Video of Labor Goon Slugging Union Man in NC

Video of Labor Goon Slugging Union Man in NC

by DC Dave

The very essence of the slave system of agriculture was that the owner of the land upon which the crops and animals were grown had all the power and the people who worked on the farms had none. After a long period of relative freedom for workers, that state of affairs has very nearly been restored in much of the United States with the blessings of the federal government through its H-2A foreign guest worker program.

Nowhere is the current imbalance of power better illustrated than in a video that was surreptitiously shot by a worker on July 9 in North Carolina and then posted on YouTube by the Farm Labor Organizing Committee (FLOC) of the AFL-CIO. You can watch as the landowner stands casually with his hands in his pockets in front of a group of foreign workers as a representative of Stan Eury’s North Carolina Growers Association (NCGA), who looks like the reincarnation of Simon Legree, himself, berates the workers.

About midway through the video, the NCGA rep, Paul Saffle, who is speaking in Spanish that is only faintly picked up by the video, begins to read the names of workers who have sought assistance from the FLOC. His purpose is clearly intimidation. Saffle takes exception to some words by the union rep, Oscar Sanchez, an older, smaller man who is standing about 20 feet to one side. To reinforce his demand for silence from Sanchez, Saffle strides over and punches him in the face.

punch

We learn from FLOC’s July 21 update of its earlier article that Saffle lost his job as a result of the incident. The episode, including the video, has also been reported on the left-liberal gatekeeper web site, Buzzfeed, and the web site of Democratic Socialists of America entitled Talking Union. The mainstream press has apparently blacked out news of the incident, however. We could find no mention of it on any of the web sites of North Carolina’s newspapers or television stations. Without any such media pressure, it’s a pretty good bet that Saffle will not be charged with assault by local law enforcement officials, when his guilt is patently obvious from the video.

 

Missing News

Not even the three web sites that we found who covered the incident raised the question of the criminality of Saffle’s actions, nor did they mention the complicity of the landowner standing at his side in apparent approval. Buzzfeed’s only contribution is to elaborate a bit further on what “provoked” Saffle to act. Like FLOC, they note that Sanchez corrected Saffle’s pronunciation of a name, but they note further that Sanchez asked, “What are you going to fix, man? What are you going to fix?” It was at that point that Saffle showed that what he was going to fix was Sanchez’s impertinence.

images

The biggest omission of all in the coverage given to the incident is the failure to give us any background information on Saffle’s employer, the NCGA. We would never know that the head of the organization is under federal indictment for abusing the H-2B system for non-farm workers and that, as I detail in “Has Obama Gone Bulworth on Alien Smuggling?”, the NCGA has been guilty of the same thing for years.

The FLOC coverage also conceals the connection between the NCGA abuses and the situation that led up to the incident on the video. The foreign workers had sought assistance from FLOC because there was insufficient work for them to make enough money even to feed themselves. FLOC says it is because of the weather, but, in fact, the weather in North Carolina’s tobacco regions has been excellent this year. The NCGA every year brings in far more laborers than there is work for. That is the very first item in the list supplied to me by an informant in North Carolina’s Employment Security Commission (ESC), “NCGA would always submit orders for the capacity of the farmer’s camp.  Many former cucumber growers would have camps with 20-40 person capacity.  The farmer would actually be requesting less than half the camp capacity, primarily for the highly mechanized tobacco crop.”

 

Par for the Course

If the surplus of workers and the hardship they suffer is no aberration, one can be fairly certain that the abusive behavior exhibited by Saffle—backed up by the landowner—is no aberration, either. The only aberration is that it happened to be filmed. Saffle acts like a man who is used to getting by with such things. And, in a sense, he has gotten by with it again. We are told by NCGA and FLOC that he has resigned, but we can be pretty sure that a man with his demonstrated talents will be able to find work in today’s farm and immigration environment, if, in fact, NCGA has not already just transferred him to Mexico.

Stan ncga

The worst thing that the episode tells us, if the reporters on it do not, is that the NCGA, in spite of the federal indictment of Stan Eury and his daughter in January, is continuing to get by with what it does. Just this past April, the Associated Press rewarded it with what we called an “Infomercial,” which praised the organization as the holder of the key to solve America’s (imaginary) farm labor problem. That widely distributed article, like the current website coverage of the slugging incident, made no mention of the Eury indictment. The NCGA is also continuing to get by with abusing foreign workers as shown by the complete blackout by the mainstream press of this recent documented assault of a union man that puts one in mind of scenes from Matewan, Norma Rae, or On the Waterfront.

The great continuing excuse for the abusive program—whose biggest abuse is its contribution to the illegal alien problem—is that the imported workers are brought here to do the jobs that Americans won’t do. To be sure, they won’t do them for the wages and slave-like conditions under which the imported workers are expected to labor. In case the bad conditions were not enough, one of the federal charges against Eury is that he instructed employers on tailoring their worker requests so that American workers would not apply for the jobs.

As contrary to the common good as Eury’s NCGA has proved to be, and with the federal indictment hanging over his head, job orders approved by the ESC for NCGA this year are at a record high, according to my ESC informants. That’s something else we won’t learn from the web sites covering the assault incident or from the mainstream media.

 

David Martin

July 29, 2014

 

See also “H-2A Kingpin Stumbles on H-2B.”

 

B’Man Note: As of this posting the NCGA website is offline.

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

Forrestal, Skippy Creator Shared Similar Fate

Forrestal, Skippy Creator Shared Similar Fate

by DC Dave

Skippy_dissolve

The following is posted with permission of the correspondent:

Subj: Thanks for James Forrestal incisive story

Date: 9/26/03

For the last few hours I have been mesmerized by your story, “Who Killed James Forrestal?” I found this after reading your online book, “America’s Dreyfus Affair“, with which I was very impressed, and wanted to learn more about you.

percy1

Percy Crosby (www.skippy.com)

My father, Percy L. Crosby (1891-1964) also knew Forrestal, both of whom were clients of the formerly prestigious NY law firm, Lord, Day & Lord (disbanded 1994, over which former Atty. Gen. Herbert Brownell reigned, Tom Dewey’s close friend and campaign advisor in the Truman-Dewey campaign). Both Forrestal and my father met similar fates, and had made similar enemies who had them black-listed. Currently, my family and I are fighting for our lives (in an Emile Zola type battle you referred to in your book re America’s Dreyfus Affair), in a major fraud lawsuit, too controversial for media to cover, or expose the “truth buried underground”.

Some of the underlying facts of suit are revealed in my web site story of my father’s life (http://www.skippy.com) who was the creator of the famous “Skippy” character, among other literary pursuits (political cartoons, diatribes against the high and mighty, etc.). It may be of interest to you. If so, I would very much like to speak with you. You have done an amazing and splendid job of research and writing, and I’m very impressed.

Your analysis of the Israel-Palestine problem, and its effect on Forrestal is superb, and most timely for today—what Forrestal and others feared has come to pass despite those of us small citizens who tried to speak out and warn of the consequences. My late husband, Waldo Tibbetts, and I were stationed in Israel (1957-60) when he was director of C.A.R.E., a private relief agency, after which he spent 6 years in Saudi Arabia and Egypt as civilian consultant-economist, 1980-86. I have been vilified and labeled as anti-Semitic so often by the defendant Skippy pirates it no longer carries any pain, although I learned to read, write and speak Hebrew fairly well while in Israel, and could laugh (then) at the disparaging comments made to my husband and me as “goyim” (gentiles), done in friendly, joking manner.

My outlook changed after I learned of my father’s 16 years of confinement as a political prisoner in a mental hospital, and those who held him hostage. Like Henry Forrestal, I also am “damned bitter” about the disinformation, cover-up and became the target for the defendants’ relentless efforts to silence me, portraying me as mentally ill, like they did my father. So much for the goodness and popularity of the “famous” SKIPPY brand peanut butter, truly a story deserving of Dickens, where crime pays big and there is no honor among thieves.

Sincerely,

Joan Crosby Tibbetts, President

Skippy, Inc.

Administratrix, Percy Crosby Estate http://www.skippy.com

 

If you haven’t yet read the Skippy story on her site you should do so. It’s extremely shocking and revealing.

David Martin

September 29, 2003

 

Addendum

See also “Crime, Corruption, Copyright, and a Kids’ Comic: Skippy” by Michael Dooley and “A Tale of Two Cartoonists” by Hugh Turley. Additional information on Crosby from the present writer is to be found in “Roosevelt’s Revenge?” and “Percy Crosby on Franklin Roosevelt.”

 

David Martin

July 23, 2014

 

NOTE by BuelahMan: Research shows that Hormel purchased Skippy Peanut Butter from the Anglo-Dutch consumer goods company, Unilever in Jan 2013.

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

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

Eleven Years Later: The Isis Crisis (Its Just Greater Israel)

Jewish-Zionist-Neocons-Behind-Iraq-Plight

Never, Ever, forget the Jewish neocon scumbags (and their lick-spittle puppet-head  minions) that hijacked our government prior to 911 and orchestrated the performances that day with the intent of finding creating the reasons for invading Iraq. Almost immediately, the Jewish assholes who controlled Bush’s cabal were pushing to invade.

We know it was all lies and that there were no “honest mistakes”. They knew the truth: that there were no weapons of mass destruction… no connections to Al Qaeda (even though a decade later these same Jewish miscreants are now FUNDING Al Qaeda’s forays into Syria and Iraq and anywhere else our murderous mercenary hit men go on our behalf).

Truly, beyond all the bullshit that the Jews and their mouthpieces splatter-poot us with on a daily basis, the REAL impetus for America’s illegal invasions into Iraq (and elsewhere in the ME) is to establish “Greater Israel”. It has always been the goal.

So, when you hear the Jewish mainstream media whores go on and on about how awful ISIS (our own creation used to keep your mind in a tumultuous mess), remember that they are doing EXACTLY what the Jews want done. Break up these countries into manageable segments and then take the areas that Herzl described as Greater Israel.

One of my channel subscribers asked me to re-upload this video.

Ten Years Later was originally featured here.

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, the False Messiah

Zionism, the False Messiah

by DC Dave

alan-hart

Alan Hart, a former correspondent for the BBC’s Panoramaand for the major news service ITN, is about as mainstream a news figure as one can be in Great Britain. He cut his journalistic teeth as a young man covering the 6-day war in 1967 in the Middle East and probably has as much first-hand knowledge of the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians as any person alive. No Western journalist has had more intimate access to leaders on both sides than he has. He was very close to both Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir and PLO leader Yasser Arafat. In 1984, reflecting much of his first-hand knowledge, he wrote a book about the latter, Arafat, Terrorist or Peacemaker?

To be a top Middle Eastern correspondent for such major organs has also required a great deal of homework on his part, and one can see that he has put in the time. More than that, in volume one of Zionism, the Real Enemy of the Jews, entitled The False Messiah, he comes across as a thoroughly fair-minded man.

It is a combination that is both remarkable, to my mind, for a mainstream journalist and lethal in a career field that is now so Zionist-dominated. It is perhaps telling that the adjective “former” is now placed in front of those high positions of his in the Western opinion-molding industry. As we have seen with the 60 Minutes gerontocracy, at 71 years of age he’s still a relative spring chicken in the field. It is hardly surprising that, as Hart tells us in the prologue to his U.S. edition, published in 2009 four years after the first publication in Britain, that he initially had to self-publish this book. That was so “despite the fact that my literary agent had on file letters of rare praise for my work from the CEOs of some of our major publishing houses.”

Now, it would appear that the British liberal Hart has gone the way of the late conservative American Joseph Sobran who in his last years practiced his journalism in an unremunerated fashion through his web site. Since Hart can now say the sorts of things that he was not allowed to say by the BBC or ITN, AlanHart.Net is a very good source for useful information, but his audience is perforce much smaller than before, probably along the lines of that for DCDave.com.

zionism

The truth about Zionism, which Hart is now free to tell, is, unfortunately, very ugly. How, really, can one put a rosy gloss upon the violent forcing out of a people from their ancestral homeland and the heavy-handed continued oppression of those who remain? Zionism, to anyone who has observed it objectively as Hart has, is a witch’s brew of fanaticism, deceit, ruthlessness, and money.

The fanaticism has its roots primarily in the ethnic politics of Eastern Europe. The good liberal Hart perhaps sees too much of it as a reaction to pervasive “anti-Semitism” and too little of it as a reflection of the dark side of the atavistic, tribal nature of Talmudic Judaism, itself.

Following Hart’s narrative, it is clear that the Nazi oppression was not the cause of Zionist fanaticism. The movement predates the rise of Adolf Hitler. But Hart cannot admit that the fanaticism flows out of the nature of Judaism as it has evolved because that would contradict his central thesis, that is, that bad political Zionism should be contrasted with good religious Judaism. That view, as it happens, was well summed up by a June 3, 2014, letter to The Washington Post:

With Israeli flags in many synagogues and Jewish groups calling upon American Jews to “make aliyah”—emigrate to Israel—it seems that a form of idolatry has been embraced, making Israel an object of worship, replacing God, much like the golden calf in the Bible. Such views do not represent the outlook of the vast majority of American Jews. Judaism is a religion of universal values, not a nationality, and American Jews are Americans by nationality and Jews by religion, just as other Americans are Protestant, Catholic or Muslim.

Judaism has been corrupted by its politicization. Fortunately, Zionism seems to be in retreat among American Jews, as evidenced by the increasing number of Jews that the D.C. Jewish Community Center and like-minded groups feel the need to censor. The Jewish tradition believes that all men and women, of every race and nation, are created in the image of God and deserve to be treated humanely. What happens to Palestinians, as a result, is no less important than what happens to Israelis.

–Allan C. Brownfield, Alexandria.

 

Against Their Better Angels

Ahad_Haam

Hart’s book is full of the warnings of prominent Jews who inveighed against the “false messiah” of political Zionism. He even devotes an entire chapter of praise to an early leader of cultural Zionism, Asher Zvi Hirsch Ginsberg, who used the pen name of Ahad Ha’am. In the following quote on page 107 Ha’am is reacting to actions by Jewish settlers in Palestine in the 1920s in which he well foresaw and lamented in advance what has in fact transpired:

Apart from the political danger, I can’t put up with the idea that our brethren are morally capable of behaving in such a way to humans of another people, and unwittingly this thought comes to my mind: if it is so now, what will be our relation to the others if in truth we shall achieve at the end of times power in Eretz Israel?

Hart quotes him further, “If this be the messiah, I do not wish to see his coming.

YahoodPromisedLand

Nutty Yahoo’s Eretz Israel

Continuing with Hart:

Judah_Leon_MagnesAnother legendary spiritual Zionist who spoke against political Zionism was Dr. Judah Magnes, the founder and first president of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He warned time and time again that by establishing a political dominion in Palestine against the wishes and without the consent of the Arabs “we shall be sowing the seed of an eternal hatred of such dimensions that Jews will not be able to live in this part of the world for centuries to come.” And that, Magnes said to political Zionists, “is something you had better try to avoid.”

To the wisdom of Jewish leaders like Ha’am and Magnes adds that of British cabinet member Edwin Samuel Montagu and U.S. lawyer, businessman, and ambassador Henry Morgenthau, Sr., who was also a close associate of and influence upon President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The following observation by Montagu was made in 1917 (page 102 of Hart):

I deny that Palestine is today associated with the Jews. [Montagu’s own emphasis.] It is

Edwin S. Montagu

Edwin S. Montagu

quite true that Palestine plays a large part in Jewish history, but so it does in modern Mohammedan history, and, after the time of the Jews, surely it plays a larger part than any other country in Christian history. The Temple may have been in Palestine, but so was the Sermon on the Mount and the Crucifixion. I would not deny to Jews in Palestine equal rights to colonisation with those who profess other religions, but a religious test of citizenship seems to be only admitted by those who take a bigoted and narrow view of one particular epoch of the history of Palestine, and claim for the Jews a position for which they are not entitled…

Morgenthau wrote the following in his 1921 autobiography (page 114 of Hart):

 Henry Morgenthau, Sr

Henry Morgenthau, Sr

Zionism is the most stupendous fallacy in Jewish history. It is wrong in principle and impossible of realization; it is unsound in its economics, fanatical in its politics and sterile in its spiritual ideas. I speak as a Jew.

Just as Alison Weir’s recent book on Zionism is titled Against Our Better Judgment, Hart’s might well have been called Against Their Better Judgment or perhaps Against Their Better Angels.

Deceit and Treachery

The deceit practiced by the political Zionists, who have clearly been guided by those other angels, is legion, but two big lies stand out. The first is the subterfuge practiced by putative Zionism founder Theodor Herzl and his cohorts that all they were after in Palestine was a Jewish “home” in Palestine as opposed to a “homeland.” The latter term implies a sovereign state in which the Jews would be in full control. The second was the misrepresentation practiced upon unaware potential settlers from Europe that Palestine was lightly populated. Many were made to believe that what they would achieve by relocating would not be at the expense of any substantial number of Arab residents. Hart tells us that many of the early settlers returned to Europe in disgust when they learned that they had been lied to.

Hart’s sixth chapter is called “The Honest Zionists” and it refers to the so-called “revisionist Zionists” led by Vladimir Jabotinsky. Herzl, Hart informs us, had written in his diary as early as 1895 that the intent of the Zionist movement was to supplant the native population so that the Jews could have a state of their own in Palestine. Herzl and other Zionist leaders consistently misrepresented their intentions as wanting to share Palestine as the ancestral home of the Jewish people. Jabotinsky, by contrast, was up-front about the Jewish plans to monopolize power in a place that, at the time, was overwhelmingly populated by non-Jewish Palestinians. In 1935 he told the American Jewish Communist journalist, Robert Gessner, “Revisionism is naïve, brutal and primitive. It is savage. You go out into the street and pick any man—a Chinaman—and ask him what he wants and he will say 100 percent of everything. That’s us. We want a Jewish Empire.”

The world would have been better served paying attention to Jabotinsky than to other Zionist leaders and apologists. Later the primitive brutality would be supplied by men like Menachem Begin, perpetrator of the Deir Yassin massacre, Yitzhak Shamir, specialist in assassinations during the period of Jewish terror under the British mandate, and Ariel Sharon, architect of several civilian massacres. Each would be rewarded for their actions by being made prime minister of Israel. For a movement whose true guiding light was a man like Jabotinsky, who is now honored in Israel by such things as streets named after him, it was only to be expected.

Money and Gangsterism

zionist-plan-copy1

Most important of all for the success, up to now, of political Zionism has been the money that has been used to buy weaponry, public opinion, and political leaders, primarily where it has mattered most, in the United States. The Zionist control of the opinion-molding industries has made their thuggish control of the politicians less obvious. Money is half of the time-honored method of the underworld to get its way with people in responsible positions. The Latin drug traffickers call it plata o plomo, silver or lead. In English it boils down to bribery and coercion. The “bribery” might well be within the law in the form of campaign contributions, given or withheld or given to the politician’s adversary. There is ample evidence, however, that the Zionists, in their completely amoral fanaticism, will freely commit murder if more moderate forms of coercion and intimidation are deemed insufficiently effective. We saw it with the assassination of the British governor general Lord Moyne and the lead UN negotiator on Palestine, Count Folke Bernadotte and with the bombing of the King David Hotel.

In his final chapter Hart reminds us that Begin’s Irgun gang attempted to assassinate Foreign Minister Ernest Bevin of the UK in 1946, though he makes no mention of the letter bombs sent to the Truman White House by the Stern Gang in 1947. To his eternal credit, though, although I only recently became aware of it, he broke the book-publishing silence about my own discoveries concerning the violent death of Secretary of Defense James Forrestal.

His concluding chapter is entitled “Forrestal’s ‘Suicide’,” and it is important to note that he encloses the word “suicide” in quotation marks. In his account of Forrestal’s determined efforts to remove the question of the creation and recognition of the state of Israel from U.S. domestic politics, Hart leaves no doubt that my characterization of Forrestal as the leading U.S. opponent of the creation of the state of Israel is an accurate one.

“I accessed his work by putting ‘David Martin also known as DCDave’ into Google’s search box and readers can to the same if they wish,” he tells us on page 317. It’s a good thing that he does that because it allows the reader to read all the evidence for himself and make up his own mind. * In spite of his extensive favorable reference to my work, including long quotes, Hart says at last, “In the jury of my own mind, the answer to the question of whether Forrestal committed suicide or was murdered is an open one.”

The case is really open and shut. Forrestal was clearly assassinated and the entire political and media establishment has conspired to cover it up. That latter point is extremely telling. Hart, as a mainstream establishment liberal still apparently hankers for “respectability” among the group that is complicit in this heinous cover-up. That forlorn desire would also explain why he takes gratuitous swipes at “holocaust deniers” in his book and apparently accepts the official 9/11 narrative (On his web site, though, he seems now to have put some distance between himself and the 19-Arab-hijackers story.)

The Zionist Grip on America

aa-Dees-zionism-US-strait-jacketed

In the prologue to the 2009 American edition entitled “An Appeal to the American People,” Hart writes, “As surely as day follows night, the Zionist lobby and other supporters of Israel right or wrong will make an awesome effort to limit distribution of this book in America, and to cause the informed and honest debate it was written to promote to be suppressed.”

He certainly got that right, and the apparent success of that effort up to now demonstrates the futility of Hart’s efforts to stay on good terms with the mainstream crowd. Their success in suppressing his book in the United States is illustrated by the fact that I had never heard of it until I saw it mentioned by Alison Weir in Against Our Better Judgment, even though he makes such long and favorable mention of my Forrestal work. The publisher, Clarity Press, Inc. of Atlanta is hardly a household name. I have a wide circle of email contacts and my email address is freely available, yet no one had told me about the book.

I also live in an information center in suburban Washington, DC, but I find using WorldCat.org that the nearest library that has the book is at a small college 138 miles away in Lynchburg, Virginia. No library in the District of Columbia, Maryland, Delaware, or North Carolina has it. The next nearest library that has the book is at a SUNY campus in Binghamton, NY, and after that I would have to go to a college library in Gainesville, Georgia. By some small wonder the Carlsbad City Library of Carlsbad, California, once made the book available to readers, but no more. They have discarded it, no doubt as part of the “awesome effort” to limit the book’s distribution. That discarded copy fell into my possession, where it has been put to better use.

By contrast, if I wanted to read a library copy of, say, The Eichmann Trial, by Zionist partisan Deborah Lipstadt, the nearest copy is within walking distance and there are six copies at libraries no farther than 20 miles from me. The Zionist grip on the United States, I’m afraid, is even firmer than Alan Hart realizes and from every indication of the power that it wields, it is still much firmer upon the American Jewish community than the Post letter writer Brownfield alleges. The Post identifies him as the publications editor for the American Council for Judaism. That group, according to Wikipedia, “is an organization of American Jews committed to the proposition that Jews are not a nationality but merely a religious group, adhering to the original stated principles of Reform Judaism, as articulated in the 1885 Pittsburgh Platform.” They have a magazine called Issues that Wikipedia says has some 2,000 subscribers. Don’t expect to see them using their clout to get Alan Hart’s terrific book on your local library’s shelves anytime soon.

*For what it is worth, anyone reading what I have written compared to Hart’s characterization will discover that Hart has made a small mistake on the matter of the disclosure of the official investigation of Forrestal’s death, the so-called Willcutts Report. He leaves readers with the impression that I only got the transcribed poem that was used as a sort of surrogate suicide note through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, but that the government released the larger official investigation itself voluntarily after keeping it secret for 55 years. It was actually my third FOIA request that sprang the Willcutts Report free. The transcribed poem was a part of the initial release. Only after I had analyzed the Willcutts Report in Part 2 of “Who Killed James Forrestal” did it occur to me to get handwriting samples to authenticate the transcription, which I did from the Truman Library, and my analysis is in Part 3.

 

David Martin

June 26, 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