrogate suicide note bears not the slightest resemblance to Forrestal’s handwriting. Common sense says that if someone else wrote the suicide note, they are the ones who killed him and Forrestal did not kill himself. Yet, insofar as I can decipher his prose, McNiece characterizes what we are doing by pointing this rather disturbing fact out as replacing “confirmed knowledge” with “anticommunist hysteria.”

McNiece must have been confident that his committee would let all this shoddy work pass because, having played the academic game so successfully for so long, he knew that as long as he appealed to their prejudices he was in the clear. Similarly, he could also be sure that he could get by with his fib when he introduced the author of Who Killed James Forrestal: “For Cornell Simpson, a lay historian who allegedly began his investigation into the conspiracy surrounding Forrestal‘s death in the mid-1950s, Forrestal exists as a hero of the pulp fiction genre, a dime-store spy novel‘s protagonist too powerful and too righteous to be undone by natural or straightforward causes.”

In fact, McNiece doesn’t know the first thing about Simpson’s background. “Cornell Simpson” is anonymous. It’s a pen name. I’m pretty sure that there are people still alive who know who “Simpson” (or maybe even the group of people who wrote his book) is, or was, but they’re not saying. For all McNiece knows “Simpson” could have been an Ivy League history professor afraid to put his real name on the book, or maybe he was Carroll Quigley. (Do universities—Christian or otherwise—revoke doctoral degrees for conscious lying in a dissertation?)

When he called “Simpson” a “lay historian,” he knew no more about him than he knew about me when he called me a “self-styled economist,” although by studying my web site carefully he could have traced a good bit of my professional career. Even more easily, he could have emailed me and I would have told him all about myself.

 

Forrestal Central to the McNiece Thesis

Since I have faulted McNiece for mischaracterization of the work of others, I have a particular obligation not to be guilty of the same offense. Is the provocative title of this piece a conscious distortion? At this point I shall beg the indulgence of the reader once again by presenting McNiece’s abstract of his magnum opus:

Manichaeism imbues both the history and the historiography of domestic American anticommunism. Within the latter, two major schools dominate. One identifies anticommunism as little more than an anti-intellectual anti-liberalism directed by conservatives against various social and political dissenters. The other rejects this view as dangerous revisionism that obscures the very real threat posed to the United States by the agents of (especially Soviet) communism. This study proposes a new understanding of domestic American anticommunism as a rhetorical battle to define the parameters of legitimacy and authenticity within the twentieth-century United States. In this view, neither of the main branches of the historiography fully guides the historian. Instead, tools from the field of rhetoric studies aid more traditional historical inquiry in illuminating the multivariate ways in which social and political forces deployed the construct of anticommunism as a tool for legitimation or delegitimation. Various chapters explore the interactions of political liberalism and conservativism with mainstream definitions of anticommunism, as well as the social construction of a national identity or a hero mythology within a peculiarly American anticommunist environment. Ultimately, domestic American anticommunism may be seen as a fundamentally conservative force for defining authenticity, and in a Manichean way, illegitimacy. For the better part of a century, anticommunism helped delineate “us” from “them” in U.S. social and partisan politics.

Did you catch that “hero mythology” jibe? That’s all about Forrestal and his death. It is very important to McNiece’s thesis, as one can gather only from the few passages I have quoted, that the notion that Forrestal was any sort of hero or admirable historical figure be shot down as simply a “myth,” created by nutty anti-Communists and “conspiracy theorists,” whoever those latter people might be. Not only must McNiece trash Forrestal to support his central thesis that the “anticommunists” are a bunch of villainous crazies but he must also trash one of Forrestal’s strongest advocates, that being the current writer.

In case the short excerpts up to now were not enough, check out McNiece’s third paragraph in Chapter 4:

For some, his death represents the classic fulfillment of a soldier‘s call to duty, no different than a heroic death on the field of battle. For others, Forrestal‘s legacy resembles that of a protagonist in a classic Greek tragedy, wherein the hero‘s greatest strength ultimately becomes his fatal flaw. For still others, an insidious enemy–figuratively, or, more conspiratorially, literally–felled Forrestal by a stab-in-the-back. This Forrestal is a sort of pulp spy novel‘s hero, too strong to have been undone by any natural force or straightforward challenge. These archetypes remain consistent whether one believes that Forrestal took his own life, as is the unanimous scholarly opinion, or was the victim of some sort of murderous conspiracy. Indeed, even the most reputed account of Forrestal’s life and the circumstances surrounding his death, the biography by Townsend Hoopes and Douglas Brinkley, reluctantly admits that “Forrestal’s death fostered several enduring suppositions.” Yet the veracity of these theories is in some ways less important than exploring why and how they developed—and remain—as cultural artifacts of America’s peculiar anticommunist Cold War culture.

Speaking of Manicheanism, I believe that readers have now been sufficiently exposed to what passes for thinking, McNiece-style, to agree that I am being more accurate and fairer to him than he has been to me if I sum up his thesis simply as “Us, good; them, bad, and the facts be damned.” The “us” are the credentialed history “scholars” who cling to that supposed “unanimous opinion” in the face of the newest evidence that, to their everlasting discredit, they preferred not to look for, and the “them” are assorted “anticommunists” and “conspiracy theorists.” As for Hoopes and Brinkley having supplied “the most reputed account…of the circumstances surrounding [Forrestal’s] death” I refer readers to my letter to Brinkley, which was available online when McNiece was writing his dissertation.

Let us nail our charge down with another McNiece quote from Chapter 4:

Nevertheless, a slight literary twist deploys Forrestal instead as the hero protagonist of a pulp spy novel. Just as the circumstances and public knowledge about his death allowed for the legacy‘s manipulation into the construct of a heroic soldier, Forrestal‘s demise may be reinterpreted in light of the burgeoning anticommunist hysteria that bred all manner of conspiracy theories–culminating most recognizably in [Senator Joe] McCarthy‘s unverified claim of widespread communist infiltration of the federal government. (He really does like that “pulp” label. ed.)

He is able to make his wave-of-the-hand statement that Senator McCarthy’s claims about communists in the government were unverified by ignoring completely McCarthy’s most prominent living defender, M. Stanton Evans. Neither Evans nor his 2007 book, Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and his Fight Against America’s Enemies appear in McNiece’s bibliography. Similarly, in his fact-free-zone of a treatise, a search of his document fails to turn up the names of either Alger Hiss or Whittaker Chambers.

 

Not Just McNiece

Near the end of Chapter 4, McNiece treats us with this passage:

While this exploration demonstrates the social construction of an archetypal anticommunist hero through the various eulogies of James V. Forrestal, responsible scholarship must emphasize that the scholarly interpretation of Forrestal‘s death faces no substantive threat to its credibility. The simplest, best evidenced, and most rational explanation remains that Forrestal suffered a mental break-down and committed suicide on May 22, 1949.

Indeed, had I been blessed with no more candlepower than McNiece has exhibited I might be content to let other people do my thinking for me, too.

The rot that I have revealed with respect to the Forrestal case goes far beyond the academic bush leagues of Texas. This is from an article I published in late 2011:

America’s foremost scholar on the history of the Cold War, Yale University history professor John Lewis Gaddis, in response to a question by this writer last night, claimed that he knew nothing about the release of the official investigation of the death of James Forrestal (the Willcutts Report).  According to Wikipedia, “Gaddis is best known for his critical analysis of the strategies of containment employed by United States presidents from Harry S. Truman to Ronald Reagan…”

Gaddis responded that, indeed, he knew nothing of this official investigation and its belated release.  In stating that Forrestal had committed suicide, he said, he was simply repeating the “prevailing opinion” on the matter.

The article has this telling addendum:

I have now had a chance to look at Gaddis’s new book and have found there some more information that sheds additional light on his answer to my question.  Included in his bibliography, as one would expect, is the 2009 book by Nicholas Thompson, The Hawk and the Dove: Paul Nitze, George Kennan, and the History of the Cold War.  In Part 6 of my series, “Who Killed James Forrestal,” I show that Thompson writes at some length, though in a very dishonest way, about the findings of the Willcutts Report, the one about which Gaddis claims ignorance.  There are therefore three possibilities with respect to Gaddis’s claim of ignorance of that report, (1) Gaddis has read the book but forgot about that section, (2) he included the book in his bibliography without having read all of it, or (3) he was not telling the truth when he said that he had never heard of the Willcutts Report.  Neither possibility gives one much confidence in Gaddis as a historian.

McNiece, too, is safely, and sadly, reflecting the “prevailing opinion” within the cozy community of American academic historians. At this point a quote from the late, great journalist Joseph Sobran is in order:

When the word “extremist” is routinely applied to dissenting views and “out of the mainstream” is used as a dismissal, it’s safe to say that the pressure to conform has become very intense. Why else would these vacuous charges have any force? The recent revolt against “political correctness” is an encouraging sign that many people have had enough.

Education…has become a form of mass production, to be supervised by the state for the good of the state.

 

…the natural result is a population that sets great store by conformity to the mass. In public controversies, most people are chiefly concerned to play it safe. Before they take any position, they ask themselves not “Is it true?” but “What will happen to me if I say this?”

 

So, yes, McNiece has well reflected what these days passes for “responsible scholarship” with respect to Forrestal’s death. But it is not based upon evidence; it is based on cowardice.

David Martin

July 7, 2014

 

Follow @BuelahMan

BuelaHuh?

Did I rub you the wrong way or stroke you just right? Let me know below in the comments section or Email me at buelahman {AT} g m a i l {DOT} com

If for some reason you actually liked this post, click the “Like” button below. If you feel like someone else needs to see this (or you just want to ruin someone’s day), click the Share Button at the bottom of the post and heap this upon some undeserving soul. And as sad as this thought may be, it may be remotely possible that us rednecks here at The Revolt please you enough (or more than likely, you are just a glutton for punishment??), that you feel an overwhelming desire to subscribe via the Email subscription and/or RSS Feed buttons found on the upper right hand corner of this page (may the Lord have mercy on your soul).

All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or WordPress.com