My personal experience: practically NOBODY gives a damn about other people's plight unless they have something to gain!
I HAD PERSONAL AND 'INTIMATE' CONTACTS WITH MISS IQBAL TAMIMI OF "PALESTINIAN MOTHERS" WHO CONTACTED ME BY TELEPHONE FIRST. IT DID NOT WORK OUT BETWEEN US AS SHE WAS AFTER FAME, MONEY, AND SOLD OUT - A TRAITOR (LIKE ARAFAT!), MOST PROBABLY ACTING UNDER TRAUMA AS MANY OR MOST PALESTINIANS DO!
IQBAL TAMIMI (centre) was frustrated when I told her that I had passed on my business to my son!
She was definitely after a husband with a lot of MONEY!
Achtung! BUT, I FOUND OUT THAT IQBAL TAMIMI HAD AN ENGLISH SAYAN WRITING ON HER WEBSITE AND CONTROLLING EVERYTHING!
And, after our telephone conversation, disappointed, she had me (Ghyslaine ROC) blocked on her website "Palestinian Mothers" with no warning and no explanations! WOW!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQyFGFdXs30
RYAN DAWSON ON ALEX JONES
Published on 30 Nov 2012
Faked even-handedness in a conflict that is not even at all, is not neutrality, it is deception. Jones often goes to crazy town as a way of intentionally avoiding a Zionist role in anything. He left Israel out of 911 for 6 years and never connected them to Iraq or said a word about the anthrax lies or the fact that Palestine is occupied. He's talked more about school/theater shootings than the destruction of entire nations.
my site www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons my 911 movie www.warbydeception.com
Iqbal,
after what happened to Kenneth O'Keefe, your arch-enemy of old, and a few
others, I am now prepared to reveal to the public our past correspondence as I
have seen enough of your nonsense and that of your handlers! As I am currently
writing about Malika el Aroud who I had to deal with in a similar manner, I
could not avoid mentioning you. So, you have ONLY 3 days to respond to this.
Maybe the "Iqbal Tamimi" posting this 21 seconds clip is not you, but
the one in the clip is definitely you!
Regards
BAFS
P.S. I am sure you remember how
"pissed off" you were because I told you on the telephone that I had
transferred my entire business on my son's name. This was evidence enough for
me of your hidden motives!
By the way, my dear, we are born a
poet; WE DO NOT BECOME ONE! This is what my old SOUL MATE "Adriana
Evangelitz" said!
1
Posted
on “Palestinian Mothers” by Ghyslaine ROC 12/11/6009 - Ghyslaine was later
banned on Palestinian Mothers and all her postings and contributions (MP3s,
videos) were removed by Miss Iqbal Tamimi, the website owner!
Thank you.
Basheer Ahmad
P.S. If there is any
accuracy in any statement, would you, please, be kind enough to point it out to
me?
Iqbal,
after what happened to Kenneth O'Keefe, your arch-enemy of old, and a few
others, I am now prepared to reveal to the public our past correspondence as I
have seen enough of your nonsense and that of your handlers! As I am currently
writing about Malika el Aroud who I had to deal with in a similar manner, I
could not avoid mentioning you. So, you have ONLY 3 days to respond to this.
Maybe the "Iqbal Tamimi" posting this 21 seconds clip is not you, but
the one in the clip is definitely you!
Regards
BAFS
P.S. I am sure you remember how
"pissed off" you were because I told you on the telephone that I had
transferred my entire business on my son's name. This was evidence enough for
me of your hidden motives!
By the way, my dear, we are born a
poet; WE DO NOT BECOME ONE! This is what my old SOUL MATE "Adriana
Evangelitz" said!
1
Posted
on “Palestinian Mothers” by Ghyslaine ROC 12/11/6009 - Ghyslaine was later
banned on Palestinian Mothers and all her postings and contributions (MP3s,
videos) were removed by Miss Iqbal Tamimi, the website owner!
Thank you.
Basheer Ahmad
P.S. If there is any
accuracy in any statement, would you, please, be kind enough to point it out to
me?
It is now well over 3 weeks since I have published and circulated my first appeal to all supporters of the Palestinian cause, calling for protests against the continued torture of my daughter, my son and myself by the zionist Gestapo.
Except for two protest letters, a total silence has enfolded my appeal. So much so that the Palestinian Mothers website, the only Palestinian website to protest the zionist torture, withdrew the protest and my appeal the next day.
A couple of days ago I have emailed the following letter to Iqbal Tamimi, the editor of the Palestinian Mothers website, a website that had published my appeal, and protested the outrageous torture,
but have had no reply so far.
"Dear Iqbal,
I have tried to contact you and your website before, but only today did I find your email address. Would you be kind enough so as to answer my following questions :
1. What was the reason that my two posts - my appeal and my final appeal - were suddenly deleted from your Palestinian Mothers website ? Have I done anything wrong ?
2. My article/post below was published on my blog the same day that my above posts were deleted. Would you please comment on it ?
3. I have submitted to you today my latest article/post for publication on Palestinian Mothers website. Would it be published ?
4. What is the email address of Palestinian Mothers website ?
Looking forward to your early reply,
Benjamin Merhav"
Since my first appeal I have published and circulated 7 articles/posts as a reminder of my first appeal to supporters of the Palestinian cause, but all have been drowned in that deafening and hostile silence. Only one website, the Axis of Logic website, has my first appeal published ( see : http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_56689.shtml ).
All this hostile silence continues while the zionist Gestapo torture of my daughter, my son and myself continue unabated. As I have warned in my previous posts, the zionist Gestapo would consider this as a precedent for similar harassments/persecutions to be used against other supporters of the Palestinian cause. Therefore, the continued Palestinian silence is not only against me - it is anti-Palestinian, and it serves the zionist apartheid regime of Israel. Conversely, successful protest against the zionist Gestapo torture will serve the Palestinian cause, and would be a defeat for zionism and for the zionist apartheid regime of Israel !
5thautobiography.blogspot.com/
Why Israelis Assassinated John and Robert Kennedy By Benjamin Merhav
Al-Jazeerah, CCUN, June 16, 2012
The 5th of June, 2012 marks 45 years since the Blitzkrieg zionist invasion of Egypt by the zionist apartheid regime of Israel, in collusion and with the collaboration of the USA rulers. It is also 44 years since the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, by the zionist Gestapo in the USA, also in collaboration with the USA rulers.
There is a close connection between the two heinous crimes. The reason Robert Kennedy was assassinated was that he had committed himself to reopen - upon his election as USA president - the investigation into the assassination of his brother, J.F. Kennedy. on the 22nd of November, 1963. President J.F. Kennedy was assassinated by the zionist Gestapo in Dallas, Texas, USA (See my 18th letter to the Attorney General of Australia
http://5thautobiography.blogspot.com/2009/05/my-eighteenth-open-letter-to-attorney.html),
also in collaboration with the then Vice President L.B. Johnson, with the CIA and with the FBI. Obviously, those culprits have been fearful of being exposed and punished as a result of a new investigation which would be appointed by Robert Kennedy. However, let us return to our main subject, namely, the huge zionist Blitzkrieg war crime of the 5th of June, 1967, and deal with the heinous assassination of Robert Kennedy later on.
As Vice President, L.B. Johnson represented the fascist and imperialist section of the American ruling class, namely, the huge transnational corporations. He therefore opposed the peaceful and liberal policies of President J.F. Kennedy in Vietnam, in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world. L.B. Johnson was very accommodating to the zionist Gestapo's plot to assassinate President Kennedy, and thereby make him the boss in the White House. The secret zionist nuclear bombs factory in Dimona must have been part of his deal with the zionist Gestapo, because no USA inspectors have visited the secret zionist reactor since, as President J.F. Kennedy demanded until his assassination. Moreover, L.B. Johnson was so happy with the "success" of the assassination that he immediately elevated the zionist Gestapo to the status of USA imperialism's global spearhead. Accordingly, he immediately began to plot secretly the zionist Blitzkrieg invasion of June 1967. The clear proof of that appeared during that invasion when he allowed the zionist military to torpedo and bombard the USS Liberty which was monitoring the zionist invasion off the coast of Gaza.
Returning now to the zionist Gestapo's assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, we must remember that the only people who committed themselves to investigating the truth about the assassination of JFK had been the murdered president's brother, Robert F. Kennedy, who would be assassinated by the same culprits/criminals in 1968 (see : http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=10460 and see also http://www.thecornerreport.com/index.php?p=1014&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1 and also http://www.rense.com/politics6/sirhan.htm ) ; and then his son John F. Kennedy Jr. who would be assassinated by the same culprits/criminals in 1999 (see : http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/JFK_JR/jj.php and see also http://havetoremember.wordpress.com/2007/11/20/the-assassination-of-john-f-kennedy-jr/ ).
There has been a new development earlier this year in the USA. An eye witness to the assassination of Robert Kennedy came out publicly with accusations against the cover-up by the FBI (see : http://edition.cnn.com/2012/04/28/justice/california-rfk-second-gun/index.html; http://www.theprovince.com/news/Vancouver+woman+witnessed+Robert+Kennedy+assassination+cites+second/6541269/story.html; http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/witness+Robert+Kennedy+assassination+cites+second+gunman+complete/6543214/story.html
Tuesday, 28 April 2009
BENJAMIN MERHAV'S SEVENTH OPEN LETTER TO THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF AUSTRALIA
25 September 2005
10, Downing Street, the JUDEAN HQ of ZIONISM!
My dear Brother Benjamin,
It is my experience that all your letters will fall on deaf ears! There does not exist a single Court of JUSTICE in the entire West, and the rest of the world is still under colonial and imperial subjugation!
But, the fight must go on even if you see that ALMOST nobody gives a damn about what has happened and is happening to you and your loved ones!
I was a victim of the Soviet KOMMISSAR (JEWISH-STYLE POLITICAL TERRORISTS mistranslated as GESTAPO!), the Mauritian, French, and British totalitarian and Fascist ones, and I ALWAYS LOST! In Zionist Australia and Zionist Canada, it is exactly the same as Jewish Power is a worldwide cancer!
BAFS
Monday, April 27, 2009
MY SEVENTH OPEN LETTER TO THE ATTORNEY-G
Federal Attorney-General
Canberra, ACT
Dear Minister,
Re: My complaint against the illegal wiretapping of my phone and the illegal nightly harassment (torture by sleep deprivation), as well as the insistence on the continued psychiatric torture of my daughter and of my son, by Israel's clandestine arm (the zionist Gestapo) here in Australia.
Today I found in my letter box a letter on your behalf signed by Ms Emma Appleton,an official of your department. The letter is limited to my wiretapping complaint only. It informs me that the only authority that can "investigate" my complaint is the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, and since he had rejected my complaint "the Attorney-General's Department cannot assist" me any further with my complaint. This is like saying that ASIO is not accountable to anybody except that Inspector-General ( who appears to be more concerned with providing cover-up for ASIO's illegal activities ,in collusion with ASIO, rather than investigate my complaint). Can such an arbitrary state of affairs exist under the rule of Law ? The answer must be, obviously, that it should not !
As I have repeatedly stated in my previous letters to you, I do not ask for any investigation, nor do I request that anything be done with or by ASIO. All I asked for is that you order an end to the wiretapping of my phone. ASIO needs only to comply with your order. It is the legal duty of ASIO to defend Australian citizens in Australia from malicious clandestine foreign intervention, and the head of ASIO should be accountable to you for that , if Australia is under the rule of law.
Furthermore, regarding the other items of my complaint, namely, torture by depriving me of my sleep, which has been going on every night for over 8 years, and the torture by psychiatric "treatment" that my daughter has been subjected to for over 31 years, and my son for over 17 years, these tortures are still going on unabated. Perpetrated by the zionist Gestapo - i.e. by the clandestine arm of a foreign government on Australian soil - these torture atrocities have been allowed by ASIO to continue despite my complaints !
These atrocities amount to attempts on our lives, and they certainly are in violation of both Australian and international law, as I pointed out in my previous letters to you ( see the links to all my letters in my 6th open letter to you http://5thautobiography.
Linked to the above legal and moral issues are, of course, the relevant political issues, namely, the issue of exposing zionist racism as practiced by the zionist apartheid regime of Israel - and with it the right of an Australian citizen to freedom of expression to expose that racism in Australia - as well as the issue of the official government support for this ongoing zionist racism, as has been recently manifested by Australia's boycott of the UN sponsored Durban II conference.
The disturbing question which arises now is this : is Australia's federal government now a complete captive of the zionist propaganda lies which have been directed at it by the local zionist lobby on behalf of the zionist apartheid regime of Israel ? Last week's statement by Mr. Kevin Rudd, the Prime Minister of Australia, to his zionist friends here that anti-zionism is the same as anti-semitism (as he commented on President Ahmadinejad's recent speech) seems to answer this question in the affirmative. There are several basic data issues, which should be considered as relevant to that wrong statement ,and as relevant to my complaints in this letter. They are as follows :
1. Many thousands of people of Jewish background (like myself, being a secular person) around the world are anti-zionist ( see, for example, http://www.ijsn.net/home/ , and see also a relevant article by a British academic of Jewish background,published recently by The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/
There are also many thousands of anti-zionist orthodox Jews who are adamantly opposed to zionism, and have gone as far as visiting Tehran to offer their full support for Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran (see the video of the meeting here :http://www.youtube.com/watch?
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.
http://www.nkusa.org/ .
2. Socialist organisations - many of whom have close to social democracy/Labour ideologies - are opposed to zionism too ( such as this one :http://www.workerspower.com/
In the preamble to the above 1975 resolution a previous UN resolution is quoted as follows : "...In its resolution 3151G (xxxvIII) of 14 December 1973, the General Assembly condemned, inter alia, the unholy alliance between South African racism and Zionism." These two twin apartheid regimes - the former apartheid regime of South Africa and the ongoing zionist apartheid regime of Israel - came into being the same year : 1948, yet the latter continues to perpetrate racist crimes whereas the first had been abolished some 15 years ago !
3. Moreover, the zionist Hebrew daily Haaretz already in 1985, in its 27th September issue, published an ariticle by an Israeli zionist woman, Ms Orit Shohat, which exposes the zionist apartheid regime of Israel. Similarly, the same Hebrew daily published again, on the 17th of May 1991, an article which exposes the zionist apartheid regime of Israel.
Under the title, Israel is a State Which Practices Apartheid etc.,the Israeli zionist author of the article, Uzi Ornan, states as follows :
"This apartheid has been entrenched in a system of laws, regulations, and practices which govern the operation of state institutions. What characterises most of those discriminatory laws legislated in various Knessets is that on the surface they do not appear to be discriminatory. However, a more in-depth analysis of some of the basic ones quickly reveals the extent to which they discriminate between "Jews" and "non-Jews". By studying them one cannot fail to reach a conclusion, which cannot but be embarrassing to many of us, namely, that Israel is an Apartheid state, and that apartheid not only manifests itself socially, but that it is also embedded in the legal system."
(Emphasis added).
4. The International Organisation for the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination http://www.eaford.org/ had issued a statement to the Human Rights Council under the title, Anti-Zionism Is Not Anti-Semitism, which confirms the differences between anti-zionism and anti-semitism (see :
http://www.aljazeerah.info/
See also a well researched article about zionist anti-semitism
here :http://www.rense.com/
5. When Mussolini captured political power in Rome during 1922 he became the world's first fascist dictator, and all the zionist hierarchy of the day made a pilgrimage to Rome to congratulate him. When Hitler captured power in Germany in 1933 the zionists leaders in Palestine became happy once more. Here is what one of them, Norman Bentwich, wrote in his book titled, Fulfilment In the Promised Land (London,1938, at page 106):
"Seen with the eyes of Providence, Hitler was like Cyrus, a Divine instrument to bring back to their land Western Jews who could make contribution of order and method."
I could go on to refer to the zionist Ha'avra agrrement with Nazi Germany shortly after Hitler captured power. I could go on further to refer also to the Kastner trial in the State of Israel in 1954-6, during which it was proven that the zionist hierarchy had collaborated with the Hitler regime in the mass murder of Jews in Hungary during 1944. I could go on and on with information about zionist-Nazi collaboration, including the former zionist Prime Minister Shamir's former terrorist organisation (the Stern Gang/Lehi) offer of military alliance to the Hitler regime early during the 2nd WW.
All of which would prove that zionism - not anti-zionism ! - is anti-semitic.
What has been said in this letter is sufficient to prove the complete immorality and illegality of the ongoing torture of myself and of my son and of my daughter by the zionist Gestapo here in Australia with the full collaboration of ASIO.
Therefore I appeal to you again to order the immediate end to the harassment/torture of myself, an immediate end to the wiretapping of my phone by ASIO at the behest of the zionist Gestapo, and an immediate end to the psychiatric torture of my daughter and of my son at the insistence of the zionist Gestapo.
Sincerely, Benjamin Merhav
U3/2 Birdwood Avenue, Dandenong, Vic. 3175
===========================
MY EIGHTEENTH OPEN LETTER TO THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF AUSTRALIA
The Hon. Robert McClelland,MP
Federal Attorney-General
Canberra, ACT
Dear Minister,
Re: My complaint against the illegal wiretapping of my phone and the illegal nightly harassment (torture by sleep deprivation), as well as the insistence on the continued psychiatric torture of my daughter and of my son, by Israel's clandestine arm (the zionist Gestapo) here in Australia.
The nightly harassment/stalking/torture by the zionist Gestapo,depriving me of restful night sleep, has continued unabated , along with the illegal wiretapping of my phone and the psychiatric torture of my daughter and of my son. Is ASIO oblivious to its legal duties ? Is it being manipulated by the zionist Gestapo ? Is this zionist terrorism acceptable to the federal government of Australia too ?
These and other important questions regrading my complaint remain unanswered.
My previous letters to you can be located by scrolling down from this post on my blog.
In this letter, as in the previous one, I continue to inform you and the government about the racist, fascist and terrorist history of modern zionism. This information has been hidden from the public, and therefore unknown to most Australians. The Australian government would do them a great service if it would publicise the historical truth that I am presenting to you. Who knows, such information might cause even ASIO to dissociate itself from the zionist Gestapo, thus serving the best interests of Australia.
John F. Kennedy, the President of the USA, was assassinated on November 22, 1963 in Dallas/Texas, USA by the zionist Gestapo. The order to assassinate him was given by D. Ben-Gurion just before his resignation as prime minister of the zionist apartheid regime of Israel, in June 1963. Itzhak Shamir, the would be prime minister ,who in 1948 had plotted and ordered the assassination of Count Bernadott in Jerusalem, was in 1963 the head of the assassinations department of the zionist Gestapo . Following Ben-Gurion's order, Shamir plotted now the murder of President J.F.Kennedy using the contacts and services of Meir Lansky, the top USA gangster who had been a fanatical zionist for many years. Lansky had close contacts with the CIA which, like the American mafia ,did not like President Kennedy. Using those contacts he then handed over the execution of the heinous crime to his criminal henchmen in Texas.
The main reason why Ben-Gurion ordered the assassination of JFK was the American President's refusal to let the zionist apartheid regime of Israel manufacture nuclear bombs in its Dimona pile.
Following Ben-Gurion's resignation Levi Eshkol became the prime minister, and the following letter was sent by JFK to Eshkol : http://www.jfkmontreal.com/toc.htm
“Dear Mr. Prime Minister (Eshkol),
It gives me great personal pleasure to extend congratulations as you assume your responsibilities as Prime Minister of Israel. You have our friendship and best wishes in your new tasks. It is on one of these that I am writing you at this time.
You are aware, I am sure, of the exchange which I had with Prime Minister Ben-Gurion concerning American visits (ie: inspections -ed) to Israel's nuclear facility at Dimona. Most recently, the Prime Minister wrote to me on May 27. His words reflected a most intense personal consideration of a problem that I know is not easy for your Government, as it is not for mine.
We welcomed the former Prime Minister's strong reaffirmation that Dimona will be devoted exclusively to peaceful purposes and the reaffirmation also of Israel's willingness to permit periodic visits (ie: inspections -ed) to Dimona.
I regret having to add to your burdens so soon after your assumption of office, but I feel the crucial importance of this problem necessitates my taking up with you at this early date certain further considerations, arising out of Mr. Ben-Gurion's May 27 letter, as to the nature and scheduling of such visits.
I am sure you will agree that these visits should be as nearly as possible in accord with international standards, thereby resolving all doubts as to the peaceful intent of the Dimona project.
As I wrote Mr. Ben-Gurion, this Government's commitment to and support of Israel could be seriously jeopardized if it should be thought that we were unable to obtain reliable information on a subject as vital to the peace as the question of Israel's effort in the nuclear field.
Therefore, I asked our scientists to review the alternative schedules of visits we and you had proposed. If Israel's purposes are to be clear beyond reasonable doubt, I believe that the schedule which would best serve our common purposes would be a visit early this summer, another visit in June 1964, and thereafter at intervals of six months.
I am sure that such a schedule should not cause you any more difficulty than that which Mr. Ben-Gurion proposed in his May 27 letter. It would be essential, and I understand that Mr. Ben-Gurion's letter was in accord with this, that our scientists have access to all areas of the Dimona site and to any related part of the complex, such as fuel fabrication facilities or plutonium separation plant, and that sufficient time to be allotted for a thorough examination.
Knowing that you fully appreciate the truly vital significance of this matter to the future well-being of Israel, to the United States, and internationally, I am sure our carefully considered request will have your most sympathetic attention.
Sincerely,
John F. Kennedy”
(Emphasis added- B.M.)
There are several items in this very important letter which require close examination.
First, the letter mentions Ben-Gurion’s lie that the Dimona nuclear pile is “devoted exclusively to peaceful purposes”, while in reality it was exclusively a nuclear bombs factory (as Mordechai Vanunu proved with the photos he secretly took of the inside of it and later publicised in 1986).
Also it is obvious from the letter that President Kennedy did not trust the zionist cover up attempts, and he was adamant that the Dimona pile should be fully inspected by USA nuclear scientists immediately, and every 6 months thereafter.
So adamant was President Kennedy that he threatens the zionist apartheid regime of Israel in the letter as follows : “ As I wrote Mr. Ben-Gurion, this Government's commitment to and support of Israel could be seriously jeopardized if it should be thought that we were unable to obtain reliable information on a subject as vital to the peace as the question of Israel's effort in the nuclear field. “
So the zionist rulers of Israel had been requested by JFK to abandon their megalomaniacal plans of becoming a nuclear power, or else they would lose the USA government support ! The Dimona nuclear bombs factory began bombs production only 2 years earlier, so that they could not have had by then more then a couple of nuclear bombs in their stockpile ! What’s more, JFK demanded immediate and full inspection, as he mentions in his letter “early summer” for the first inspection, whereas the letter itself was sent in mid (northern) summer !
Anyone who knows zionism, and zionist chieftains, would know that the JFK letter made them very angry ,and the only way out for them was to decide to “get rid” of JFK before he would implement any sanctions against the zionist apartheid regime of Israel ! Therefore, the assassination had to take place no later than the 22 of November, 1963, or else the zionist rulers would have risked the President's sanctions which would have spelt the end for the zionist apartheid regime of Israel, not merely for its nuclear bombs ambitions !
No one else in the world had anything close to that zionist "urgency motivation" to kill JFK, the President of the USA, and
no one else except for the zionist Gestapo had the criminal experience, criminal impunity as well as the necessary contacts to perpetrate the heinous crime,and
to provide the cover-up for it in the aftermath, and
to have such absolute control over the news media in all the Western countries, a media which has accepted and publicised - without the slightest doubt ! - the official cover-up of the heinous zionist crime to this day !
The following links are to more websites which provide more details about that heinous assassination crime :
http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/mossadandtheassassination.htm http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Assassinations_page/Final_Judgment.html http://www.globalfire.tv/nj/03en/jews/sec_jfk.htm http://www.zeitenschrift.net/magazin/2-jfk.ihtml http://afrocubaweb.com/news/mossadjfk.htm http://www.rense.com/general42/enemies.htm
I appeal to you again to order the immediate end to the harassment/torture of myself by the zionist Gestapo, an immediate end to the wiretapping of my phone by ASIO at the behest of the zionist Gestapo, and an immediate end to the psychiatric torture of my daughter and of my son at the insistence of the zionist Gestapo.
Sincerely, Benjamin Merhav
U3/2 Birdwood Avenue, Dandenong, Vic. 3175
http://5thautobiography.blogspot.com/2009/05/my-eighteenth-open-letter-to-attorney.html
Unfortunately, those links below do not exist anymore! WHY?
Dear reader,
the following article is posted on my new blog (the 4th part of the series), for which a link is attached.
the following article is posted on my new blog (the 4th part of the series), for which a link is attached.
The links for the previous 3 parts are as follows :
Third part : http://treacheryof.blogspot.com/
Third part : http://treacheryof.blogspot.com/
Second part :http://merhavbenm.blogspot.com/
First part : http://benmerhav.blogspot.com/
You are invited to visit the blogs, republish any part of them, and/or comment on them.
Sincerely, Benjamin Merhav
Sincerely, Benjamin Merhav
Melbourne, Australia
http://moretreacheryof.blogspot.com/2007/04/more-on-treachery-of-noam-chomsky.html
More on the Treachery of Noam Chomsky
(Article 21)
(Article 21)
By Benjamin Merhav <benmerhav@yahoo.com.au> Australia
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/noamchomskyandzionism29apr06.shtml
April 29, 2006
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/noamchomskyandzionism29apr06.shtml
April 29, 2006
More on the Treachery of Noam Chomsky, Article 21 by Benjamin Merhav (April 29, 2006)
Posted at www.treacheryof.blogspot.com/
Posted at www.treacheryof.blogspot.com/
Those on the Left who have opposed Noam Chomsky's loyalty to zionism, but still trusted him as an "anti-imperialist intellectual", would have to find for him a new excuse if they would still insist on trusting this zionist bourgeois intellectual. The following journalists' reports expose Noam Chomsky for what he is in reality : a zionist and a supporter of USA imperialism, and they both come from the enemy's own mouth, namely, from an Israeli daily paper run by fanatical zionists, and from a New York paper reporting from West Point Military Academy.
Let us start with the zionist report, and follow up with the report from West Point. Under the title, "Noam Chomsky, Champion of Israel?", a former military reporter for The Jerusalem Post opens his report on Chomsky in the 22nd April issue of the same zionist paper as follows :
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1143498893816&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1143498893816&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%
"Noam Chomsky, champion of Israel?
By ERIK SCHECHTER
By ERIK SCHECHTER
What do Noam Chomsky and the neocons have in common? They both stand accused of protecting the enormously powerful pro-Israel lobby in Washington from legitimate criticism. That's right, hell has frozen over. Professor Chomsky - the far-left MIT linguist who has consistently (and often quite viciously) criticized Israel since the early 1970s - is apparently a big softie when it comes to Zion.
Or so say assorted left-wing critics.
The brouhaha began in late March when two American academics published in The London Review of Books a paper critical of the Israel lobby. John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt argued that neither idealism nor hard-nosed practicality justified American support of the Jewish state. Nevertheless, a "loose coalition of individuals and organizations" has been steering US policy in that direction for years.
Though hardly a novel idea, the essay caused a wave of controversy because the authors were not your run-of-the-mill, paranoid kooks. Mearsheimer sits on the international academic advisory board at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, at Bar-Ilan University, and both he and Walt are leading lights of the realist school of international relations. Their critique simply could not go unanswered.
Indeed, following the publication of the article, professors and pundits of all stripes took to their keyboards.
Now, I will not address the many errors of the M-W piece or explain how arguing that lobbies drive foreign policy upends the whole realist paradigm; that's been done elsewhere and by people far smarter than me. What's interesting is where Noam Chomsky stepped out on the controversy.
Writing in Z Magazine, the aging anarchist commended Mearsheimer and Walt for their "courageous stand" but then attacked their notion of an informal, far-flung lobby as an empty label. "M-W focus on AIPAC and the evangelicals," wrote Chomsky, "but they recognize that the Lobby includes most of the political-intellectual class - at which point the thesis loses much of its content."
Max Boot, a neoconservative fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, noted the very same thing when he quipped, "In Mearsheimer-Walt's telling, the Israel lobby seems to include just about every American politician, think tank and newspaper." Now who could have imagined Chomsky manning the same barricade as the neocons?"
The second report is from the West Point correspondent of The Journal News, a New York newspaper, as follows:
http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060421/NEWS03/604210331/
1024/NEWS08&template=printart
http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060421/NEWS03/604210331/
1024/NEWS08&template=printart
Foreign-policy critic speaks at West Point
By ALICE GOMSTYN
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original Publication: April 21, 2006)
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original Publication: April 21, 2006)
WEST POINT — The U.S. Military Academy at West Point was host last night to one of the world's foremost critics of American foreign policy.
Noam Chomsky, the Institute Professor Emeritus of Linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, spoke at the academy as part of its Distinguished Lecture Series.
More than 500 people attended the lecture, most of them cadets who could someday serve in the Iraq war.
Last night, they heard the gray-haired scholar explain that, in his view, that the war in Iraq is unjust.
Chomsky, who spoke on the issue in response to a question from a cadet, said that while the war could be called preventive, it was still an act of aggression by the United States that most people in the world didn't support.
He added that Iran might legitimately have grounds for its own preventive war.
"If preventative war is legitimate under these circumstances, it's legitimate for everybody," he said.
Ian McDougall of Boxborough, Mass., a cadet who attended the lecture, wouldn't say whether he agreed with Chomsky. But he did enjoy the lecture, he said.
"Agree or disagree with the points, he's certainly very well-read," said McDougall, 20.
The bulk of Chomsky's remarks revolved around "Just War Theory" — a theory, he said, that modern scholarship hasn't sufficiently explained. Scholars who discuss the theory, he said, name wars they believe are "just" without providing arguments to support the label.
Chomsky, who spoke for roughly a half-hour before taking questions from the audience, also questioned which historic military acts could be considered pre-emptive in nature. For instance, he said, before Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor — which prompted the United States' entry into World War II — U.S. journals were publishing reports on America preparing fighter planes that could burn Japan's wooden cities to the ground. Should Japan's attack, he asked, then be considered pre-emptive?
Still, he added: "Does that justify Pearl Harbor? Not in 10 million years."
Chomsky also discussed Israel's military conflict with Lebanon, the war in Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein's violations of human rights, and the United States' onetime support for the former Iraqi dictator.
At the end of his presentation, the military academy's class of 2008 presented Chomsky with a framed picture of a part of the campus.
Lt. Col. Casey Neff, a staff member for the academy's commandant's office, said he too enjoyed Chomsky's lecture.
Neff said Chomsky was at West Point to state a position and provoke debate.
The free speech of Chomsky and others, he said, "is one of the things we're here to defend." (All emphasis added).
MORE ON THE TREACHERY OF NOAM CHOMSKY(article 40) by Benjamin Merhav
This article, the 40th in my series, is being posted on my blog only six weeks away from the 40th anniversary of the zionist military invasion and occupation of Arab lands in early June, 1967. This coincidence also marks Noam Chomsky's service to the zionist apartheid regime of Israel, beginning with its formation in 1948 - which he supported along with its war of
ethnic cleansing against the Arab people of Palestine - and culminating in the zionist war of 1967(which was a copy of the Hitler regime invasion of the Soviet Union inWW2) . Repeat : he then strongly supported the zionist military aggression, yet now he purports to oppose its results, namely, the continued brutal occupation of the West Bank and of the Gaza Strip.
However, this article deals with the other side of the same coin, namely, with the long service by this notorious zionist impostor to USA imperialism, to the USA ruling class, while throughout that same time masquerading as the champion of anti-imperialist struggle, and as the worldwide guru of the Left.
The three parts of this article are as follows :
1. Noam Chomsky's service to the Pentagon funded MIT where he had held a teaching position for over 50 years.
2. Noam Chomsky's alliance with Alexander Cockburn in opposing the truth about the JFK murder, and in their support for the Warren Commission cover-up of the murder case.
3. Similarly, the refusal of the two to support the truth about the 9/11 events, sticking instead to the official White House wrong version of those events.
Chomsky's MIT service
In my first article in this series I have briefly raised the patent absurdity of Noam Chomsky holding a position of teaching at the Pentagon funded MIT while purporting to champion the struggle against USA imperialism ( see http:www.benmerhav.blogspot.com/ ). How could anyone overlook this ,so obvious a service, by this zionist impostor to USA imperialism for over 50 years is beyond me !
To explain how he got the job there, at MIT during 1955, Noam Chomsky resorts to the old zionist tactics : "anti-semitism". No other university/academic institution was then prepared to hire him, he "explains" now, because of "anti-semitic" reasons. This must be an obvious lie, because many other people of jewish background had been holding then teaching positions in USA universities. However, even if his "explanation" would be accepted, it does not explain why he kept on holding that position for over 50 years, knowing full well that the Pentagon was the major source of funding for MIT !
Under the title, MIT Professor Noam Chomsky's Ties to the Military , Bob Feldman recounts the truth ( see his article : http://www.remoteviewer.nu/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=274&newlang=fra )
as follows :
"In 1955, Chomsky's friend Roman Jakobson arranged for him to work as a researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Chomsky, in his own words, `had no identifiable field or credentials in anything', but MIT, `a scientific university which didn't care much about credentials,' was willing to overlook his lack of certifiable `professional competence'.
Chomsky was made an assistant professor and assigned, ironically, to a machine translation project of the type he had often criticized.
The project was directed by Victor Yngve and was being conducted at the MIT Research Laboratory of Electronics, which was subsidized by the U.S. military."...He was...interviewed by laboratory director Jerome Wiesner for the position...Chomsky was hired as a full-time faculty member, which meant that he was required to spend half his time working in the research lab...Here, his ASPECTS OF THE THEORY OF SYNTAX was hatched... The funding for the research published in ASPECTS was provided by `the Joint Services Electronics Program (U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force), the Electronics Systems Division of the U.S. Air Force , the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and NASA..." (from NOAM CHOMSKY: A Life of Dissent by Robert Barsky).
Jerome Weisner later became the head of JFK's Science Advisory Committee during the early 1960s; and according to the 1965 annual report of the Ford Foundation-subsidized Institute for Defense Analyses Pentagon weapons-research think-tank, Jerome Weisner was an Adviser to IDA's Jason Division group of university professors who performed counter-insurgency, Vietnam War-related weapons research every summer during the 1960s Viet Nam War Era.
When students shut down Columbia University in 1968 in support of the demand that Columbia resign its institutional membership in IDA, MIT Professor Chomsky constructed a left anti-war rationalization for opposing the Columbia student revolt - but he did not disclose at the time that an IDA Jason Division consultant, Jerome Weisner, was the person who hired him as an MIT professor and military lab researcher during the McCarthy Era.
As Barsky also notes in his NOAM CHOMSKY: A Life of Dissent book: "While he admired `the challenge to the universities' that the students were so vehemently presenting, Chomsky thought their rebellions were `largely misguided,' and he `criticized [them] as they were in progress at Berkeley (1966) and Columbia (1968) particularly."
Today, of course, MIT is still the 12th-largest recipient of U.S. Air Force war research contracts and among the top recipients of U.S. Air Force war research contracts.
Also, there doesn't appear to be any reference to the $350,000 Inamori Foundation/Kyoto Prize grant that was given to MIT Professor Chomsky in the late 1980s, in the index of the Barsky biography of him.
The reference to the military links is also in CAMPUS, INC.: Corporate Power in the Ivory Tower, edited by Geoffry D. White,. In an interview in the last chapter, MIT Professor Chomsky says: "...The universities did receive large-scale subsidies, quite often under the cover of defense . I happened to be on a committee that was set up to investigate these matters about thirty years ago. It was the first such committee for me as a result of student activism that was concerned about the reliance of MIT on military spending, what it meant, and so on. So there was a faculty/student committee set up and I was asked to be on it, and I think it was the firstreview ever of MIT fundidng...My memory is that at that time, about half of MIT's income came from two military laboratories. These were secret laboratories. One was Lincoln Labs and one then called the I Labs, now the Draper Labs, which at the time was working on guidance systems for intercontinental missiles and that sort of thing. These were secret labs and that was approximately half of the income. And, of course, that income in all kinds of ways filtered into the university through library funds and health funds and so on. Nobody knew the bookkeeping details and nobody cared much, but it was an indirect subsidy to the university.
"The other half, the academic budget, I think it was about 90 percent Pentagon funded at that time. And I personally was right in the middle of it. I was in a military lab. If you take a look at my early publications,they all say something about Air Force, Navy, and so on, because I was in a military lab, the Research Lab for Electronics. But in fact, even if you were in the music department, you were, in effect, being funded by the Pentagon because there wouldn't have been a music department unless therewas funding for, say, electrical engineering. If there was, then you could dribble some off to the music department. So, in fact, everybody was Pentagon funded no matter whatever the bookkeeping notices said. "
"Well, it's important to recognize that during that period, the university was extremely free. The lab where I was working, the research lab for electronics, was also one of the centers of anti-Vietnam War resistance. We were organizing national tax resistance and the support groups for draft resistance were based there to a large extent. I mean, I, myself, was in a jail repeatedly at the time. It didn't make any difference. The Pentagon didn't care. In fact, they didn't care at all as far as I knew."
"Their function, they understood very well, is to provide the cover for the development of the science and technology in the future so that the corporate system can profit. "
GW: So they were just too big and powerful to be threatened. You were too minor of a threat?
MIT Professor Chomsky: "They just didn't care. What happened at the administrative level I didn't know, but nothing ever got to us. I had perfectly good relations with the administration. In fact, I'd tell them if I knew I was going to get arrested. I had no particular interest in embarrassing them, but it didn't matter. "
GW: Okay, but before things started shifting more and more to corporate funding, are you saying that when the funding came from the Pentagon it was completely `free'?
MIT Professor Chomsky: "Overwhelmingly it was free. You could do pretty much waht you wanted. And there was nothing secret on campus. In fact, we investigated secrecy specifically in the committee. Although it was regarded in the government as military-related work, there was virtually nothing that was secret. In fact, the parts that were secret were mostly an impediment to research. It wasn't because anybody wanted it (secrecy), it was just some technical detail that hadn't been ironed out. You could do what you wanted in your personal and political life, and also in your academic and professional life, wihtin a broad range. It [MIT] must've been one of the most free universities in the world."
GW: Who had access to the results of all this work and research?
MIT Professor Chomsky: "But that's a joke. I remember a discussion once with the head of the instrumentation lab, which was the lab that was working on guidance stystems for intercontinental missiles. Of course it was all classified, but he said that from his point of view, he woul be perfectly happy to declassify everything and give the books to the Russians and the Chinese. He said they can't do anything with them anyway. They don't have the industrial capacity to use the technology that we're developing. So the whole effect of the classification system was to impede communication among the American scientists. "
GW: With what result?
MIT Professor Chomsky: "Well, nothing, I mean, they kept that system classified and sort of spun it off, it's now a secret lab, independent of MIT. But, in answer to your question, right now, for example, there's an agency in the Pentagon, DARPA, the Defense Advance Research Project Agency,which has been the center of innovation for many years. It's where the Internet comes from. .."
Of course, what MIT's Chomsky is failing to disclose in this interview is that if you check out MIT's web site and the Draper Lab web site, the military research that's going on today at MIT LIncoln Laboratory and Draper Lab is related to space warfare technology development.
And DARPA is more about developing the weapons technology that's been used during the last few years than just doing "Internet" research.
The MIT LIncoln Laboratory web site states, for instance: "MIT Lincoln Laboratory's Suface Surveillance Program develops advanced technology for detecting and identifying vehicles and facilities on and beneath the surfacein wide-area, heavily cluttered and electronically hostile battlefields. MIT Lincoln Laboratory has developed clutter cancellation technology that isused in today's airborne surveillance systems...We are developing technology capable of detecting and tracking moving targets that are partially or fully obscured by foliage."
And Draper Lab President Vincent Vitto said in 2001: "Draper's core work remains focused on the development of innovative solutions for theDepartment of Defense's future technology needs.... These areas includeprecision targeting and weapons systems..."
Chomsky's Support for the Warren Commission Cover-Up of the JFK Murder Case
The Warren Commission concluded that Lee Oswald was the lone gunman who killed JFK, the USA President, in Dallas, Texas,on the 22 November, 1963, by a single bullet to his head. This conclusion has since been proven beyond doubt to be wrong, and a cover-up for the real murderers who had connections to the CIA, the American Mafia and to the zionist Gestapo in Israel. Jack Rubby, the man who murdered Lee Oswald (so as to prevent the truth from emerging for the American public) turned out to be the man with connections to all those three secret organisations. In fact, of the three, the zionist Gestapo had the most "urgent reason" to murder President Kennedy, because he was the first and only American president who opposed Israel's nuclear bombs production in Dimona, which was then at its early stages.
Noam Chomsky, along with his mate, Alexander Cockburn, have supported the Warren Commission cover-up, and ridiculed the people on the Left who opposed them. Here are some of the reactions on the Left in the USA to the treachery of those two :
http://www.geocities.com/mdmorrissey/rechom1.htm
"Rethinking Chomsky
Rethinking Camelot (Boston: South End Press, 1993) is Noam Chomsky's worst book. I don't think it merits a detailed review, but we should be clear about the stand that "America's leading intellectual dissident," as he is often called, has taken on the assassination. It is not significantly different from that of the Warren Commission or the majority of Establishment journalists and government apologists, and diametrically opposed to the view "widely held in the grassroots movements and among left intellectuals" (p. 37) and in fact to the view of the majority of the population.
For Chomsky, the only theories of the assassination "of any general interest are those that assume a massive cover-up, and a high-level conspiracy that required that operation." These he rejects out of hand because "There is not a phrase in the voluminous internal record hinting at any thought of such a notion," and because the cover-up "would have to involve not only much of the government and the media, but a good part of the historical, scientific, and medical professions. An achievement so immense would be utterly without precedent or even remote analogue."
These arguments can be as glibly dismissed as Chomsky presents them. It is simply foolish to expect the conspirators to have left a paper trail, much less in the "internal record," or that part of it that has become public. It is equally foolish to confuse the notion of conspiracy and cover-up with the much more broadly applicable phenomenon of "manufacturing consent," to use Chomsky's own expression. You don't have to be a liar to believe or accept or perpetuate lies. This is exactly what Chomsky himself and Edward Herman say about the media, and it applies to the "historical, scientific, and medical professions" as well:
"Most biased choices in the media arise from the preselection of right-thinking people, internalized preconceptions, and the adaptation of personnel to the constraints of ownership, organization, market, and political power. Censorship is largely self-censorship, by reporters and commentators who adjust to the realities of source and media organizational requirements and by people at higher levels within media organizations who are chosen to implement, and have usually internalized, the constraints imposed by proprietary and other market and governmental centers of power (Manufacturing Consent, NY: Pantheon, 1988, p. xii).
Nevertheless, Chomsky admits that a "high-level conspiracy" theory makes sense if "coupled with the thesis that JFK was undertaking radical policy changes, or perceived to be by policy insiders." Rethinking Camelot is devoted to refuting this thesis.
I've addressed this subject before ("Chomsky on JFK and Vietnam," The Third Decade, Vol. 9, No. 6, pp. 8-10), so I won't repeat myself. But two things should be clear. First, Chomsky has loaded the deck. The theory that Kennedy was secretly planning to withdraw from Vietnam regardless of how the military situation developed is not the only one that supports a conspiracy view of the assassination. This is John Newman's highly speculative argument in JFK and Vietnam (NY: Warner Books, 1992), which is so easy to refute that one wonders if it was not created for this purpose. Why else would the CIA, in the form of ex-Director Colby, praise the work of Newman, an Army intelligence officer, as "brilliant" and "meticulously researched" (jacket blurb)? In any case, accepting the fact that we cannot know what JFK's secret intentions were or what he would have done, the fact that he was planning to withdraw by the end of 1965 is irrefutable.
Secondly, it should be clear that Chomsky's view of the relation, that is, non-relation, of the assassination to subsequent policy changes is essentially the same as Arthur Schlesinger's. They are both coincidence theorists. Schlesinger says Johnson reversed the withdrawal plan on Nov. 26 with NSAM 273, but the idea that this had anything to do with the assassination "is reckless, paranoid, really despicable fantasy, reminiscent of the wilder accusations of Joe McCarthy" (Wall Street Journal, 1/10/92). The assassination and the policy reversal, in other words, were coincidences.
I suspect Chomsky knows he would appear foolishly naive if he presented his position this way, so he has constructed a tortured and sophistic argument that "there was no policy reversal" in the first place, which, if true, would obviate the question of its relation to the assassination. A neat trick if you can pull it off, and Chomsky gives it a good try, but in the end he fails. In fact, he undermines his own position by making it even clearer than it has been that the reversal of the assessment of the military situation in Vietnam, which caused the reversal of the withdrawal policy, occurred very shortly after the assassination, and that the source of this new appraisal was the intelligence agencies:
The first report prepared for LBJ (November 23) opened with this "Summary Assessment": "The outlook is hopeful. There is better assurance than under Diem that the war can be won. We are pulling out 1,000 American troops by the end of 1963." ... The next day, however, CIA director John McCone informed the President that the CIA now regarded the situation as "somewhat more serious" than had been thought, with "a continuing increase in Viet Cong activity since the first of November" (the coup). Subsequent reports only deepened the gloom (p. 91).
By late December, McNamara was reporting a "sharply changed assessment" to the President (p. 92).
The only difference between this and Schlesinger's view is that Chomsky says the assessment of the military situation changed first, and then the policy changed. So what? The point is that both things changed after the assassination. The President is murdered, and immediately afterward the military assessment changes radically and the withdrawal policy changes accordingly. It matters not a whit if the policy reversal occurred with NSAM 273, as Schlesinger says, or began in early December and ended de jure in March 1964, as the Gravel Pentagon Papers clearly say (Vol. 2, pp. 191, 196).
Nor does it matter what JFK's secret intentions may have been. It is more important to note that according to Chomsky's own account, whose accuracy I do not doubt, the source of the radically changed assessment that began two days after the assassination was the CIA and the other intelligence agencies. Furthermore, this change in assessment was retrospective, dating the deterioration of the military situation from Nov. 1 or earlier. Why did it take the intelligence agencies a month or more to suddenly realize, two days after the assassination, that they had been losing the war instead of winning it?
This question may be insignificant to coincidence theorists like Schlesinger and Chomsky, but not to me. Rethinking Camelot has shown me -- sadly, because I have been an admirer -- that Chomsky needs to do some serious rethinking of his position, and that I need to do some rethinking of Mr. Chomsky."
http://www.rtis.com/reg/bcs/pol/touchstone/february97/worsham.htm
"JFK CONSPIRACY: THE INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY AND COWARDICE OF ALEXANDER COCKBURN AND NOAM CHOMSKY
by Michael Worsham
When JFK came out in 1991, I felt Oliver Stone hit the nail on the head. During 1992, some progressive/liberal writers, including Alexander Cockburn of The Nation, criticized Stone, and said there was no conspiracy, and even if there was, it did not matter because Kennedy, despite his great personal charisma, dynamic speaking, etc., was underneath, the same as all the other power-hungry and money-loving capitalists.
I asked Alexander Cockburn about JFK when he visited TAMU in 1992 (with the help of Danny Yeager and The Touchstone), but he seemed bored talking about Kennedy. As I sat and chatted with Mr. Cockburn along with the rest of the Touchstone gang (as it existed back in 1992) around a table at a local College Station restaurant, I was extremely puzzled and just could not understand how someone as educated, well-read, and perceptive about so many national and world affairs as Mr. Cockburn could really believe a complete load of crap like the Warren Commission report. It just did not make sense.
I learned a little later that Noam Chomsky also took the position that there was no conspiracy. Most of what I know about Mr. Chomsky is what I read in his occasional editorials in the now-defunct Lies Of Our Times magazine, and through the movie Manufacturing Consent (a biography of Mr. Chomsky worth watching, especially for the section on the N.Y. Times and East Timor).
Now, an answer as to why these and other progressive writers smart enough to know better, support (at least publicly) the Warren Commission has surfaced in the Jan-Feb issue of Probe (the newsletter of Citizens for Truth about the Kennedy Assassination, http://www.webcom.com/ctka).
According to a Probe article by Ray Marcus, back in early 1969 Mr. Chomsky met with several Kennedy experts and spent several hours looking at and discussing assassination photos. Mr. Chomsky even cancelled several appointments to have extra time. There was a followup meeting with Mr. Chomsky, which also lasted several hours. These meetings were ostensibly to try to do something to reopen the case. According to the Probe article, Mr. Chomsky indicated he was very interested, but had to give the matter careful consideration before committing.
After the meeting, Selwyn Bromberger, an MIT philosophy professor who had sit in on the discussion, said to the author: "If they are strong enough to kill the President and strong enough to cover it up, then they are too strong to confront directly . . . if they feel sufficiently threatened, they may move to open totalitarian rule." According to the author, Mr. Chomsky had given every indication that he believed there was a conspiracy at these meetings.
However, Mr. Chomsky never got involved with trying to reopen the case.
The same Probe article mentions that (the late) I.F. Stone, another leading progressive writer of the past, also took a position supportive of the Warren Commission in I.F. Stone's Weekly for Oct. 5, 1964.
Alexander Cockburn now writes for CounterPunch, a solid bi-weekly newsletter associated with the liberal Institute for Policy Studies. CounterPunch is fine, and worth reading, although its articles are never authored. CounterPunch also overly dwells on Washington D.C. politicians, like the tabloids, except that CounterPunch emphasizes financial instead of sexual misdeeds�i.e., it follows the money. (Recently CounterPunch was also the only organization of about 20 which refused my renewal check, subject to a simple agreement not to release my name or pester me with junk mail�more on this in a future issue of The Touchstone).
It has now become clear to me that leading progressive/left/liberal thinkers and writers like I.F. Stone, Noam Chomsky and Alexander Cockburn will only criticize the monied and powerful to the extent that they think it is safe for them to do. This is no different in principle from what the mainstream news media does: critiques are within a constrained margin of what is acceptable and not acceptable to the powers that be.
The only difference is that Mr. Chomsky and Mr. Cockburn have much wider margins than ABC (now owned by Disney), NBC (owned by General Electric), CBS (owned by Westinghouse), The Washington Post (with long ties to the intelligence community), and the N.Y. Times (so biased that the previously mentioned Lies Of Our Times was created to combat the rampant disinformation).
Mr. Chomsky and Mr. Cockburn are also really no different than Dan Rather. Mr. Rather publicly supports the Warren Commission, but has a private position on the assassination we have not heard. On specials about Kennedy, Mr. Rather will spout some mealy-mouthed nonsense like "The mystery of the assassination burns like an eternal flame" while the camera pans over Rather's shoulder to the Kennedy torch that burns at Arlington Cemetery.
To some extent Mr. Chomsky and Mr. Cockburn practice what the Kennedy research community is often accused of�they have created a cottage industry�standard left-wing/liberal criticisms of power. Their critiques are well-meaning and accurate, and provide a comfortable if not wealthy living, but don't really make a substantial dent in the problems they write about. Mr. Chomsky has been writing for over 30 years now, yet how many people have even heard of Noam Chomsky�even after the feature film about him (Manufacturing Consent) was produced? Has corporate power been reigned in any? How many Americans know about East Timor?
I hope these and all progressive writers will develop the courage to speak all of the truth that they know, or at least be honest about it, because even repeated, sharp, and direct-to-the-point criticisms of power, are not worth much if they are deliberately mis-aimed against the most important and critical problem: That forces in the supposedly constitutional democracy of the U.S. will murder democratically elected leaders like John F. Kennedy (and progressive leaders like Robert F. Kennedy, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.) and get away with it. "
http://www.questionsquestions.net/documents2/conspiracyphobia.html
From Dirty Truths by Michael Parenti(1996, City Lights Books)
(Pages 172 - 191)
"THE JFK ASSASSINATION II:
CONSPIRACY PHOBIA ON THE LEFT
Almost as an article of faith, some individuals believe that conspiracies are either kooky fantasies or unimportant aberrations. To be sure, wacko conspiracy theories do exist. There are people who believe that the United States has been invaded by a secret United Nations army equipped with black helicopters, or that the country is secretly controlled by Jews or gays or feminists or black nationalists or communists or extraterrestrial aliens. But it does not logically follow that all conspiracies are imaginary.
Conspiracy is a legitimate concept in law: the collusion of two or more people pursuing illegal means to effect some illegal or immoral end. People go to jail for committing conspiratorial acts. Conspiracies are a matter of public record, and some are of real political significance. The Watergate break-in was a conspiracy, as was the Watergate cover-up, which led to Nixon's downfall. Iran-contra was a conspiracy of immense scope, much of it still uncovered. The savings and loan scandal was described by the Justice Department as "a thousand conspiracies of fraud, theft, and bribery," the greatest financial crime in history.
Conspiracy or Coincidence?
Often the term "conspiracy" is applied dismissively whenever one suggests that people who occupy positions of political and economic power are consciously dedicated to advancing their elite interests. Even when they openly profess their designs, there are those who deny that intent is involved. In 1994, the officers of the Federal Reserve announced they would pursue monetary policies designed to maintain a high level of unemployment in order to safeguard against "overheating" the economy. Like any creditor class, they preferred a deflationary course. When an acquaintance of mine mentioned this to friends, he was greeted skeptically, "Do you think the Fed bankers are deliberately trying to keep people unemployed?" In fact, not only did he think it, it was announced on the financial pages of the press. Still, his friends assumed he was imagining a conspiracy because he ascribed self-interested collusion to powerful people.
At a World Affairs Council meeting in San Francisco, I remarked to a participant that U.S. leaders were pushing hard for the reinstatement of capitalism in the former communist countries. He said, "Do you really think they carry it to that level of conscious intent?" I pointed out it was not a conjecture on my part. They have repeatedly announced their commitment to seeing that "free-market reforms" are introduced in Eastern Europe. Their economic aid is channeled almost exclusively into the private sector. The same policy holds for the monies intended for other countries. Thus, as of the end of 1995, "more than $4.5 million U.S. aid to Haiti has been put on hold because the Aristide government has failed to make progress on a program to privatize state-owned companies" (New York Times 11/25/95).
Those who suffer from conspiracy phobia are fond of saying: "Do you actually think there's a group of people sitting around in a room plotting things?" For some reason that image is assumed to be so patently absurd as to invite only disclaimers. But where else would people of power get together - on park benches or carousels? Indeed, they meet in rooms: corporate boardrooms, Pentagon command rooms, at the Bohemian Grove, in the choice dining rooms at the best restaurants, resorts, hotels, and estates, in the many conference rooms at the White House, the NSA, the CIA, or wherever. And, yes, they consciously plot - though they call it "planning" and "strategizing" - and they do so in great secrecy, often resisting all efforts at public disclosure. No one confabulates and plans more than political and corporate elites and their hired specialists. To make the world safe for those who own it, politically active elements of the owning class have created a national security state that expends billions of dollars and enlists the efforts of vast numbers of people.
Yet there are individuals who ask with patronizing, incredulous smiles, do you really think that the people at the top have secret agendas, are aware of their larger interests, and talk to each other about them? To which I respond, why would they not? This is not to say that every corporate and political elite is actively dedicated to working for the higher circles of power and property. Nor are they infallible or always correct in their assessments and tactics or always immediately aware of how their interests are being affected by new situations. But they are more attuned and more capable of advancing their vast interests than most other social groups.
The alternative is to believe that the powerful and the privileged are somnambulists, who move about oblivious to questions of power and privilege; that they always tell us the truth and have nothing to hide even when they hide so much; that although most of us ordinary people might consciously try to pursue our own interests, wealthy elites do not; that when those at the top employ force and violence around the world it is only for the laudable reasons they profess; that when they arm, train, and finance covert actions in numerous countries, and then fail to acknowledge their role in such deeds, it is because of oversight or forgetfulness or perhaps modesty; and that it is merely a coincidence how the policies of the national security state so consistently serve the interests of the transnational corporations and the capital-accumulation system throughout the world.
Kennedy and the Left Critics
In the winter of 1991-92 Oliver Stone's film JFK revived popular interest in the question of President John Kennedy's assassination. As noted in part I of this article, the mainstream media launched a protracted barrage of invective against the movie. Conservatives and liberals closed ranks to tell the public there was no conspiracy to murder the president for such things do not happen in the United States.
Unfortunately, some writers normally identified as on the Left have rejected any suggestion that conspiracy occurred. While the rightists and centrists were concerned about preserving the legitimacy of existing institutions and keeping people from seeing the gangster nature of the state, the leftists had different concerns, though it was not always clear what these were.
Noam Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn, and others challenge the notion that Kennedy was assassinated for intending to withdraw from Vietnam or for threatening to undo the CIA or end the cold war. Such things could not have led to his downfall, they argue, because Kennedy was a cold warrior, pro-CIA, and wanted a military withdrawal from Vietnam only with victory. Chomsky claims that the change of administration that came with JFK's assassination had no appreciable effect on policy. In fact, the massive ground war ordered by Johnson and the saturation bombings of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos ordered by Nixon represented a dramatic departure from Kennedy's policy. On some occasions, Chomsky says he refuses to speculate: "As for what JFK might have done [had he lived], I have nothing to say." Other times he goes on to speculate that Kennedy would not have "reacted differently to changing situations than his close advisers" and "would have persisted in his commitment to strengthen and enhance the status of the CIA" (Z Magazine, 10/92 and 1/93).
The evidence we have indicates that Kennedy observed Cambodian neutrality and negotiated a cease-fire and a coalition government in Laos, which the CIA refused to honor. We also know that the surviving Kennedy, Robert, broke with the Johnson administration over Vietnam and publicly stated that his brother's administration had committed serious mistakes. Robert moved with the tide of opinion, evolving into a Senate dove and then a peace candidate for the presidency, before he too was murdered. The two brothers worked closely together and were usually of like mind. While this does not provide reason enough to conclude that John Kennedy would have undergone a transition comparable to Robert's, it still might give us pause before asserting that JFK was destined to follow in the direction taken by the Johnson and Nixon administrations.
In the midst of this controversy, Chomsky wrote a whole book arguing that JFK had no intention of withdrawing from Vietnam without victory. Actually, Kennedy said different things at different times, sometimes maintaining that we could not simply abandon Vietnam, other times that it ultimately would be up to the Vietnamese to fight their own war.1
One of Kennedy's closest aides, Kenneth O'Donnell, wrote that the president planned to withdraw from Vietnam after the 1964 elections. According to Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty, who headed military support for the clandestine operations of the CIA, Kennedy dictated "the rich parts" of NSAM 263, calling for the withdrawal not only of all U.S. troops but all Americans, meaning CIA officers and agents too. Prouty reflects that the president thereby signed "his own death warrant." The Army newspaper Stars and Stripes ran a headline: "President Says - All Americans Out by 1965." According to Prouty: "The Pentagon was outraged. JFK was a curse word in the corridors."
Concentrating on the question of withdrawal, Chomsky says nothing about the president's unwillingness to escalate into a ground war. On that crucial point all Chomsky offers is a speculation ascribed to Roger Hilsman that Kennedy might well have introduced U.S. ground troops in South Vietnam. In fact, the same Hilsman, who served as Kennedy's Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs, the officer responsible for Vietnam, noted in a long letter to the New York Times (1/20/92) that in 1963 "President Kennedy was determined not to let Vietnam become an American war - that is, he was determined not to send U.S. combat troops (as opposed to advisers) to fight in Vietnam nor to bomb North Vietnam." Other Kennedy aides such as Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and General Maxwell Taylor made the same point. Taylor said, "The last thing he [Kennedy] wanted was to put in our ground forces . . . I don't recall anyone who was strongly against [the recommendation], except one man and that was the President." Kennedy opposed the kind of escalation embarked upon soon after his death by Lyndon Johnson, who increased U.S. troops in Vietnam from 17,000 to approximately 250,000 and committed them to an all-out ground war.
Kennedy and the CIA
Chomsky argues that the CIA would have had no grounds for wanting to kill JFK, because he was a dedicated counterinsurgent cold warrior. Chomsky arrives at this conclusion by assuming that the CIA had the same reading of events in 1963 that he has today. But entrenched power elites are notorious for not seeing the world the way left analysts do. To accept Chomsky's assumptions we would need a different body of data from that which he and others offer, data that focuses not on the Kennedy administration's interventionist pronouncements and policies but on the more private sentiments that festered in intelligence circles and related places in 1963.
To offer a parallel: We might be of the opinion that the New Deal did relatively little for working people and that Franklin Roosevelt actually was a tool of the very interests he publicly denounced as "economic royalists." From this we might conclude that the plutocrats had much reason to support FDR's attempts to save big business from itself. But most plutocrats dammed "that man in the White House" as a class traitor. To determine why, you would have to look at how they perceived the New Deal in those days, not at how we think it should be evaluated today.
In fact, President Kennedy was not someone the CIA could tolerate, and the feeling was mutual. JFK told one of his top officials that he wanted "to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds" (New York Times, 4/25/66). He closed the armed CIA camps that were readying for a second Bay of Pigs invasion and took a number of other steps designed to bring the Agency under control. He fired its most powerful and insubordinate leaders, Director Allen Dulles, Deputy Director Charles Cabell, and Deputy Director for Plans Richard Bissell. He tried to reduce its powers and jurisdiction and set strict limits as to its future actions, and he appointed a high-level committee to investigate the CIA's past misdeeds.
In 1963, CIA officials, Pentagon brass, anti-Castro Cuban �migr�s, and assorted other right-wingers, including FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover, hated JFK and did not believe he could be trusted with the nation's future. They referred to him as "that delinquent in the White House." Roger Craig records the comments of numerous Dallas police officers who wanted to see Kennedy done away with. Several years ago, on a San Francisco talk show on station KGO, I heard a listener call in as follows: "this is the first time I'm saying this. I worked for Army intelligence. In 1963 I was in Japan, and the accepted word around then was that Kennedy would be killed because he was messing with the intelligence community. When word came of his death, all I could hear was delighted comments like 'We got the bastard'."
In his book First Hand Knowledge, CIA operative Robert Morrow noted the hatred felt by CIA officers regarding Kennedy's "betrayal" in not sending the U.S. military into the Bay of Pigs fiasco. One high-level CIA Cuban �migr�, Eladio del Valle, told Morrow less than two weeks before the assassination: "I found out about it last night. Kennedy's going to get it in Dallas."2 Morrow also notes that CIA director Richard Helms, "knew that someone in the Agency was involved" in the Kennedy assassination, "either directly or indirectly, in the act itself - someone who would be in a high and sensitive position . . . Helms did cover up any CIA involvement in the presidential assassination."
Several years after JFK's murder, President Johnson told White House aide Marvin Watson that he "was convinced that there was a plot in connection with the assassination" and that the CIA had something to do with it (Washington Post, 12/13/77). And Robert Kennedy repeatedly made known his suspicions that the CIA had a hand in the murder of his brother.
JFK's enemies in the CIA, the Pentagon, and elsewhere fixed on his refusal to provide air coverage for the Bay of Pigs, his unwillingness to go into Indochina with massive ground forces, his no-invasion guarantee to Krushchev on Cuba, his overtures for a rapprochement with Castro and professed willingness to tolerate countries with different economic systems in the Western hemisphere, his atmospheric-test-ban treaty with Moscow, his American University speech calling for reexamination of U.S. cold war attitudes toward the Soviet Union, his antitrust suit against General Electric, his curtailing of the oil-depletion allowance, his fight with U.S. Steel over price increases, his challenge to the Federal Reserve Board's multibillion-dollar monopoly control of the nation's currency,3 his warm reception at labor conventions, and his call for racial equality. These things may not have been enough for some on the Left but they were far too much for many on the Right.
Left Confusions and the Warren Commission
Erwin Knoll, erstwhile editor of the Progressive, was anther left critic who expressed hostility toward the conspiracy thesis and Oliver Stone's movie in particular. Knoll admitted he had no idea who killed Kennedy, but this did not keep him from asserting that Stone's JFK was "manipulative" and provided false answers. If Knoll had no idea who killed Kennedy, how could he conclude that the film was false?
Knoll said Stone's movie was "a melange of fact and fiction" (Progressive, 3/92). To be sure, some of the dramatization was fictionalized - but regarding the core events relating to Clay Shaw's perjury, eyewitness reports at Dealey Plaza, the behavior of U.S. law officers, and other suspicious happenings, the movie remained faithful to the facts unearthed by serious investigators.
In a show of flexibility, Knoll allows that "the Warren Commission did a hasty, slipshod job" of investigation. Here too he only reveals his ignorance. In fact, the Commission sat for fifty-one long sessions over a period of several months, much longer than most major investigations. It compiled twenty-six volumes of testimony and evidence. It had the investigative resources of the FBI and CIA at its disposal, along with its own professional team. Far from being hasty and slipshod, it painstakingly crafted theories that moved toward a foreordained conclusion. From the beginning, it asked only a limited set of questions that seemed to assume Oswald's guilt as the lone assassin.
The Warren Commission set up six investigative panels to look into such things as Oswald's background, his activities in past years and on the day of the assassination, Jack Ruby's background, and his activities on the day he killed Oswald. As Mark Lane notes, there was a crying need for a seventh panel, one that would try to discover who killed President Kennedy.
The commission never saw the need for that undertaking, having already made up its mind.
While supposedly dedicated to bringing the truth to light, the Warren Commission operated in secrecy. The minutes of its meetings were classified top secret, and hundred of thousands of documents and other evidence were sealed for seventy-five years. The Commission failed to call witnesses who heard and saw people shooting from behind the fence on the grassy knoll. It falsely recorded the testimony of certain witnesses, as they were to complain later on, and reinterpreted the testimony of others. All this took careful effort. A "hasty and slipshod" investigation would show some randomness in its errors. But the Commission's distortions consistently moved in the same direction in pursuit of a prefigured hypothesis.
Erwin Knoll talks disparagingly of the gullible U.S. public and says he "despises" Oliver Stone for playing on that gullibility. In fact, the U.S. public has been anything but gullible. It has not swallowed the official explanation the way some of the left critics have. Surveys show that 78 percent of the public say they believe there was a conspiracy. Both Cockburn in the Nation and Chomsky in Z Magazine dismiss this finding by noting that over 70 percent of the people also believe in miracles. But the fact that people might be wrong about one thing does not mean they are wrong about everything. Chomsky and Cockburn are themselves evidence of that.
In any case, the comparison is between two opposite things. Chomsky and Cockburn are comparing the public's gullibility about miracles with its unwillingness to be gullible about the official line that has been fed to them for thirty years. If anyone is gullible it is Alexander Cockburn who devoted extra column space in the Nation to support the Warren Commission's tattered theory about a magic bullet that could hit both Kennedy and Connolley while changing direction in mid-air and remaining in pristine condition.
Chomsky says that it is a "curious fact that no trace of the wide-ranging conspiracy appears in the internal record, and nothing has leaked" and "credible direct evidence is lacking" (Z Magazine, 1/93, and letter to me, 12/15/92). But why would participants in a conspiracy of this magnitude risk everything by maintaining an "internal record" (whatever that is) about the actual murder? Why would they risk their lives by going public? Many of the participants would know only a small part of the picture. But all of them would have a keen sense of the immensely powerful and sinister forces they would be up against were they to become too talkative. In fact, a good number of those who agreed to cooperate with investigators met untimely deaths. Finally, what credible direct evidence was ever offered to prove that Oswald was the assassin?
Chomsky is able to maintain his criticism that no credible evidence has come to light only by remaining determinedly unacquainted with the mountain of evidence that has been uncovered. There has even been a decision in a U.S. court of law, Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby, in which a jury found that President Kennedy had indeed been murdered by a conspiracy involving, in part, CIA operatives E. Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis, and FBI informant Jack Ruby.4
Nixon advisor H.R. Haldeman admits in his memoir: "After Kennedy was killed, the CIA launched a fantastic coverup." And "In a chilling parallel to their coverup at Watergate, the CIA literally erased any connection between Kennedy's assassination and the CIA."
Indeed, if there was no conspiracy, why so much secrecy and so much cover-up? If Oswald did it, what is there to hide and why do the CIA and FBI still resist a full undoctored disclosure of the hundreds of thousands of pertinent documents? Would they not be eager to reveal everything and thereby put to rest doubts about Oswald's guilt and suspicions about their own culpability?
The remarkable thing about Erwin Knoll, Noam Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn, and others on the Left who attack the Kennedy conspiracy findings is they remain invincibly ignorant of the critical investigations that have been carried out. I have repeatedly pointed this out in exchanges with them and they never deny it. They have not read any of the many studies by independent researchers who implicate the CIA in a conspiracy to kill the president and in the even more protracted and extensive conspiracy to cover up the murder. But this does not prevent them from dismissing the conspiracy charge in the most general and unsubstantiated terms.
Let's Hear It for Structuralism
When pressed on the matter, left critics like Cockburn and Chomsky allow that some conspiracies do exist but they usually are of minor importance, a distraction from the real problems of institutional and structural power. A structural analysis, as I understand it, maintains that events are determined by the larger configurations of power and interest and not by the whims of happenstance or the connivance of a few incidental political actors. There is no denying that larger structural trends impose limits on policy and exert strong pressures on leaders. But this does not mean that all important policy is predetermined. Short of betraying fundamental class interests, different leaders can pursue different courses, the effects of which are not inconsequential to the lives of millions of people. Thus, it was not foreordained that the B-52 carpet bombing of Cambodia and Laos conducted by Nixon would have happened if Kennedy, or even Johnson or Humphrey, had been president. If left critics think these things make no difference in the long run, they better not tell that to the millions of Indochinese who grieve for their lost ones and for their own shattered lives.
It is an either-or world for those on the Left who harbor an aversion for any kind of conspiracy investigation: either you are a structuralist in your approach to politics or a "conspiracist" who reduces historical developments to the machinations of secret cabals, thereby causing us to lose sight of the larger systemic forces. As Chomsky notes: "However unpleasant and difficult it may be, there is no escape from the need to confront the reality of institutions and the policies and actions they largely shape." (Z Magazine, 10/92).
I trust that one of the institutions he has in mind is the CIA. In most of its operations, the CIA is by definition a conspiracy, using covert actions and secret plans, many of which are of the most unsavory kind. What are covert operations if not conspiracies? At the same time, the CIA is an institution, a structural part of the national security state. In sum, the agency is an institutionalized conspiracy.
As I pointed out in published exchanges with Cockburn and Chomsky (neither of whom responded to the argument), conspiracy and structure are not mutually exclusive dynamics. A structural analysis that a priori rules out conspiracy runs the risk of not looking at the whole picture. Conspiracies are a component of the national security political system, not deviations from it. Ruling elites use both conspiratorial covert actions and overtly legitimating procedures at home and abroad. They finance everything from electoral campaigns and publishing houses to mobsters and death squads. They utilize every conceivable stratagem, including killing one of their own if they perceive him to be a barrier to their larger agenda of making the world safe for those who own it.
The conspiracy findings in regard to the JFK assassination, which the movie JFK brought before a mass audience, made many people realize what kind of a gangster state we have in this country and what it does around the world. In investigating the JFK conspiracy, researchers are not looking for an "escape" from something "unpleasant and difficult," as Chomsky would have it, rather they are raising grave questions about the nature of state power in what is supposed to be a democracy.
A structuralist position should not discount the role of human agency in history. Institutions are not self-generating reified forces. The "great continuities of corporate and class interest" (Cockburn's phrase) are not disembodied things that just happen of their own accord. Neither empires nor national security institutions come into existence in a fit of absent-mindedness. They are actualized not only by broad conditional causes but by the conscious efforts of live people. Evidence for this can be found in the very existence of a national security state whose conscious function is to recreate the conditions of politico-economic hegemony.
Having spent much of my life writing books that utilize a structuralist approach, I find it ironic to hear about the importance of structuralism from those who themselves do little or no structural analysis of the U.S. political system and show little theoretical grasp of the structural approach. Aside from a few Marxist journals, one finds little systemic or structural analysis in left periodicals including ones that carry Chomsky and Cockburn. Most of these publications focus on particular issues and events - most of which usually are of far lesser magnitude than the Kennedy assassination.
Left publications have given much attention to conspiracies such as Watergate, the FBI Cointelpro, Iran-Contra, Iraq-gate, CIA drugs-for-guns trade, BCCI, and savings-and-loans scandals. It is never explained why these conspiracies are important while the FJK assassination is not. Chip Berlet repeatedly denounces conspiracy investigations while himself spending a good deal of time investigating Lyndon LaRouche's fraudulent financial dealings, conspiracies for which LaRouche went to prison. Berlet never explains why the LaRouche conspiracy is a subject worthy of investigation but not the JFK conspiracy.
G. William Domhoff points out: "If 'conspiracy' means that these [ruling class] men are aware of their interests, know each other personally, meet together privately and off the record, and try to hammer out a consensus on how to anticipate and react to events and issues, then there is some conspiring that goes on in CFR [the Council for Foreign Relations], not to mention the Committee for Economic Development, the Business Council, the National Security Council, and the Central Intelligence Agency." After providing this useful description of institutional conspiracy, Domhoff then conjures up a caricature that often clouds the issue: "We all have a tremendous tendency to want to get caught up in believing that there's some secret evil cause for all of the obvious ills of the world." Conspiracy theories "encourage a belief that if we get rid of a few bad people, everything will be well in the world."
To this simplistic notion Peter Dale Scott responds: "I believe that a true understanding of the Kennedy assassination will lead not to a few bad people but to the institutional and parapolitical arrangements which constitute the way we are systematically governed." In sum, national security state conspiracies are components of our political structure, not deviations from it.
Why Care About JFK?
The left critics argue that people who are concerned about the JFK assassination are romanticizing Kennedy and squandering valuable energy. Chomsky claims that the Nazi-like appeals of rightist propagandists have a counterpart on the Left: "It's the conspiracy business. Hang around California, for example, and the left has just been torn to shreds because they see CIA conspiracies . . . secret governments [behind] the Kennedy assassination. This kind of stuff has just wiped out a large part of the left" (Against the Current 56, 1993). Chomsky offers no evidence to support this bizarre statement.
The left critics fear that people will be distracted or misled into thinking well of Kennedy. Cockburn argues that Kennedy was nothing more than a servant of the corporate class, so who cares how he was killed (Nation 3/9/92 and 5/18/92). The left critics' hatred of Kennedy clouds their judgment about the politcal significance of his murder. They mistake the low political value of the victim with the high political importance of the assassination, its implications for democracy, and the way it exposes the gangster nature of the state.
In 1894 Captain Alfred Dreyfus was a conservative militarist. Clemenceau once conjectured that if the man's name had not been Dreyfus, he would have been an anti-Dreyfusard. Does that mean that the political struggle waged around l'affaire Dreyfus was a waste of time? The issue quickly became larger than Dreyfus, drawn between Right and Left, between those who stood with the army and the anti-Semites and those who stood with the republic and justice.
Likewise Benigno Aquino, a member of the privileged class in the Philippines, promised no great structural changes, being even more conservative than Kennedy. Does this mean the Filipino people should have dismissed the conspiracy that led to his assassination as an event of no great moment, an internal ruling-class affair? Instead, they used it as ammunition to expose the hated Marcos regime.
Archbishop Romero of El Salvador was a member of the Salvadoran aristocracy. He could not have risen to the top of the church hierarchy otherwise. But after he began voicing critical remarks about the war and concerned comments about the poor, he was assassinated. If he had not been murdered, I doubt that Salvadoran history would have been much different. Does this mean that solidarity groups in this country and El Salvador should not have tried to make his murder an issue that revealed the homicidal gangster nature of the Salvadoran state? (I posed these questions to Chomsky in an exchange in Z Magazine, but in his response, he did not address them.)
Instead of seizing the opportunity, some left writers condescendingly ascribe a host of emotional needs to those who are concerned about the assassination cover-up. According to Max Holland, a scribe who seems to be on special assignment to repudiate the JFK conspiracy: "The nation is gripped by a myth . . . divorced from reality," and "Americans refuse to accept their own history." In Z Magazine (10/92) Chomsky argued that "at times of general malaise and social breakdown, it is not uncommon for millenarian movements to arise." He saw two such movements in 1992: the response to Ross Perot and what he called the "Kennedy revival" or "Camelot revival." Though recognizing that the audiences differ, he lumps them together as "the JFK-Perot enthusiasms." Public interest in the JFK assassination, he says, stems from a "Camelot yearning" and the "yearning for a lost Messiah."
I, for one, witnessed evidence of a Perot movement involving millions of people but I saw no evidence of a Kennedy revival, certainly no millenarian longing for Camelot or a "lost Messiah." However, there has been a revived interest in the Kennedy assassination, which is something else. Throughout the debate, Chomsky repeatedly assumes that those who have been troubled about the assassination must be admirers of Kennedy. In fact, some are, but many are not. Kennedy was killed in 1963; people who today are in their teens, twenties, thirties, and forties - most Americans - were not old enough to have developed a political attachment to him.
The left critics psychologize about our illusions, our false dreams, our longings for Messiahs and father figures, or inability to face unpleasant realities the way they can. They deliver patronizing admonitions about our "conspiracy captivation" and "Camelot yearnings." They urge us not to escape into fantasy. They are the cognoscenti who guide us and out-left us on the JFK assassination, a subject about which they know next to nothing and whose significance they have been unable to grasp. Having never read the investigative literature, they dismiss the investigators as irrelevant or irrational. To cloak their own position with intellectual respectability, they fall back on an unpracticed structuralism.
It is neither "Kennedy worship" nor "Camelot yearnings" that motivates our inquiry, but a desire to fight back against manipulative and malignant institutions so that we might begin to develop a system of accountable rule worthy of the name democracy."
Footnotes :
1 Kennedy's intent to withdraw is documented in the Gravel edition of the Pentagon Papers ("Phased Withdrawal of U.S. Forces, 1962-1964," vol. 2, pp. 160-200). It refers to "the Accelerated Model Plan . . .. for a rapid phase out of the bulk of U.S. military personnel" and notes that the administration was "serious about limiting the U.S. commitment and throwing the burden onto the South Vietnamese themselves." But "all the planning for phase-out . . . was either ignored or caught up in the new thinking of January to March 1964" (p. 163) - the new thinking that came after JFK was killed and Johnson became president.
2 Del Valle's name came up the day after JFK's assassination when Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade announced at a press conference that Oswald was a member of del Valle's anti-communist "Free Cuba Committee." Wade was quickly contradicted from the audience by Jack Ruby, who claimed that Oswald was a member of the leftish Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Del Valle, who was one of several people that New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison sought out in connection with the JFK assassination, was killed the same day that Dave Ferrie, another suspect met a suspicious death. When found in Miami, del Valle's body showed evidence of having been tortured, bludgeoned, and shot.
3 The bankers of the Federal Reserve System print paper money, then lend it to the government at an interest. Kennedy signed an executive order issuing over $4 billion in currency notes through the U.S. Treasury, thus bypassing the Fed's bankers and the hundreds of millions of dollars in interest that would normally be paid out to them. These "United States Notes" were quickly withdrawn after JFK's assassination.
4 See Mark Lane, Plausible Denial; Was the CIA Involved in the Assassination of JFK? (New York: Thunder's Mouth Press, 1991). For testimony of another participant see Robert Morrow: First Hand Knowledge: How I Participated in the CIA-Mafia Murder of President Kennedy (New York: S.P.I. Books, 1992)."
Chomsky's support for the official 9/11 story rather than for the truth
http://www.oilempire.us/chomsky.html
"Where Noam will not roam:
Chomsky manufactures consent, supports the official stories of 9/11 and JFK
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum."- Noam Chomsky
"That's an internet theory and it's hopelessly implausible. Hopelessly implausible. So hopelessly implausible I don't see any point in talking about it."
- Noam Chomsky, at a FAIR event at New York's Town Hall, 22 January 2002, in response to a question from the audience about US government foreknowledge of 9/11. At that time, 9/11 investigators had already presented substantial documented evidence for: prior warnings, Air Force stand-down, anomalous insider trading connected to CIA, cover-up of the domestic anthrax attacks, inconsistencies in identities & timelines of "hijackers", US connections to al Qaeda in Balkans, a Pak ISI-al Qaeda funding connection, etc etc etc.
Professor Noam Chomsky, one of the country's most famous dissidents, says that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman in Dallas. Anyone who still supports the Warren Commission hoax after forty years of countering proofs is either ill-informed, dumb, gullible, afraid to speak truths to power or a disinformation agent.
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where Chomsky has worked for decades, has a very good physics department (MIT is the largest university contractor to the military). Perhaps he could visit them and learn why it is physically impossible for Oswald to have been anything more than the "patsy" that he (accurately) claimed to be.
The truth is that Chomsky is very good in his analysis within certain parameters of limited debate -- but in understanding the "deep politics" of the actual, secret government, his analysis falls short.
Chomsky is good at explaining the double standards in US foreign policies - but at this point understanding / exposing the mechanics of the deceptions (9/11 isn't the only one) the reasons for it (Peak Oil / global dominance / domestic fascism) and what we can do (war crimes trials / permaculture to relocalize food production / paradigm shifts) is more important than more repetition from Chomsky.
Professor Chomsky was apparently part of a study group in the late 1960s that was investigating what really happened in Dallas (ie. he was a skeptic of the official story). It seems likely that Chomsky did indeed figure out what happened - and decided that this was too big of an issue to confront.
Maybe Chomsky gets more media attention these days than most other dissidents BECAUSE he urges people not to inquire into how the secret government operates.
Chomsky in his own words
9-11: Institutional Analysis vs. Conspiracy Theory
Submitted by Noam Chomsky on Fri, 2006-10-06 14:09.
Categories: Middle East United States US Foreign Policy
The following is an exchange between a ZNet Sustainer and Noam Chomsky, which took place in the Sustainer Web Board where Noam hosts a forum...
ZNet Sustainer: Dear Noam, There is much documentation observed and uncovered by the 911 families themselves suggesting a criminal conspiracy within the Bush Administration to cover-up the 9/11 attacks (see DVD, 9/11: Press for Truth). Additionally, much evidence has been put forward to question the official version of events. This has come in part from Paul Thompson, an activist who has creatively established the 9/11 Timeline, a free 9/11 investigative database for activist researchers, which now, according to The Village Voice�s James Ridgeway, rivals the 9/11 Commission�s report in accuracy and lucidity (see, http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0416,mondo1,52830,6.html , or www.cooperativeresearch.org).
Noam Chomsky: Hard for me to respond to the rest of the letter, because I am not persuaded by the assumption that much documentation and other evidence has been uncovered. To determine that, we'd have to investigate the alleged evidence. Take, say, the physical evidence. There are ways to assess that: submit it to specialists -- of whom there are thousands -- who have the requisite background in civil-mechanical engineering, materials science, building construction, etc., for review and analysis; and one cannot gain the required knowledge by surfing the internet. In fact, that's been done, by the professional association of civil engineers.
Or, take the course pursued by anyone who thinks they have made a genuine discovery: submit it to a serious journal for peer review and publication. To my knowledge, there isn't a single submission.
ZNet Sustainer: A question that arises for me is that regardless of this issue, how do I as an activist prevent myself from getting distracted by such things as conspiracy theories instead of focusing on the bigger picture of the institutional analysis of private profit over people?
[note: the Complete 9/11 Timeline does not focus on the physical evidence, Chomsky is either ignorant of the issue or steering people into a false dichotomy]
Noam Chomsky: I think this reaches the heart of the matter. One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis. That is, I suspect, why the 9/11 movement is treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and activist work. How do you personally set priorities? That's of course up to you. I've explained my priorities often, in print as well as elsewhere, but we have to make our own judgments.
ZNet Sustainer: In a sense, profit over people is the real conspiracy, yes, yet not a conspiracy at all � rather institutional reality? At the same time, if the core of conspiracy theories are accurate, which is challenging to pin down, though increasingly possible, does it not fit into the same motivations of furthering institutional aims of public subsidizes to private tyrannies? I mean, through the 9/11 attacks, Bush Et Al. has been able to justify massive increases in defense spending for a "war without end," and Israel has been given the green light to do virtually whatever it wants since now �the Americans are in the same fight.� Furthermore, there has been a substantial rollback of civil rights in our nation, with the most extreme example being strong attempt to terminate habeas corpus.
Noam Chomsky: Can't answer for the same reasons. I don't see any reason to accept the presuppositions. As for the consequences, in one of my first interviews after 9/11 I pointed out the obvious: every power system in the world was going to exploit it for its own interests: the Russians in Chechnya, China against the Uighurs, Israel in the occupied territories,... etc., and states would exploit the opportunity to control their own populations more fully through "prevention of terrorism acts" and the like. By the "who gains" argument, every power system in the world could be assigned responsibility for 9/11.
ZNet Sustianer: This begs the question: if 9/11 was an inside job, then what�s to say that Bush Et Al., if cornered or not, wouldn't resort to another more heinous attack of grander proportions in the age of nuclear terrorism � which by its very nature would petrify populations the world over, leading citizens to cower under the Bush umbrella of power.
Noam Chomsky: Wrong question, in my opinion. They were carrying out far more serious crimes, against Americans as well, before 9/11 -- crimes that literally threaten human survival. They may well resort to further crimes if activists here prefer not to deal with them and to focus their attention on arcane and dubious theories about 9/11.
ZNet Sustainer: Considering that in the US there are stage-managed elections, public relations propaganda wars, and a military-industrial-education-prison-etc. complex, does something like this sound far-fetched?
Noam Chomsky: I think that's the wrong way to look at it. Everything you mention goes back far before 9/11, and hasn't changed that much since. More evidence that the 9/11 movement is diverting energy and attention away from far more serious crimes -- and in this case crimes that are quite real and easily demonstrated.
ZNet Sustainer:Considering the long history of false flag operations to wrongly justify wars, our most recent precedent being WMD in Iraq, The Gulf of Tonkin in Vietnam, going back much further to Pearl Harbor (FDR knowingly allowing the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor � which is different from false flag operations), to the 1898 Spanish-American War, to the 1846 Mexican-American War, to Andrew Jackson�s seizing of Seminole land in 1812 (aka Florida).
Noam Chomsky: The concept of "false flag operation" is not a very serious one, in my opinion. None of the examples you describe, or any other in history, has even a remote resemblance to the alleged 9/11 conspiracy. I'd suggest that you look at each of them carefully.
ZNet Sustainer: Lastly, as the world�s leading terror state, would it not surprise anyone if the US was capable of such an action? Would it surprise you? Do you think that so-called conspiracy theorists have anything worthy to present?
Noam Chomsky: I think the Bush administration would have had to be utterly insane to try anything like what is alleged, for their own narrow interests, and do not think that serious evidence has been provided to support claims about actions that would not only be outlandish, for their own interests, but that have no remote historical parallel. The effects, however, are all too clear, namely, what I just mentioned: diverting activism and commitment away from the very serious ongoing crimes of state." (Emphasis added - B.M.)
This article, the 40th in my series, is being posted on my blog only six weeks away from the 40th anniversary of the zionist military invasion and occupation of Arab lands in early June, 1967. This coincidence also marks Noam Chomsky's service to the zionist apartheid regime of Israel, beginning with its formation in 1948 - which he supported along with its war of
ethnic cleansing against the Arab people of Palestine - and culminating in the zionist war of 1967(which was a copy of the Hitler regime invasion of the Soviet Union inWW2) . Repeat : he then strongly supported the zionist military aggression, yet now he purports to oppose its results, namely, the continued brutal occupation of the West Bank and of the Gaza Strip.
However, this article deals with the other side of the same coin, namely, with the long service by this notorious zionist impostor to USA imperialism, to the USA ruling class, while throughout that same time masquerading as the champion of anti-imperialist struggle, and as the worldwide guru of the Left.
The three parts of this article are as follows :
1. Noam Chomsky's service to the Pentagon funded MIT where he had held a teaching position for over 50 years.
2. Noam Chomsky's alliance with Alexander Cockburn in opposing the truth about the JFK murder, and in their support for the Warren Commission cover-up of the murder case.
3. Similarly, the refusal of the two to support the truth about the 9/11 events, sticking instead to the official White House wrong version of those events.
Chomsky's MIT service
In my first article in this series I have briefly raised the patent absurdity of Noam Chomsky holding a position of teaching at the Pentagon funded MIT while purporting to champion the struggle against USA imperialism ( see http:www.benmerhav.blogspot.com/ ). How could anyone overlook this ,so obvious a service, by this zionist impostor to USA imperialism for over 50 years is beyond me !
To explain how he got the job there, at MIT during 1955, Noam Chomsky resorts to the old zionist tactics : "anti-semitism". No other university/academic institution was then prepared to hire him, he "explains" now, because of "anti-semitic" reasons. This must be an obvious lie, because many other people of jewish background had been holding then teaching positions in USA universities. However, even if his "explanation" would be accepted, it does not explain why he kept on holding that position for over 50 years, knowing full well that the Pentagon was the major source of funding for MIT !
Under the title, MIT Professor Noam Chomsky's Ties to the Military , Bob Feldman recounts the truth ( see his article : http://www.remoteviewer.nu/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=274&newlang=fra )
as follows :
"In 1955, Chomsky's friend Roman Jakobson arranged for him to work as a researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Chomsky, in his own words, `had no identifiable field or credentials in anything', but MIT, `a scientific university which didn't care much about credentials,' was willing to overlook his lack of certifiable `professional competence'.
Chomsky was made an assistant professor and assigned, ironically, to a machine translation project of the type he had often criticized.
The project was directed by Victor Yngve and was being conducted at the MIT Research Laboratory of Electronics, which was subsidized by the U.S. military."...He was...interviewed by laboratory director Jerome Wiesner for the position...Chomsky was hired as a full-time faculty member, which meant that he was required to spend half his time working in the research lab...Here, his ASPECTS OF THE THEORY OF SYNTAX was hatched... The funding for the research published in ASPECTS was provided by `the Joint Services Electronics Program (U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force), the Electronics Systems Division of the U.S. Air Force , the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and NASA..." (from NOAM CHOMSKY: A Life of Dissent by Robert Barsky).
Jerome Weisner later became the head of JFK's Science Advisory Committee during the early 1960s; and according to the 1965 annual report of the Ford Foundation-subsidized Institute for Defense Analyses Pentagon weapons-research think-tank, Jerome Weisner was an Adviser to IDA's Jason Division group of university professors who performed counter-insurgency, Vietnam War-related weapons research every summer during the 1960s Viet Nam War Era.
When students shut down Columbia University in 1968 in support of the demand that Columbia resign its institutional membership in IDA, MIT Professor Chomsky constructed a left anti-war rationalization for opposing the Columbia student revolt - but he did not disclose at the time that an IDA Jason Division consultant, Jerome Weisner, was the person who hired him as an MIT professor and military lab researcher during the McCarthy Era.
As Barsky also notes in his NOAM CHOMSKY: A Life of Dissent book: "While he admired `the challenge to the universities' that the students were so vehemently presenting, Chomsky thought their rebellions were `largely misguided,' and he `criticized [them] as they were in progress at Berkeley (1966) and Columbia (1968) particularly."
Today, of course, MIT is still the 12th-largest recipient of U.S. Air Force war research contracts and among the top recipients of U.S. Air Force war research contracts.
Also, there doesn't appear to be any reference to the $350,000 Inamori Foundation/Kyoto Prize grant that was given to MIT Professor Chomsky in the late 1980s, in the index of the Barsky biography of him.
The reference to the military links is also in CAMPUS, INC.: Corporate Power in the Ivory Tower, edited by Geoffry D. White,. In an interview in the last chapter, MIT Professor Chomsky says: "...The universities did receive large-scale subsidies, quite often under the cover of defense . I happened to be on a committee that was set up to investigate these matters about thirty years ago. It was the first such committee for me as a result of student activism that was concerned about the reliance of MIT on military spending, what it meant, and so on. So there was a faculty/student committee set up and I was asked to be on it, and I think it was the firstreview ever of MIT fundidng...My memory is that at that time, about half of MIT's income came from two military laboratories. These were secret laboratories. One was Lincoln Labs and one then called the I Labs, now the Draper Labs, which at the time was working on guidance systems for intercontinental missiles and that sort of thing. These were secret labs and that was approximately half of the income. And, of course, that income in all kinds of ways filtered into the university through library funds and health funds and so on. Nobody knew the bookkeeping details and nobody cared much, but it was an indirect subsidy to the university.
"The other half, the academic budget, I think it was about 90 percent Pentagon funded at that time. And I personally was right in the middle of it. I was in a military lab. If you take a look at my early publications,they all say something about Air Force, Navy, and so on, because I was in a military lab, the Research Lab for Electronics. But in fact, even if you were in the music department, you were, in effect, being funded by the Pentagon because there wouldn't have been a music department unless therewas funding for, say, electrical engineering. If there was, then you could dribble some off to the music department. So, in fact, everybody was Pentagon funded no matter whatever the bookkeeping notices said. "
"Well, it's important to recognize that during that period, the university was extremely free. The lab where I was working, the research lab for electronics, was also one of the centers of anti-Vietnam War resistance. We were organizing national tax resistance and the support groups for draft resistance were based there to a large extent. I mean, I, myself, was in a jail repeatedly at the time. It didn't make any difference. The Pentagon didn't care. In fact, they didn't care at all as far as I knew."
"Their function, they understood very well, is to provide the cover for the development of the science and technology in the future so that the corporate system can profit. "
GW: So they were just too big and powerful to be threatened. You were too minor of a threat?
MIT Professor Chomsky: "They just didn't care. What happened at the administrative level I didn't know, but nothing ever got to us. I had perfectly good relations with the administration. In fact, I'd tell them if I knew I was going to get arrested. I had no particular interest in embarrassing them, but it didn't matter. "
GW: Okay, but before things started shifting more and more to corporate funding, are you saying that when the funding came from the Pentagon it was completely `free'?
MIT Professor Chomsky: "Overwhelmingly it was free. You could do pretty much waht you wanted. And there was nothing secret on campus. In fact, we investigated secrecy specifically in the committee. Although it was regarded in the government as military-related work, there was virtually nothing that was secret. In fact, the parts that were secret were mostly an impediment to research. It wasn't because anybody wanted it (secrecy), it was just some technical detail that hadn't been ironed out. You could do what you wanted in your personal and political life, and also in your academic and professional life, wihtin a broad range. It [MIT] must've been one of the most free universities in the world."
GW: Who had access to the results of all this work and research?
MIT Professor Chomsky: "But that's a joke. I remember a discussion once with the head of the instrumentation lab, which was the lab that was working on guidance stystems for intercontinental missiles. Of course it was all classified, but he said that from his point of view, he woul be perfectly happy to declassify everything and give the books to the Russians and the Chinese. He said they can't do anything with them anyway. They don't have the industrial capacity to use the technology that we're developing. So the whole effect of the classification system was to impede communication among the American scientists. "
GW: With what result?
MIT Professor Chomsky: "Well, nothing, I mean, they kept that system classified and sort of spun it off, it's now a secret lab, independent of MIT. But, in answer to your question, right now, for example, there's an agency in the Pentagon, DARPA, the Defense Advance Research Project Agency,which has been the center of innovation for many years. It's where the Internet comes from. .."
Of course, what MIT's Chomsky is failing to disclose in this interview is that if you check out MIT's web site and the Draper Lab web site, the military research that's going on today at MIT LIncoln Laboratory and Draper Lab is related to space warfare technology development.
And DARPA is more about developing the weapons technology that's been used during the last few years than just doing "Internet" research.
The MIT LIncoln Laboratory web site states, for instance: "MIT Lincoln Laboratory's Suface Surveillance Program develops advanced technology for detecting and identifying vehicles and facilities on and beneath the surfacein wide-area, heavily cluttered and electronically hostile battlefields. MIT Lincoln Laboratory has developed clutter cancellation technology that isused in today's airborne surveillance systems...We are developing technology capable of detecting and tracking moving targets that are partially or fully obscured by foliage."
And Draper Lab President Vincent Vitto said in 2001: "Draper's core work remains focused on the development of innovative solutions for theDepartment of Defense's future technology needs.... These areas includeprecision targeting and weapons systems..."
Chomsky's Support for the Warren Commission Cover-Up of the JFK Murder Case
The Warren Commission concluded that Lee Oswald was the lone gunman who killed JFK, the USA President, in Dallas, Texas,on the 22 November, 1963, by a single bullet to his head. This conclusion has since been proven beyond doubt to be wrong, and a cover-up for the real murderers who had connections to the CIA, the American Mafia and to the zionist Gestapo in Israel. Jack Rubby, the man who murdered Lee Oswald (so as to prevent the truth from emerging for the American public) turned out to be the man with connections to all those three secret organisations. In fact, of the three, the zionist Gestapo had the most "urgent reason" to murder President Kennedy, because he was the first and only American president who opposed Israel's nuclear bombs production in Dimona, which was then at its early stages.
Noam Chomsky, along with his mate, Alexander Cockburn, have supported the Warren Commission cover-up, and ridiculed the people on the Left who opposed them. Here are some of the reactions on the Left in the USA to the treachery of those two :
http://www.geocities.com/mdmorrissey/rechom1.htm
"Rethinking Chomsky
Rethinking Camelot (Boston: South End Press, 1993) is Noam Chomsky's worst book. I don't think it merits a detailed review, but we should be clear about the stand that "America's leading intellectual dissident," as he is often called, has taken on the assassination. It is not significantly different from that of the Warren Commission or the majority of Establishment journalists and government apologists, and diametrically opposed to the view "widely held in the grassroots movements and among left intellectuals" (p. 37) and in fact to the view of the majority of the population.
For Chomsky, the only theories of the assassination "of any general interest are those that assume a massive cover-up, and a high-level conspiracy that required that operation." These he rejects out of hand because "There is not a phrase in the voluminous internal record hinting at any thought of such a notion," and because the cover-up "would have to involve not only much of the government and the media, but a good part of the historical, scientific, and medical professions. An achievement so immense would be utterly without precedent or even remote analogue."
These arguments can be as glibly dismissed as Chomsky presents them. It is simply foolish to expect the conspirators to have left a paper trail, much less in the "internal record," or that part of it that has become public. It is equally foolish to confuse the notion of conspiracy and cover-up with the much more broadly applicable phenomenon of "manufacturing consent," to use Chomsky's own expression. You don't have to be a liar to believe or accept or perpetuate lies. This is exactly what Chomsky himself and Edward Herman say about the media, and it applies to the "historical, scientific, and medical professions" as well:
"Most biased choices in the media arise from the preselection of right-thinking people, internalized preconceptions, and the adaptation of personnel to the constraints of ownership, organization, market, and political power. Censorship is largely self-censorship, by reporters and commentators who adjust to the realities of source and media organizational requirements and by people at higher levels within media organizations who are chosen to implement, and have usually internalized, the constraints imposed by proprietary and other market and governmental centers of power (Manufacturing Consent, NY: Pantheon, 1988, p. xii).
Nevertheless, Chomsky admits that a "high-level conspiracy" theory makes sense if "coupled with the thesis that JFK was undertaking radical policy changes, or perceived to be by policy insiders." Rethinking Camelot is devoted to refuting this thesis.
I've addressed this subject before ("Chomsky on JFK and Vietnam," The Third Decade, Vol. 9, No. 6, pp. 8-10), so I won't repeat myself. But two things should be clear. First, Chomsky has loaded the deck. The theory that Kennedy was secretly planning to withdraw from Vietnam regardless of how the military situation developed is not the only one that supports a conspiracy view of the assassination. This is John Newman's highly speculative argument in JFK and Vietnam (NY: Warner Books, 1992), which is so easy to refute that one wonders if it was not created for this purpose. Why else would the CIA, in the form of ex-Director Colby, praise the work of Newman, an Army intelligence officer, as "brilliant" and "meticulously researched" (jacket blurb)? In any case, accepting the fact that we cannot know what JFK's secret intentions were or what he would have done, the fact that he was planning to withdraw by the end of 1965 is irrefutable.
Secondly, it should be clear that Chomsky's view of the relation, that is, non-relation, of the assassination to subsequent policy changes is essentially the same as Arthur Schlesinger's. They are both coincidence theorists. Schlesinger says Johnson reversed the withdrawal plan on Nov. 26 with NSAM 273, but the idea that this had anything to do with the assassination "is reckless, paranoid, really despicable fantasy, reminiscent of the wilder accusations of Joe McCarthy" (Wall Street Journal, 1/10/92). The assassination and the policy reversal, in other words, were coincidences.
I suspect Chomsky knows he would appear foolishly naive if he presented his position this way, so he has constructed a tortured and sophistic argument that "there was no policy reversal" in the first place, which, if true, would obviate the question of its relation to the assassination. A neat trick if you can pull it off, and Chomsky gives it a good try, but in the end he fails. In fact, he undermines his own position by making it even clearer than it has been that the reversal of the assessment of the military situation in Vietnam, which caused the reversal of the withdrawal policy, occurred very shortly after the assassination, and that the source of this new appraisal was the intelligence agencies:
The first report prepared for LBJ (November 23) opened with this "Summary Assessment": "The outlook is hopeful. There is better assurance than under Diem that the war can be won. We are pulling out 1,000 American troops by the end of 1963." ... The next day, however, CIA director John McCone informed the President that the CIA now regarded the situation as "somewhat more serious" than had been thought, with "a continuing increase in Viet Cong activity since the first of November" (the coup). Subsequent reports only deepened the gloom (p. 91).
By late December, McNamara was reporting a "sharply changed assessment" to the President (p. 92).
The only difference between this and Schlesinger's view is that Chomsky says the assessment of the military situation changed first, and then the policy changed. So what? The point is that both things changed after the assassination. The President is murdered, and immediately afterward the military assessment changes radically and the withdrawal policy changes accordingly. It matters not a whit if the policy reversal occurred with NSAM 273, as Schlesinger says, or began in early December and ended de jure in March 1964, as the Gravel Pentagon Papers clearly say (Vol. 2, pp. 191, 196).
Nor does it matter what JFK's secret intentions may have been. It is more important to note that according to Chomsky's own account, whose accuracy I do not doubt, the source of the radically changed assessment that began two days after the assassination was the CIA and the other intelligence agencies. Furthermore, this change in assessment was retrospective, dating the deterioration of the military situation from Nov. 1 or earlier. Why did it take the intelligence agencies a month or more to suddenly realize, two days after the assassination, that they had been losing the war instead of winning it?
This question may be insignificant to coincidence theorists like Schlesinger and Chomsky, but not to me. Rethinking Camelot has shown me -- sadly, because I have been an admirer -- that Chomsky needs to do some serious rethinking of his position, and that I need to do some rethinking of Mr. Chomsky."
http://www.rtis.com/reg/bcs/pol/touchstone/february97/worsham.htm
"JFK CONSPIRACY: THE INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY AND COWARDICE OF ALEXANDER COCKBURN AND NOAM CHOMSKY
by Michael Worsham
When JFK came out in 1991, I felt Oliver Stone hit the nail on the head. During 1992, some progressive/liberal writers, including Alexander Cockburn of The Nation, criticized Stone, and said there was no conspiracy, and even if there was, it did not matter because Kennedy, despite his great personal charisma, dynamic speaking, etc., was underneath, the same as all the other power-hungry and money-loving capitalists.
I asked Alexander Cockburn about JFK when he visited TAMU in 1992 (with the help of Danny Yeager and The Touchstone), but he seemed bored talking about Kennedy. As I sat and chatted with Mr. Cockburn along with the rest of the Touchstone gang (as it existed back in 1992) around a table at a local College Station restaurant, I was extremely puzzled and just could not understand how someone as educated, well-read, and perceptive about so many national and world affairs as Mr. Cockburn could really believe a complete load of crap like the Warren Commission report. It just did not make sense.
I learned a little later that Noam Chomsky also took the position that there was no conspiracy. Most of what I know about Mr. Chomsky is what I read in his occasional editorials in the now-defunct Lies Of Our Times magazine, and through the movie Manufacturing Consent (a biography of Mr. Chomsky worth watching, especially for the section on the N.Y. Times and East Timor).
Now, an answer as to why these and other progressive writers smart enough to know better, support (at least publicly) the Warren Commission has surfaced in the Jan-Feb issue of Probe (the newsletter of Citizens for Truth about the Kennedy Assassination, http://www.webcom.com/ctka).
According to a Probe article by Ray Marcus, back in early 1969 Mr. Chomsky met with several Kennedy experts and spent several hours looking at and discussing assassination photos. Mr. Chomsky even cancelled several appointments to have extra time. There was a followup meeting with Mr. Chomsky, which also lasted several hours. These meetings were ostensibly to try to do something to reopen the case. According to the Probe article, Mr. Chomsky indicated he was very interested, but had to give the matter careful consideration before committing.
After the meeting, Selwyn Bromberger, an MIT philosophy professor who had sit in on the discussion, said to the author: "If they are strong enough to kill the President and strong enough to cover it up, then they are too strong to confront directly . . . if they feel sufficiently threatened, they may move to open totalitarian rule." According to the author, Mr. Chomsky had given every indication that he believed there was a conspiracy at these meetings.
However, Mr. Chomsky never got involved with trying to reopen the case.
The same Probe article mentions that (the late) I.F. Stone, another leading progressive writer of the past, also took a position supportive of the Warren Commission in I.F. Stone's Weekly for Oct. 5, 1964.
Alexander Cockburn now writes for CounterPunch, a solid bi-weekly newsletter associated with the liberal Institute for Policy Studies. CounterPunch is fine, and worth reading, although its articles are never authored. CounterPunch also overly dwells on Washington D.C. politicians, like the tabloids, except that CounterPunch emphasizes financial instead of sexual misdeeds�i.e., it follows the money. (Recently CounterPunch was also the only organization of about 20 which refused my renewal check, subject to a simple agreement not to release my name or pester me with junk mail�more on this in a future issue of The Touchstone).
It has now become clear to me that leading progressive/left/liberal thinkers and writers like I.F. Stone, Noam Chomsky and Alexander Cockburn will only criticize the monied and powerful to the extent that they think it is safe for them to do. This is no different in principle from what the mainstream news media does: critiques are within a constrained margin of what is acceptable and not acceptable to the powers that be.
The only difference is that Mr. Chomsky and Mr. Cockburn have much wider margins than ABC (now owned by Disney), NBC (owned by General Electric), CBS (owned by Westinghouse), The Washington Post (with long ties to the intelligence community), and the N.Y. Times (so biased that the previously mentioned Lies Of Our Times was created to combat the rampant disinformation).
Mr. Chomsky and Mr. Cockburn are also really no different than Dan Rather. Mr. Rather publicly supports the Warren Commission, but has a private position on the assassination we have not heard. On specials about Kennedy, Mr. Rather will spout some mealy-mouthed nonsense like "The mystery of the assassination burns like an eternal flame" while the camera pans over Rather's shoulder to the Kennedy torch that burns at Arlington Cemetery.
To some extent Mr. Chomsky and Mr. Cockburn practice what the Kennedy research community is often accused of�they have created a cottage industry�standard left-wing/liberal criticisms of power. Their critiques are well-meaning and accurate, and provide a comfortable if not wealthy living, but don't really make a substantial dent in the problems they write about. Mr. Chomsky has been writing for over 30 years now, yet how many people have even heard of Noam Chomsky�even after the feature film about him (Manufacturing Consent) was produced? Has corporate power been reigned in any? How many Americans know about East Timor?
I hope these and all progressive writers will develop the courage to speak all of the truth that they know, or at least be honest about it, because even repeated, sharp, and direct-to-the-point criticisms of power, are not worth much if they are deliberately mis-aimed against the most important and critical problem: That forces in the supposedly constitutional democracy of the U.S. will murder democratically elected leaders like John F. Kennedy (and progressive leaders like Robert F. Kennedy, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.) and get away with it. "
http://www.questionsquestions.net/documents2/conspiracyphobia.html
From Dirty Truths by Michael Parenti(1996, City Lights Books)
(Pages 172 - 191)
"THE JFK ASSASSINATION II:
CONSPIRACY PHOBIA ON THE LEFT
Almost as an article of faith, some individuals believe that conspiracies are either kooky fantasies or unimportant aberrations. To be sure, wacko conspiracy theories do exist. There are people who believe that the United States has been invaded by a secret United Nations army equipped with black helicopters, or that the country is secretly controlled by Jews or gays or feminists or black nationalists or communists or extraterrestrial aliens. But it does not logically follow that all conspiracies are imaginary.
Conspiracy is a legitimate concept in law: the collusion of two or more people pursuing illegal means to effect some illegal or immoral end. People go to jail for committing conspiratorial acts. Conspiracies are a matter of public record, and some are of real political significance. The Watergate break-in was a conspiracy, as was the Watergate cover-up, which led to Nixon's downfall. Iran-contra was a conspiracy of immense scope, much of it still uncovered. The savings and loan scandal was described by the Justice Department as "a thousand conspiracies of fraud, theft, and bribery," the greatest financial crime in history.
Conspiracy or Coincidence?
Often the term "conspiracy" is applied dismissively whenever one suggests that people who occupy positions of political and economic power are consciously dedicated to advancing their elite interests. Even when they openly profess their designs, there are those who deny that intent is involved. In 1994, the officers of the Federal Reserve announced they would pursue monetary policies designed to maintain a high level of unemployment in order to safeguard against "overheating" the economy. Like any creditor class, they preferred a deflationary course. When an acquaintance of mine mentioned this to friends, he was greeted skeptically, "Do you think the Fed bankers are deliberately trying to keep people unemployed?" In fact, not only did he think it, it was announced on the financial pages of the press. Still, his friends assumed he was imagining a conspiracy because he ascribed self-interested collusion to powerful people.
At a World Affairs Council meeting in San Francisco, I remarked to a participant that U.S. leaders were pushing hard for the reinstatement of capitalism in the former communist countries. He said, "Do you really think they carry it to that level of conscious intent?" I pointed out it was not a conjecture on my part. They have repeatedly announced their commitment to seeing that "free-market reforms" are introduced in Eastern Europe. Their economic aid is channeled almost exclusively into the private sector. The same policy holds for the monies intended for other countries. Thus, as of the end of 1995, "more than $4.5 million U.S. aid to Haiti has been put on hold because the Aristide government has failed to make progress on a program to privatize state-owned companies" (New York Times 11/25/95).
Those who suffer from conspiracy phobia are fond of saying: "Do you actually think there's a group of people sitting around in a room plotting things?" For some reason that image is assumed to be so patently absurd as to invite only disclaimers. But where else would people of power get together - on park benches or carousels? Indeed, they meet in rooms: corporate boardrooms, Pentagon command rooms, at the Bohemian Grove, in the choice dining rooms at the best restaurants, resorts, hotels, and estates, in the many conference rooms at the White House, the NSA, the CIA, or wherever. And, yes, they consciously plot - though they call it "planning" and "strategizing" - and they do so in great secrecy, often resisting all efforts at public disclosure. No one confabulates and plans more than political and corporate elites and their hired specialists. To make the world safe for those who own it, politically active elements of the owning class have created a national security state that expends billions of dollars and enlists the efforts of vast numbers of people.
Yet there are individuals who ask with patronizing, incredulous smiles, do you really think that the people at the top have secret agendas, are aware of their larger interests, and talk to each other about them? To which I respond, why would they not? This is not to say that every corporate and political elite is actively dedicated to working for the higher circles of power and property. Nor are they infallible or always correct in their assessments and tactics or always immediately aware of how their interests are being affected by new situations. But they are more attuned and more capable of advancing their vast interests than most other social groups.
The alternative is to believe that the powerful and the privileged are somnambulists, who move about oblivious to questions of power and privilege; that they always tell us the truth and have nothing to hide even when they hide so much; that although most of us ordinary people might consciously try to pursue our own interests, wealthy elites do not; that when those at the top employ force and violence around the world it is only for the laudable reasons they profess; that when they arm, train, and finance covert actions in numerous countries, and then fail to acknowledge their role in such deeds, it is because of oversight or forgetfulness or perhaps modesty; and that it is merely a coincidence how the policies of the national security state so consistently serve the interests of the transnational corporations and the capital-accumulation system throughout the world.
Kennedy and the Left Critics
In the winter of 1991-92 Oliver Stone's film JFK revived popular interest in the question of President John Kennedy's assassination. As noted in part I of this article, the mainstream media launched a protracted barrage of invective against the movie. Conservatives and liberals closed ranks to tell the public there was no conspiracy to murder the president for such things do not happen in the United States.
Unfortunately, some writers normally identified as on the Left have rejected any suggestion that conspiracy occurred. While the rightists and centrists were concerned about preserving the legitimacy of existing institutions and keeping people from seeing the gangster nature of the state, the leftists had different concerns, though it was not always clear what these were.
Noam Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn, and others challenge the notion that Kennedy was assassinated for intending to withdraw from Vietnam or for threatening to undo the CIA or end the cold war. Such things could not have led to his downfall, they argue, because Kennedy was a cold warrior, pro-CIA, and wanted a military withdrawal from Vietnam only with victory. Chomsky claims that the change of administration that came with JFK's assassination had no appreciable effect on policy. In fact, the massive ground war ordered by Johnson and the saturation bombings of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos ordered by Nixon represented a dramatic departure from Kennedy's policy. On some occasions, Chomsky says he refuses to speculate: "As for what JFK might have done [had he lived], I have nothing to say." Other times he goes on to speculate that Kennedy would not have "reacted differently to changing situations than his close advisers" and "would have persisted in his commitment to strengthen and enhance the status of the CIA" (Z Magazine, 10/92 and 1/93).
The evidence we have indicates that Kennedy observed Cambodian neutrality and negotiated a cease-fire and a coalition government in Laos, which the CIA refused to honor. We also know that the surviving Kennedy, Robert, broke with the Johnson administration over Vietnam and publicly stated that his brother's administration had committed serious mistakes. Robert moved with the tide of opinion, evolving into a Senate dove and then a peace candidate for the presidency, before he too was murdered. The two brothers worked closely together and were usually of like mind. While this does not provide reason enough to conclude that John Kennedy would have undergone a transition comparable to Robert's, it still might give us pause before asserting that JFK was destined to follow in the direction taken by the Johnson and Nixon administrations.
In the midst of this controversy, Chomsky wrote a whole book arguing that JFK had no intention of withdrawing from Vietnam without victory. Actually, Kennedy said different things at different times, sometimes maintaining that we could not simply abandon Vietnam, other times that it ultimately would be up to the Vietnamese to fight their own war.1
One of Kennedy's closest aides, Kenneth O'Donnell, wrote that the president planned to withdraw from Vietnam after the 1964 elections. According to Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty, who headed military support for the clandestine operations of the CIA, Kennedy dictated "the rich parts" of NSAM 263, calling for the withdrawal not only of all U.S. troops but all Americans, meaning CIA officers and agents too. Prouty reflects that the president thereby signed "his own death warrant." The Army newspaper Stars and Stripes ran a headline: "President Says - All Americans Out by 1965." According to Prouty: "The Pentagon was outraged. JFK was a curse word in the corridors."
Concentrating on the question of withdrawal, Chomsky says nothing about the president's unwillingness to escalate into a ground war. On that crucial point all Chomsky offers is a speculation ascribed to Roger Hilsman that Kennedy might well have introduced U.S. ground troops in South Vietnam. In fact, the same Hilsman, who served as Kennedy's Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs, the officer responsible for Vietnam, noted in a long letter to the New York Times (1/20/92) that in 1963 "President Kennedy was determined not to let Vietnam become an American war - that is, he was determined not to send U.S. combat troops (as opposed to advisers) to fight in Vietnam nor to bomb North Vietnam." Other Kennedy aides such as Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and General Maxwell Taylor made the same point. Taylor said, "The last thing he [Kennedy] wanted was to put in our ground forces . . . I don't recall anyone who was strongly against [the recommendation], except one man and that was the President." Kennedy opposed the kind of escalation embarked upon soon after his death by Lyndon Johnson, who increased U.S. troops in Vietnam from 17,000 to approximately 250,000 and committed them to an all-out ground war.
Kennedy and the CIA
Chomsky argues that the CIA would have had no grounds for wanting to kill JFK, because he was a dedicated counterinsurgent cold warrior. Chomsky arrives at this conclusion by assuming that the CIA had the same reading of events in 1963 that he has today. But entrenched power elites are notorious for not seeing the world the way left analysts do. To accept Chomsky's assumptions we would need a different body of data from that which he and others offer, data that focuses not on the Kennedy administration's interventionist pronouncements and policies but on the more private sentiments that festered in intelligence circles and related places in 1963.
To offer a parallel: We might be of the opinion that the New Deal did relatively little for working people and that Franklin Roosevelt actually was a tool of the very interests he publicly denounced as "economic royalists." From this we might conclude that the plutocrats had much reason to support FDR's attempts to save big business from itself. But most plutocrats dammed "that man in the White House" as a class traitor. To determine why, you would have to look at how they perceived the New Deal in those days, not at how we think it should be evaluated today.
In fact, President Kennedy was not someone the CIA could tolerate, and the feeling was mutual. JFK told one of his top officials that he wanted "to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds" (New York Times, 4/25/66). He closed the armed CIA camps that were readying for a second Bay of Pigs invasion and took a number of other steps designed to bring the Agency under control. He fired its most powerful and insubordinate leaders, Director Allen Dulles, Deputy Director Charles Cabell, and Deputy Director for Plans Richard Bissell. He tried to reduce its powers and jurisdiction and set strict limits as to its future actions, and he appointed a high-level committee to investigate the CIA's past misdeeds.
In 1963, CIA officials, Pentagon brass, anti-Castro Cuban �migr�s, and assorted other right-wingers, including FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover, hated JFK and did not believe he could be trusted with the nation's future. They referred to him as "that delinquent in the White House." Roger Craig records the comments of numerous Dallas police officers who wanted to see Kennedy done away with. Several years ago, on a San Francisco talk show on station KGO, I heard a listener call in as follows: "this is the first time I'm saying this. I worked for Army intelligence. In 1963 I was in Japan, and the accepted word around then was that Kennedy would be killed because he was messing with the intelligence community. When word came of his death, all I could hear was delighted comments like 'We got the bastard'."
In his book First Hand Knowledge, CIA operative Robert Morrow noted the hatred felt by CIA officers regarding Kennedy's "betrayal" in not sending the U.S. military into the Bay of Pigs fiasco. One high-level CIA Cuban �migr�, Eladio del Valle, told Morrow less than two weeks before the assassination: "I found out about it last night. Kennedy's going to get it in Dallas."2 Morrow also notes that CIA director Richard Helms, "knew that someone in the Agency was involved" in the Kennedy assassination, "either directly or indirectly, in the act itself - someone who would be in a high and sensitive position . . . Helms did cover up any CIA involvement in the presidential assassination."
Several years after JFK's murder, President Johnson told White House aide Marvin Watson that he "was convinced that there was a plot in connection with the assassination" and that the CIA had something to do with it (Washington Post, 12/13/77). And Robert Kennedy repeatedly made known his suspicions that the CIA had a hand in the murder of his brother.
JFK's enemies in the CIA, the Pentagon, and elsewhere fixed on his refusal to provide air coverage for the Bay of Pigs, his unwillingness to go into Indochina with massive ground forces, his no-invasion guarantee to Krushchev on Cuba, his overtures for a rapprochement with Castro and professed willingness to tolerate countries with different economic systems in the Western hemisphere, his atmospheric-test-ban treaty with Moscow, his American University speech calling for reexamination of U.S. cold war attitudes toward the Soviet Union, his antitrust suit against General Electric, his curtailing of the oil-depletion allowance, his fight with U.S. Steel over price increases, his challenge to the Federal Reserve Board's multibillion-dollar monopoly control of the nation's currency,3 his warm reception at labor conventions, and his call for racial equality. These things may not have been enough for some on the Left but they were far too much for many on the Right.
Left Confusions and the Warren Commission
Erwin Knoll, erstwhile editor of the Progressive, was anther left critic who expressed hostility toward the conspiracy thesis and Oliver Stone's movie in particular. Knoll admitted he had no idea who killed Kennedy, but this did not keep him from asserting that Stone's JFK was "manipulative" and provided false answers. If Knoll had no idea who killed Kennedy, how could he conclude that the film was false?
Knoll said Stone's movie was "a melange of fact and fiction" (Progressive, 3/92). To be sure, some of the dramatization was fictionalized - but regarding the core events relating to Clay Shaw's perjury, eyewitness reports at Dealey Plaza, the behavior of U.S. law officers, and other suspicious happenings, the movie remained faithful to the facts unearthed by serious investigators.
In a show of flexibility, Knoll allows that "the Warren Commission did a hasty, slipshod job" of investigation. Here too he only reveals his ignorance. In fact, the Commission sat for fifty-one long sessions over a period of several months, much longer than most major investigations. It compiled twenty-six volumes of testimony and evidence. It had the investigative resources of the FBI and CIA at its disposal, along with its own professional team. Far from being hasty and slipshod, it painstakingly crafted theories that moved toward a foreordained conclusion. From the beginning, it asked only a limited set of questions that seemed to assume Oswald's guilt as the lone assassin.
The Warren Commission set up six investigative panels to look into such things as Oswald's background, his activities in past years and on the day of the assassination, Jack Ruby's background, and his activities on the day he killed Oswald. As Mark Lane notes, there was a crying need for a seventh panel, one that would try to discover who killed President Kennedy.
The commission never saw the need for that undertaking, having already made up its mind.
While supposedly dedicated to bringing the truth to light, the Warren Commission operated in secrecy. The minutes of its meetings were classified top secret, and hundred of thousands of documents and other evidence were sealed for seventy-five years. The Commission failed to call witnesses who heard and saw people shooting from behind the fence on the grassy knoll. It falsely recorded the testimony of certain witnesses, as they were to complain later on, and reinterpreted the testimony of others. All this took careful effort. A "hasty and slipshod" investigation would show some randomness in its errors. But the Commission's distortions consistently moved in the same direction in pursuit of a prefigured hypothesis.
Erwin Knoll talks disparagingly of the gullible U.S. public and says he "despises" Oliver Stone for playing on that gullibility. In fact, the U.S. public has been anything but gullible. It has not swallowed the official explanation the way some of the left critics have. Surveys show that 78 percent of the public say they believe there was a conspiracy. Both Cockburn in the Nation and Chomsky in Z Magazine dismiss this finding by noting that over 70 percent of the people also believe in miracles. But the fact that people might be wrong about one thing does not mean they are wrong about everything. Chomsky and Cockburn are themselves evidence of that.
In any case, the comparison is between two opposite things. Chomsky and Cockburn are comparing the public's gullibility about miracles with its unwillingness to be gullible about the official line that has been fed to them for thirty years. If anyone is gullible it is Alexander Cockburn who devoted extra column space in the Nation to support the Warren Commission's tattered theory about a magic bullet that could hit both Kennedy and Connolley while changing direction in mid-air and remaining in pristine condition.
Chomsky says that it is a "curious fact that no trace of the wide-ranging conspiracy appears in the internal record, and nothing has leaked" and "credible direct evidence is lacking" (Z Magazine, 1/93, and letter to me, 12/15/92). But why would participants in a conspiracy of this magnitude risk everything by maintaining an "internal record" (whatever that is) about the actual murder? Why would they risk their lives by going public? Many of the participants would know only a small part of the picture. But all of them would have a keen sense of the immensely powerful and sinister forces they would be up against were they to become too talkative. In fact, a good number of those who agreed to cooperate with investigators met untimely deaths. Finally, what credible direct evidence was ever offered to prove that Oswald was the assassin?
Chomsky is able to maintain his criticism that no credible evidence has come to light only by remaining determinedly unacquainted with the mountain of evidence that has been uncovered. There has even been a decision in a U.S. court of law, Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby, in which a jury found that President Kennedy had indeed been murdered by a conspiracy involving, in part, CIA operatives E. Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis, and FBI informant Jack Ruby.4
Nixon advisor H.R. Haldeman admits in his memoir: "After Kennedy was killed, the CIA launched a fantastic coverup." And "In a chilling parallel to their coverup at Watergate, the CIA literally erased any connection between Kennedy's assassination and the CIA."
Indeed, if there was no conspiracy, why so much secrecy and so much cover-up? If Oswald did it, what is there to hide and why do the CIA and FBI still resist a full undoctored disclosure of the hundreds of thousands of pertinent documents? Would they not be eager to reveal everything and thereby put to rest doubts about Oswald's guilt and suspicions about their own culpability?
The remarkable thing about Erwin Knoll, Noam Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn, and others on the Left who attack the Kennedy conspiracy findings is they remain invincibly ignorant of the critical investigations that have been carried out. I have repeatedly pointed this out in exchanges with them and they never deny it. They have not read any of the many studies by independent researchers who implicate the CIA in a conspiracy to kill the president and in the even more protracted and extensive conspiracy to cover up the murder. But this does not prevent them from dismissing the conspiracy charge in the most general and unsubstantiated terms.
Let's Hear It for Structuralism
When pressed on the matter, left critics like Cockburn and Chomsky allow that some conspiracies do exist but they usually are of minor importance, a distraction from the real problems of institutional and structural power. A structural analysis, as I understand it, maintains that events are determined by the larger configurations of power and interest and not by the whims of happenstance or the connivance of a few incidental political actors. There is no denying that larger structural trends impose limits on policy and exert strong pressures on leaders. But this does not mean that all important policy is predetermined. Short of betraying fundamental class interests, different leaders can pursue different courses, the effects of which are not inconsequential to the lives of millions of people. Thus, it was not foreordained that the B-52 carpet bombing of Cambodia and Laos conducted by Nixon would have happened if Kennedy, or even Johnson or Humphrey, had been president. If left critics think these things make no difference in the long run, they better not tell that to the millions of Indochinese who grieve for their lost ones and for their own shattered lives.
It is an either-or world for those on the Left who harbor an aversion for any kind of conspiracy investigation: either you are a structuralist in your approach to politics or a "conspiracist" who reduces historical developments to the machinations of secret cabals, thereby causing us to lose sight of the larger systemic forces. As Chomsky notes: "However unpleasant and difficult it may be, there is no escape from the need to confront the reality of institutions and the policies and actions they largely shape." (Z Magazine, 10/92).
I trust that one of the institutions he has in mind is the CIA. In most of its operations, the CIA is by definition a conspiracy, using covert actions and secret plans, many of which are of the most unsavory kind. What are covert operations if not conspiracies? At the same time, the CIA is an institution, a structural part of the national security state. In sum, the agency is an institutionalized conspiracy.
As I pointed out in published exchanges with Cockburn and Chomsky (neither of whom responded to the argument), conspiracy and structure are not mutually exclusive dynamics. A structural analysis that a priori rules out conspiracy runs the risk of not looking at the whole picture. Conspiracies are a component of the national security political system, not deviations from it. Ruling elites use both conspiratorial covert actions and overtly legitimating procedures at home and abroad. They finance everything from electoral campaigns and publishing houses to mobsters and death squads. They utilize every conceivable stratagem, including killing one of their own if they perceive him to be a barrier to their larger agenda of making the world safe for those who own it.
The conspiracy findings in regard to the JFK assassination, which the movie JFK brought before a mass audience, made many people realize what kind of a gangster state we have in this country and what it does around the world. In investigating the JFK conspiracy, researchers are not looking for an "escape" from something "unpleasant and difficult," as Chomsky would have it, rather they are raising grave questions about the nature of state power in what is supposed to be a democracy.
A structuralist position should not discount the role of human agency in history. Institutions are not self-generating reified forces. The "great continuities of corporate and class interest" (Cockburn's phrase) are not disembodied things that just happen of their own accord. Neither empires nor national security institutions come into existence in a fit of absent-mindedness. They are actualized not only by broad conditional causes but by the conscious efforts of live people. Evidence for this can be found in the very existence of a national security state whose conscious function is to recreate the conditions of politico-economic hegemony.
Having spent much of my life writing books that utilize a structuralist approach, I find it ironic to hear about the importance of structuralism from those who themselves do little or no structural analysis of the U.S. political system and show little theoretical grasp of the structural approach. Aside from a few Marxist journals, one finds little systemic or structural analysis in left periodicals including ones that carry Chomsky and Cockburn. Most of these publications focus on particular issues and events - most of which usually are of far lesser magnitude than the Kennedy assassination.
Left publications have given much attention to conspiracies such as Watergate, the FBI Cointelpro, Iran-Contra, Iraq-gate, CIA drugs-for-guns trade, BCCI, and savings-and-loans scandals. It is never explained why these conspiracies are important while the FJK assassination is not. Chip Berlet repeatedly denounces conspiracy investigations while himself spending a good deal of time investigating Lyndon LaRouche's fraudulent financial dealings, conspiracies for which LaRouche went to prison. Berlet never explains why the LaRouche conspiracy is a subject worthy of investigation but not the JFK conspiracy.
G. William Domhoff points out: "If 'conspiracy' means that these [ruling class] men are aware of their interests, know each other personally, meet together privately and off the record, and try to hammer out a consensus on how to anticipate and react to events and issues, then there is some conspiring that goes on in CFR [the Council for Foreign Relations], not to mention the Committee for Economic Development, the Business Council, the National Security Council, and the Central Intelligence Agency." After providing this useful description of institutional conspiracy, Domhoff then conjures up a caricature that often clouds the issue: "We all have a tremendous tendency to want to get caught up in believing that there's some secret evil cause for all of the obvious ills of the world." Conspiracy theories "encourage a belief that if we get rid of a few bad people, everything will be well in the world."
To this simplistic notion Peter Dale Scott responds: "I believe that a true understanding of the Kennedy assassination will lead not to a few bad people but to the institutional and parapolitical arrangements which constitute the way we are systematically governed." In sum, national security state conspiracies are components of our political structure, not deviations from it.
Why Care About JFK?
The left critics argue that people who are concerned about the JFK assassination are romanticizing Kennedy and squandering valuable energy. Chomsky claims that the Nazi-like appeals of rightist propagandists have a counterpart on the Left: "It's the conspiracy business. Hang around California, for example, and the left has just been torn to shreds because they see CIA conspiracies . . . secret governments [behind] the Kennedy assassination. This kind of stuff has just wiped out a large part of the left" (Against the Current 56, 1993). Chomsky offers no evidence to support this bizarre statement.
The left critics fear that people will be distracted or misled into thinking well of Kennedy. Cockburn argues that Kennedy was nothing more than a servant of the corporate class, so who cares how he was killed (Nation 3/9/92 and 5/18/92). The left critics' hatred of Kennedy clouds their judgment about the politcal significance of his murder. They mistake the low political value of the victim with the high political importance of the assassination, its implications for democracy, and the way it exposes the gangster nature of the state.
In 1894 Captain Alfred Dreyfus was a conservative militarist. Clemenceau once conjectured that if the man's name had not been Dreyfus, he would have been an anti-Dreyfusard. Does that mean that the political struggle waged around l'affaire Dreyfus was a waste of time? The issue quickly became larger than Dreyfus, drawn between Right and Left, between those who stood with the army and the anti-Semites and those who stood with the republic and justice.
Likewise Benigno Aquino, a member of the privileged class in the Philippines, promised no great structural changes, being even more conservative than Kennedy. Does this mean the Filipino people should have dismissed the conspiracy that led to his assassination as an event of no great moment, an internal ruling-class affair? Instead, they used it as ammunition to expose the hated Marcos regime.
Archbishop Romero of El Salvador was a member of the Salvadoran aristocracy. He could not have risen to the top of the church hierarchy otherwise. But after he began voicing critical remarks about the war and concerned comments about the poor, he was assassinated. If he had not been murdered, I doubt that Salvadoran history would have been much different. Does this mean that solidarity groups in this country and El Salvador should not have tried to make his murder an issue that revealed the homicidal gangster nature of the Salvadoran state? (I posed these questions to Chomsky in an exchange in Z Magazine, but in his response, he did not address them.)
Instead of seizing the opportunity, some left writers condescendingly ascribe a host of emotional needs to those who are concerned about the assassination cover-up. According to Max Holland, a scribe who seems to be on special assignment to repudiate the JFK conspiracy: "The nation is gripped by a myth . . . divorced from reality," and "Americans refuse to accept their own history." In Z Magazine (10/92) Chomsky argued that "at times of general malaise and social breakdown, it is not uncommon for millenarian movements to arise." He saw two such movements in 1992: the response to Ross Perot and what he called the "Kennedy revival" or "Camelot revival." Though recognizing that the audiences differ, he lumps them together as "the JFK-Perot enthusiasms." Public interest in the JFK assassination, he says, stems from a "Camelot yearning" and the "yearning for a lost Messiah."
I, for one, witnessed evidence of a Perot movement involving millions of people but I saw no evidence of a Kennedy revival, certainly no millenarian longing for Camelot or a "lost Messiah." However, there has been a revived interest in the Kennedy assassination, which is something else. Throughout the debate, Chomsky repeatedly assumes that those who have been troubled about the assassination must be admirers of Kennedy. In fact, some are, but many are not. Kennedy was killed in 1963; people who today are in their teens, twenties, thirties, and forties - most Americans - were not old enough to have developed a political attachment to him.
The left critics psychologize about our illusions, our false dreams, our longings for Messiahs and father figures, or inability to face unpleasant realities the way they can. They deliver patronizing admonitions about our "conspiracy captivation" and "Camelot yearnings." They urge us not to escape into fantasy. They are the cognoscenti who guide us and out-left us on the JFK assassination, a subject about which they know next to nothing and whose significance they have been unable to grasp. Having never read the investigative literature, they dismiss the investigators as irrelevant or irrational. To cloak their own position with intellectual respectability, they fall back on an unpracticed structuralism.
It is neither "Kennedy worship" nor "Camelot yearnings" that motivates our inquiry, but a desire to fight back against manipulative and malignant institutions so that we might begin to develop a system of accountable rule worthy of the name democracy."
Footnotes :
1 Kennedy's intent to withdraw is documented in the Gravel edition of the Pentagon Papers ("Phased Withdrawal of U.S. Forces, 1962-1964," vol. 2, pp. 160-200). It refers to "the Accelerated Model Plan . . .. for a rapid phase out of the bulk of U.S. military personnel" and notes that the administration was "serious about limiting the U.S. commitment and throwing the burden onto the South Vietnamese themselves." But "all the planning for phase-out . . . was either ignored or caught up in the new thinking of January to March 1964" (p. 163) - the new thinking that came after JFK was killed and Johnson became president.
2 Del Valle's name came up the day after JFK's assassination when Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade announced at a press conference that Oswald was a member of del Valle's anti-communist "Free Cuba Committee." Wade was quickly contradicted from the audience by Jack Ruby, who claimed that Oswald was a member of the leftish Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Del Valle, who was one of several people that New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison sought out in connection with the JFK assassination, was killed the same day that Dave Ferrie, another suspect met a suspicious death. When found in Miami, del Valle's body showed evidence of having been tortured, bludgeoned, and shot.
3 The bankers of the Federal Reserve System print paper money, then lend it to the government at an interest. Kennedy signed an executive order issuing over $4 billion in currency notes through the U.S. Treasury, thus bypassing the Fed's bankers and the hundreds of millions of dollars in interest that would normally be paid out to them. These "United States Notes" were quickly withdrawn after JFK's assassination.
4 See Mark Lane, Plausible Denial; Was the CIA Involved in the Assassination of JFK? (New York: Thunder's Mouth Press, 1991). For testimony of another participant see Robert Morrow: First Hand Knowledge: How I Participated in the CIA-Mafia Murder of President Kennedy (New York: S.P.I. Books, 1992)."
Chomsky's support for the official 9/11 story rather than for the truth
http://www.oilempire.us/chomsky.html
"Where Noam will not roam:
Chomsky manufactures consent, supports the official stories of 9/11 and JFK
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum."- Noam Chomsky
"That's an internet theory and it's hopelessly implausible. Hopelessly implausible. So hopelessly implausible I don't see any point in talking about it."
- Noam Chomsky, at a FAIR event at New York's Town Hall, 22 January 2002, in response to a question from the audience about US government foreknowledge of 9/11. At that time, 9/11 investigators had already presented substantial documented evidence for: prior warnings, Air Force stand-down, anomalous insider trading connected to CIA, cover-up of the domestic anthrax attacks, inconsistencies in identities & timelines of "hijackers", US connections to al Qaeda in Balkans, a Pak ISI-al Qaeda funding connection, etc etc etc.
Professor Noam Chomsky, one of the country's most famous dissidents, says that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman in Dallas. Anyone who still supports the Warren Commission hoax after forty years of countering proofs is either ill-informed, dumb, gullible, afraid to speak truths to power or a disinformation agent.
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where Chomsky has worked for decades, has a very good physics department (MIT is the largest university contractor to the military). Perhaps he could visit them and learn why it is physically impossible for Oswald to have been anything more than the "patsy" that he (accurately) claimed to be.
The truth is that Chomsky is very good in his analysis within certain parameters of limited debate -- but in understanding the "deep politics" of the actual, secret government, his analysis falls short.
Chomsky is good at explaining the double standards in US foreign policies - but at this point understanding / exposing the mechanics of the deceptions (9/11 isn't the only one) the reasons for it (Peak Oil / global dominance / domestic fascism) and what we can do (war crimes trials / permaculture to relocalize food production / paradigm shifts) is more important than more repetition from Chomsky.
Professor Chomsky was apparently part of a study group in the late 1960s that was investigating what really happened in Dallas (ie. he was a skeptic of the official story). It seems likely that Chomsky did indeed figure out what happened - and decided that this was too big of an issue to confront.
Maybe Chomsky gets more media attention these days than most other dissidents BECAUSE he urges people not to inquire into how the secret government operates.
Chomsky in his own words
9-11: Institutional Analysis vs. Conspiracy Theory
Submitted by Noam Chomsky on Fri, 2006-10-06 14:09.
Categories: Middle East United States US Foreign Policy
The following is an exchange between a ZNet Sustainer and Noam Chomsky, which took place in the Sustainer Web Board where Noam hosts a forum...
ZNet Sustainer: Dear Noam, There is much documentation observed and uncovered by the 911 families themselves suggesting a criminal conspiracy within the Bush Administration to cover-up the 9/11 attacks (see DVD, 9/11: Press for Truth). Additionally, much evidence has been put forward to question the official version of events. This has come in part from Paul Thompson, an activist who has creatively established the 9/11 Timeline, a free 9/11 investigative database for activist researchers, which now, according to The Village Voice�s James Ridgeway, rivals the 9/11 Commission�s report in accuracy and lucidity (see, http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0416,mondo1,52830,6.html , or www.cooperativeresearch.org).
Noam Chomsky: Hard for me to respond to the rest of the letter, because I am not persuaded by the assumption that much documentation and other evidence has been uncovered. To determine that, we'd have to investigate the alleged evidence. Take, say, the physical evidence. There are ways to assess that: submit it to specialists -- of whom there are thousands -- who have the requisite background in civil-mechanical engineering, materials science, building construction, etc., for review and analysis; and one cannot gain the required knowledge by surfing the internet. In fact, that's been done, by the professional association of civil engineers.
Or, take the course pursued by anyone who thinks they have made a genuine discovery: submit it to a serious journal for peer review and publication. To my knowledge, there isn't a single submission.
ZNet Sustainer: A question that arises for me is that regardless of this issue, how do I as an activist prevent myself from getting distracted by such things as conspiracy theories instead of focusing on the bigger picture of the institutional analysis of private profit over people?
[note: the Complete 9/11 Timeline does not focus on the physical evidence, Chomsky is either ignorant of the issue or steering people into a false dichotomy]
Noam Chomsky: I think this reaches the heart of the matter. One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis. That is, I suspect, why the 9/11 movement is treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and activist work. How do you personally set priorities? That's of course up to you. I've explained my priorities often, in print as well as elsewhere, but we have to make our own judgments.
ZNet Sustainer: In a sense, profit over people is the real conspiracy, yes, yet not a conspiracy at all � rather institutional reality? At the same time, if the core of conspiracy theories are accurate, which is challenging to pin down, though increasingly possible, does it not fit into the same motivations of furthering institutional aims of public subsidizes to private tyrannies? I mean, through the 9/11 attacks, Bush Et Al. has been able to justify massive increases in defense spending for a "war without end," and Israel has been given the green light to do virtually whatever it wants since now �the Americans are in the same fight.� Furthermore, there has been a substantial rollback of civil rights in our nation, with the most extreme example being strong attempt to terminate habeas corpus.
Noam Chomsky: Can't answer for the same reasons. I don't see any reason to accept the presuppositions. As for the consequences, in one of my first interviews after 9/11 I pointed out the obvious: every power system in the world was going to exploit it for its own interests: the Russians in Chechnya, China against the Uighurs, Israel in the occupied territories,... etc., and states would exploit the opportunity to control their own populations more fully through "prevention of terrorism acts" and the like. By the "who gains" argument, every power system in the world could be assigned responsibility for 9/11.
ZNet Sustianer: This begs the question: if 9/11 was an inside job, then what�s to say that Bush Et Al., if cornered or not, wouldn't resort to another more heinous attack of grander proportions in the age of nuclear terrorism � which by its very nature would petrify populations the world over, leading citizens to cower under the Bush umbrella of power.
Noam Chomsky: Wrong question, in my opinion. They were carrying out far more serious crimes, against Americans as well, before 9/11 -- crimes that literally threaten human survival. They may well resort to further crimes if activists here prefer not to deal with them and to focus their attention on arcane and dubious theories about 9/11.
ZNet Sustainer: Considering that in the US there are stage-managed elections, public relations propaganda wars, and a military-industrial-education-prison-etc. complex, does something like this sound far-fetched?
Noam Chomsky: I think that's the wrong way to look at it. Everything you mention goes back far before 9/11, and hasn't changed that much since. More evidence that the 9/11 movement is diverting energy and attention away from far more serious crimes -- and in this case crimes that are quite real and easily demonstrated.
ZNet Sustainer:Considering the long history of false flag operations to wrongly justify wars, our most recent precedent being WMD in Iraq, The Gulf of Tonkin in Vietnam, going back much further to Pearl Harbor (FDR knowingly allowing the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor � which is different from false flag operations), to the 1898 Spanish-American War, to the 1846 Mexican-American War, to Andrew Jackson�s seizing of Seminole land in 1812 (aka Florida).
Noam Chomsky: The concept of "false flag operation" is not a very serious one, in my opinion. None of the examples you describe, or any other in history, has even a remote resemblance to the alleged 9/11 conspiracy. I'd suggest that you look at each of them carefully.
ZNet Sustainer: Lastly, as the world�s leading terror state, would it not surprise anyone if the US was capable of such an action? Would it surprise you? Do you think that so-called conspiracy theorists have anything worthy to present?
Noam Chomsky: I think the Bush administration would have had to be utterly insane to try anything like what is alleged, for their own narrow interests, and do not think that serious evidence has been provided to support claims about actions that would not only be outlandish, for their own interests, but that have no remote historical parallel. The effects, however, are all too clear, namely, what I just mentioned: diverting activism and commitment away from the very serious ongoing crimes of state." (Emphasis added - B.M.)
sondaughtersdadSend instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Two Palestinian Poets: Nahida Izzat and Iqbal Tamimi
Thank you
By Nahida Izzat
So, let me get this straight:
You tear my veil to free me
You jail me to rid me of my terror
You kill my beloved to liberate me
You shoot my baby to erase my misery
You starve me to show me how to vote
You threaten me to bring me to my senses
You wage war on me to help me find peace
You slay my people to teach me compassion
You humiliate me to aid me live with dignity
You insult me to illustrate freedom of speech
You crush my bones to save me from my evil
You demolish my home to elevate my morality
You uproot my tree to raise my ethical standard
You steal my resources to bring me social justice
You assassinate my leaders to bring me security
You bomb my town to train me into democracy
You destroy my history to educate me about progress
You dehumanise me to coach me into humanity
You wipe me out to push me to civilisation
You scorn my faith to bring me salvation
Thank you sir
How can I -ever- pay you back?
So, let me get this straight:
You tear my veil to free me
You jail me to rid me of my terror
You kill my beloved to liberate me
You shoot my baby to erase my misery
You starve me to show me how to vote
You threaten me to bring me to my senses
You wage war on me to help me find peace
You slay my people to teach me compassion
You humiliate me to aid me live with dignity
You insult me to illustrate freedom of speech
You crush my bones to save me from my evil
You demolish my home to elevate my morality
You uproot my tree to raise my ethical standard
You steal my resources to bring me social justice
You assassinate my leaders to bring me security
You bomb my town to train me into democracy
You destroy my history to educate me about progress
You dehumanise me to coach me into humanity
You wipe me out to push me to civilisation
You scorn my faith to bring me salvation
Thank you sir
How can I -ever- pay you back?
Nahida is a Jerusalem-born poet living in exile. Her site is: http://poetryforpalestine.spaces.live.com/, her Palestinian Mothers page is: http://palestinian.ning.com/profile/nahida
Poetry can never be translated 100%, the moment my words leave my heart to occupy yours, it loses some of its identity, and almost all its music. But still poetry is a form of communication used to express one's feeling in a very special way. I leave you here with one of my poems.Legged Stones By Iqbal Tamimi
The bed of defeat has always been feminine
Ever since the sky was within reach
a womb less pillow of Vanilla
Giving birth to scandals
The thorns took advantage.
Climbing the shoulders of the bare peach
Stealing the bride,
Whose perfume has never swung in the wind
The apple went mad
Glued his grief
to the fingers of his land.
Took off his desire
Shouted, cried
I’ve perfected banging water drums
Because my share of plight, is exactly as yours
Thought my teardrops
could quench the hatred fire.
We all perfected the game
Attacking the features of things
We dallied with the nails of our jailer
Who bought the East
sometimes with prayers.
Other times
With a convoy of female slaves
The knight of the mountains
Has been collecting our wounds
To sprinkle them on a heap of dew
Waited for a long time
Until the stones sprouted legs
Chasing the mud groom
Who tested the virginity of heavens
Bearing on the shoulders of his winter
His imported season.
Screamed.. His shirt
Rescue me please, from this cold body
My circle has been defeated by armies of frost
Chased by eagles of dust
Throw your body
Against the ink lorry
Drown your sorrow in a cup of coffee or..
Die standing up like a wall
Defend the thyme’s hymen
Defend a wagon.
Ready to load the victims of tremor
Fight for
Poems, honey flavored
Document your defeat ...if you choose
On a crying poem
For a lilac, became a naked martyr
While building a pavement, for the news.
This poem in Arabic can be found here:
Iqbal is a Palestinian poet and journalist from Hebron living in exile. She founded the Palestinian Mothers Community on the web. Her page is: http://palestinian.ning.com/profile/Iqbal
Labels: human rights violations, Nakba, occupation, Palestine, poetry
The Ugly Truth
Update on Brendon O’Connell
I received a very welcome phone call tonight from Brendon O’Connell who is currently one year into serving a 3-year prison sentence. In effect, he is in jail for his anti-Zionist activism.
As reported here a week ago, Brendon is on a hunger strike until his case is reheard. He alleges that the Australian government–due to pressure from powerful Jewish interests–denied him the right to a free trial and has broken every rule of judicial procedure possible in doing so.
As of this evening, he is into his 15th day of not eating. It is clearly taking a toll on him as his speech and mental activity are slower than usual, which, anyone who has spoken to Brendon can attest, is saying a lot, as he normally has the mental energy of a micro-nuke. He has lost over 25 lbs in the process.
He said he is holding up well and intends to take this to the end if necessary. He is in solitary confinement, which he prefers for the silence it offers. He says he has his pictures of Jesus and Mary and spends much of his time in prayer and just realized the other day that it is Lent, and that this is the best Lent he has ever passed.
We are calling upon any and all major news agencies to dispatch their correspondants in Australia to the prison in Casuarina and bring some attention to this situation.
Other updates on his situation can be found at http://brendonoconnellincarcerated2.blogspot.com/
-
#1 by Fredrick Toben on 03/21/2012 - 9:341. Brendon had the audacity to challenge a young Jew about his religious convictions, which Brendon rightly claimed, has led to the Palestinian nakbar. Unfortunately the issue whether ‘Jew’ is a religious or racial category was not fully explored during the trial – an academic claimed ‘Jew’ is a religion while a rabbi claimed it is a race.
2. The jury was also not impressed with Brendon’s attempt to run legal argument that questioned the legality of the court itself, much like some lawyers are doing in the USA. When put to the test the example of successfully defending oneself in court in such a manner often turns out to be the negation of a traffic fine – but Brendon’s matter is more serious than that and it is futile for an unrepresented person to mount any kind of defence when it gets to issues raised under the Racial Discrimination Act.
3. Note how some US courts are openly adopting the ‘hate’ category, which is simply a watered down version of defamation law where truth is still a defence – but this was not to be in Brendon’s case.
4. His matter is much like the contesting of a charge under Section 130 of the German Criminal Code. Imagine, if a lawyer defends you too vigorously in court, as Ludwig Bock did Gunter Deckert during the 1990s, then the lawyer himself is subject to prosecution. Bock was fined about DM10,000, and that is why when he defended me in 1999 he remained silent and refused to defend me, this being the ground for my having a re-trial that since last year’s advice from Dr Meinerzhagen has been adjourned indefinitely.
5. As well, some of Brendon’s supporters believe that invoking Angel-protection will lead to victory.
6. During Brendon’s two-hour appeal on 13 December 2011 I watched how Chief Justice Martin sat there continuously grooming and biting his fingernails. I have never in my life seen anyone do that kind of thing for two hours. Was it boredom or nervousness, or both?
7. A final note: were it not for Brendon’s strong mind and religious belief, then I think he would have trouble coping with his current action. But support from outside also helps a lot, so write to him at:
Brendon O’Connell, Locked Bag 1, KWINANA WA 6966, Australia.
Thanks
Fredrick -
#3 by giselle wilding on 03/21/2012 - 9:34Keep fighting Brendon. God will hopefully keep you alive. I am fighting too and an AskeNAZI prosecutor wanted to lock me up for protecting a child from a paedophile and the corrupt courts and lawyers would not hear the truth; but they will now even if it kills me. I could not get an intervention order because I went to church (Christian) and had to be delusional .
-
#5 by Bill on 03/21/2012 - 9:34BAFS,
Give me a break. Please. NO more disinfo.
Australia, Nor the USA, nor England …is ‘Facist’
Facism is a Talmudic ‘Dirty word’ employed BY Jews and their useful idiots, as they actually stood up TO Jew Bolshvism, defensively. Said Nations have employed 9 of the 10 Planks of Communism, as per the Marx’s Manifesto. We are Communist, NOT facist.
Facist nations typically are characterized BY a strong National Identity.
Australia, USA nor England do not have such an identity.
SPAIN, ITALY, GERMANY Did.
And strong leaders to fight off Jew Bolshevim, to throw out the Banksters, The Usurious Central Bank, The Defilers of their Culture ie Pornographers, Communists, Sympathizers, those that attacked GOD and family.
“Unfortunately for the unlearned, Fascism has an undeserved bad reputation. Regardless of this reputation, Fascism is a very sensible economic and social ideology. There are a few different “flavors” of Fascism, but basically they all come down to the following.
Fascism is an economic system in which a nation’s government plays a central role in monitoring all banking, trade, production, and labor activity which takes place within the nation. Such monitoring is done for the sole purpose of safeguarding & advancing the nation and its people. Under Fascism, the government will not approve of any business activity unless that business has a positive impact on the nation as a whole and the people of the nation – this is the axiom which determines everything under Fascism.
In other words, the government asks, “Is XYZ Enterprises good for our nation and our people?” If yes, it’s approved. If no, it’s not approved. When they ask, “Is it good?”, they mean, “Is XYZ Enterprises good for the workers, do they pay a fair wage, do they produce a product or provide a service which advances our nation & our people technologically, morally, spiritually, health-wise, etc???”
Fascism is based on free enterprise – but with constraints (the primary constraint being, “Is the particular economic activity in question good for our nation?”).
In a nutshell, Fascism basically tells entrepreneurs, “Go ahead and start a business, earn a lot of money, be successful, but don’t produce any products or services which damage our nation and our nation’s people… and make sure you treat your workers fair and pay them a living wage. If you don’t do these things, we’ll shut you down.”
The above is the economic aspect of Fascism. There is also a Cultural/social aspect to Fascism as well. Under Fascism, government plays a key role in Monitoring: film, theatre, art, literature, music, education, etc in order to maintain a high Moral standard, keep things clean and respectable, promote a strong sense of Patriotism and honor, and prevent the dissemination of depraved filth which corrupts society.”
Hunger strikes can be effective.
They worked for Bobby Sands and company, thrown in prison for being a suspected IRA member, and galvanized the Irish nation against England and garnered world support.
I think Brandon would do better to fight this case head on and not strike, but it is his decision.
I wish Brandon well. -
#6 by Adalberto Erazo on 03/21/2012 - 9:34Isn’t there a way to get Brendon’s plight attention from news organizations such as RT, Telesur, and Presstv?
-
#7 by Rhonda on 03/21/2012 - 9:34EAT….there are other ways
You are doing irreperable harm to your internal organs….when you stop eating your body starts eating you.
God Bless you -
#9 by Fredrick Toben on 03/21/2012 - 9:34Nothing is gained without sacrifice – some subscribe to ‘Victory AND Paradise’!
Remember, it’s the fear of fear that enables bullies – and so: Don’t blame the Jews, blame those that bend to their pressure. A minority can only dominate if the majority permits it.
Please view: Raw USA Politics – Obama: Craven Puppet of Racist Democratic Zionist Jewish Israel -We’re all Palestinians now! -
#10 by Ingrid B on 03/22/2012 - 9:34@Fredrick Toben, thanks for the video..
-
#12 by Hallion on 03/22/2012 - 9:34Brendon, you are in my prayers every day.
You are too young to die.
That’s exactly what ‘they’ want’.
Don’t give them this satisfaction.
Please try other ways to take your points across.
Please, please, please….take care.
Stay alive. -
#13 by Fredrick Toben on 03/22/2012 - 9:34Brendon rang me last night and from our conversation I can state that he is set on seeing this thing through to the end. His appeal was on 13 December 2011 and he is still waiting for its result.
He would certainly like to receive mail from anyone interested in his case. Please remember to put your return address on the envelope:
Brendon O’Connell,
Locked Bag 1,
KWINANA WA 6966,
Australia. -
#15 by Fredrick Toben on 03/23/2012 - 9:34Yes, but there is always more to come for me, even after last year surviving the bankruptcy move that cost me all up over $75,000. Now they want $270,000. Some Prime Uglies don’t know when to stop –
please view http://www.adelaideinstitute.org -
#17 by Ken on 03/23/2012 - 9:34Hi Fred!
Very happy to hear the latest news about how things are going for you.
Hope that the near term brings more of the same tidings.
This site and your level of work are a perfect match–hopefully you’ll have a column on here soon.
And I wish you a joyous early April Fool’s Day (since April 1st doesn’t mean anything in religious terms :-).) -
#18 by Assimbo IR on 03/27/2012 - 9:34Victory AND Paradise over all those “Prime Uglies”. As Dr. Töben has said, some “individuals” are labelled PRIME UGLIES because their thoughts, their very being is jarring and ugly, while they gloat over another’s misfortune, and eagerly attempt to bring about more misfortunes for others”.. Kapitulieren? Niemals!.
-
Mark
We need a follow up on what is going on with Brendon : D
Has anyone heard anything from him recently ??????? NOTHING on line is current. His website blog has been censored by the thought police. Is this his current mailing address ?
Brendon O’Connell
c/o Casurina Prison
Lockbaged 1
Kwinana Perth
Western Australia 6966 -
#21 by Fredrick Toben on 02/11/2013 - 9:34Brendon has decided to go quiet and not seek any more publicity, and asked that all blogs about him be removed, which I understand has been done. He is on a steep learning curve, i.e. he may be in a physical prison but all of us are also imprisoned in some way – through an addiction, etc. Hence my view on this is apt: The world is my prison. Freedom is a state of mind where the questions demanding an answer is: Freedom from what and freedom for what?
Brendon’s current address is:
Locked Bag 2
Albany Regional Prison
Albany WA 6330
AUSTRALIA
If you write to him make certain you write your own address on the back of the envelope – donations in the form of banknotes enclosed in an envelope are handed out to him, i.e. placed on his internal prison bank account.
Any other queries please send me an email: toben@toben.biz -
#22 by Mike on 05/18/2013 - 9:34I don’t believe that, has he been bought out or threatened? I can understand lying low to avoid going to prison again but to remove any discussion about him and previous information he has put out in the past, I don’t think so – something is up.
Hardly anyone in Australia knows about Brendon O’connell, even those who are fully aware of Zionist control of the US, his story needs exposure before others end up in jail for speaking out in the same way. It has certainly changed my mind on what action needs to be taken. -
#23 by Kosmos on 11/06/2013 - 9:34Ok, Brendon asked for all blogs about him to be removed but we don’t need respect that request. He simply felt the need to request that himself. Its just his request that is good enough and the fact he has gone quiet is a good thing. He has done more than his service, is a true Digger and proud Australian, a top aussie bloke
I tell you one thing we can’t criticise the jews for is that at least they kept our Australia safe from wars on our soil.
If you look all throughout history, the 150+ nations who threw the jews out were always avenged economically by the jews who simply moved all the wealth with them. They are the money masters. In these days ahead it is better to have them on your side. -
#24 by Kosmos on 11/06/2013 - 9:34“Freedom is a state of mind where the questions demanding an answer is: Freedom from what and freedom for what?”
Well Toben this affirms my above attitude about this issue. I want Brendon to go quiet because I believe that he has done service enough. Australia needs to remain pro-Zionist for our own security understand. Its the American people who can and ‘may’ decide this. If Australians all could be woken up to how they have no true democracy and its not the Queen but jews who are their true overlords then it would only serve to endanger the national security of Australia. Australians are very racist and aggressive. If they were turned off bashing muslims and chinese and onto Jews the jews will avenge Australia and the drop of a keyboard.
This is where Brendon made a big mistake. His patriotism was beyond the call of duty. Everyone in Canberra knows the story we are in, nobody is as stupid as they might seem. At the end of the day we are talking about our overall national security. -
#25 by Kosmos on 11/06/2013 - 9:34Tobin lets explore that question more about freedom from what and at what cost. Well Australia doesn’t really have any national identity. As much as an aussie yobbo would love to wave his flag and be proud to be an Australian he is a minority in what is now the most multicultural country in the world.
30 million Australians and only 30% of them are still of the original stock of convicts who settled it.
Patriotism could be wiped out in one month with a full blown invasion by a psycho Chinese regime.
Fact is that the jews have Australia in its current state because that is the way they wanted it to be for their own designs. In this sense we are a “lucky country”.
I know that jews are not supreme by birth. But their coordination, their education, is that it makes them the most supreme group in the world.
Now in the case of America this is a totally different story. If there will be any change of the guard it will come from America. And this is where Brendon made a mistake in thinking that anything should be focused on Australians. The defeat of jewish supremacy in this world will only come via the US if at all.
(Look what the jews did to Helen Clarke when she first refused to contribute a symbolic contingent of NZ soldiers to the Iraq invasion. They threatened her with economic revenges – Well that is the jews. Play along or we will bankrupt you).
So its America only is the focus.
I hope Brendon gets some good days ahead and enjoy the country Australia is a good country for now. -
#26 by Kosmos on 11/06/2013 - 9:34And for example, Brendon accused the judge of being guilty of treason. But to be guilty of treason would need prove he risked the national security of Australia. Ironically this is the situation we are in. That judge more likely protected the national security of Australia by doing as the jews bidded him to.
When you say Brendon has had a steep learning curve I think indeed that is what has finally dropped the penny.
But you Tobin, I agree totally with you about their Holocaust lies that needed to be affronted because it was just an insult to the world to outright lie about gas chambers is just despicable and blood libel lie and its repulsive.
The jews go too far always, and that is why they have been chased out of countries so many times not by the leaders of the countries – You know that many times they were “escorted” out to protect them from the rioting masses.
Now this kind of rioting masses would not serve the interests of Australia’s national security.
Its that simple.
I too want to see jewish power overthrown.But its going to come from America or not at all. -
#27 by Ed Devere on 12/23/2013 - 9:34Can someone give me the latest on where Brendon’s incarceration is up to? How long does he have to go?
Ed Devere
A Monthly Newsmagazine from Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought (ICIT)
Iqbal Siddiqui
ZIONISM, NOAM CHOMSKY, URI AVNERY,COMPLICITY BY PALESTINIAN LEADERS, ZIONIST GESTAPO, TREACHERY, AND BETRAYAL !
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
ON THE DAMAGE NOAM CHOMSKY, URI AVNERY AND THEIR CABALS HAVE BEEN INFLICTING ON THE PALESTINE CAUSE AND ON THE LEFT
There can be very little doubt that Noam Chomsky and his cabal are the main source of the USA Left corruption. Similarly, there is very little doubt that Uri Avnery and his cabal are the main disruptive and corrupt influence on the development of anti-zionist Left under the zionist apartheid regime of Israel.
Although a fanatical zionist impostor who purports to be a peace activist, Uri Avnery is not hiding his loyalty to zionism, nor to the zionist apartheid regime of Israel. Only a few days ago he defined himself as an "Israeli patriot" to justify his loyalty to the zionist apartheid regime of Israel.
Noam Chomsky ,who purports to be anti-fascist and anti-imperialist, has never opposed zionism nor objected to the zionist apartheid regime of Israel. The reality is that he always has been loyal to both USA imperialism and to the zionist apartheid regime of Israel. He always has been a zionist impostor, but has publicised himself around the world as a "champion" of oppressed people. Recently he has travelled to Venezuela to meet Hugo Chavez, to flatter and bamboozle him furthermore.
On the 28th of August 2006,The Independent published Noam Chomsky's replies to readers' questions. One of the paper's readers asked him if he considers the USA a fascist country. Chomsky's reply was that it is not true, and that the USA is the "most free country in the world" (see my post http://treacheryof.blogspot.com/2006/10/more-on-treachery-of-noam.html
and other posts on the same blog).
Even more damage is inflicted by Chomsky and his ilk by providing a very negative role model to the people of Left in the USA and elsewhere. The message they are getting from this impostor-guru is that never mind honesty, as like himself, it is OK to deceive, to pretend and to play the role of a double agent if it is necessary for a successful career. Furthermore, it is OK to be a wealthy man and make more money , like himself, while preaching against the capitalist establishment.
My own encounter with such corruption is documented in the previous post on this blog. The two purported supporters of the Palestine cause emailed to me cynical messages of hostility and contempt, rather than solidarity with me and protest the zionist torturers of my daughter, my son and myself.
The biggest horror is of course to witness Palestinian leaders trusting those zionist impostors, thus risking disasters for their own people. In my own case the horror is to experience their hostile silence in regard to my torture by the zionist Gestapo.
There can be very little doubt that Noam Chomsky and his cabal are the main source of the USA Left corruption. Similarly, there is very little doubt that Uri Avnery and his cabal are the main disruptive and corrupt influence on the development of anti-zionist Left under the zionist apartheid regime of Israel.
Although a fanatical zionist impostor who purports to be a peace activist, Uri Avnery is not hiding his loyalty to zionism, nor to the zionist apartheid regime of Israel. Only a few days ago he defined himself as an "Israeli patriot" to justify his loyalty to the zionist apartheid regime of Israel.
Noam Chomsky ,who purports to be anti-fascist and anti-imperialist, has never opposed zionism nor objected to the zionist apartheid regime of Israel. The reality is that he always has been loyal to both USA imperialism and to the zionist apartheid regime of Israel. He always has been a zionist impostor, but has publicised himself around the world as a "champion" of oppressed people. Recently he has travelled to Venezuela to meet Hugo Chavez, to flatter and bamboozle him furthermore.
On the 28th of August 2006,The Independent published Noam Chomsky's replies to readers' questions. One of the paper's readers asked him if he considers the USA a fascist country. Chomsky's reply was that it is not true, and that the USA is the "most free country in the world" (see my post http://treacheryof.blogspot.com/2006/10/more-on-treachery-of-noam.html
and other posts on the same blog).
Even more damage is inflicted by Chomsky and his ilk by providing a very negative role model to the people of Left in the USA and elsewhere. The message they are getting from this impostor-guru is that never mind honesty, as like himself, it is OK to deceive, to pretend and to play the role of a double agent if it is necessary for a successful career. Furthermore, it is OK to be a wealthy man and make more money , like himself, while preaching against the capitalist establishment.
My own encounter with such corruption is documented in the previous post on this blog. The two purported supporters of the Palestine cause emailed to me cynical messages of hostility and contempt, rather than solidarity with me and protest the zionist torturers of my daughter, my son and myself.
The biggest horror is of course to witness Palestinian leaders trusting those zionist impostors, thus risking disasters for their own people. In my own case the horror is to experience their hostile silence in regard to my torture by the zionist Gestapo.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
COMMUNICATIONS WITH PALESTINE SUPPORTERS FOLLOWING MY PREVIOUS POST
Below are three messages I got from Palestine supporters and my replies to them.The first is a Palestinian American activist described by his website as follows :
http://www.jeffersoncorner.com/
"Name: Sami Jamil Jadallah
Location: Fairfax, Virginia, United States
Born in the Palestinian city of El-Bireh ( presently under Israeli Military Occupation, Armed Jewish thugs and settlers). Immigrated to the US in 62. After graduating from high school in Gary, Indiana was drafted into the US Army ( 66-68) received the Leadership Award from the US 6th Army NCO Academy in Ft. Lewis, Washington. Five of us brothers where in US military service about the same time. Graduated from Indiana University with BA-72, Master of Public Affairs-74 and Juris Doctor-77, and in senior year at IU,was elected Chairman of the Indiana Student Association. Sami Jamil Jadallah is an international legal and business consultant and is the founder and director of Palestine Agency and Palestine Documentation Center www.palestineagency.com and founder and owner of several business in technology and services."
Here is his comment on my previous post :
"Not so surprising. The Palestinian Security Forces of Arafat and Abbas provided joint security escort yesterday to the Israeli military governor making sure he and his commanders are safe and secure in areas managed by the Palestinian Authority. This is the same security forces together with the preventive security forces of Dahlan and Rajoub supported and generously funded by the late Arafat. No Palestinian prisoner should expect any support from the Palestinian Authority where more prisoners were tortured and murdered than in Israel.
Salam.
Sami"
Here is my reply :
"Dear Sami,
thanks for your message. Can I get your permission to publish it on my blog and circulate it ?
In solidarity, Benjamin"
Sami's reply :
"Yes, why not. You can also circulate my website http://www.jeffersoncorner.com/ and I also publish at http://www.palestinethinktank.com/ and http://www.ramallahonline.com/
all the best.Sami"
The second Palestine supporter is American,William J. Martin. Here is his first comment :
"Dear Ben
What did you do that was so special? I and many others are critics of Israel, I even write articles which are read by the general public, but I have suffered no harassment of the kind that you describe.
Most people on the list serve do not even live in the same continent as you, and must necessarily be of limited help at best. Even if I wrote a letter, I cannot speak from any authority as I know nothing first hand, and anyway, most letters are just ignored. I know that from writing politicians in America.
It seems to me that you are going to have to find a solution yourself within your own continent. Maybe hire a detective to find some evidence. Maybe try to capture your tormentor or tormentors on video camera. Those things would be far more productive than my writing a letter from New Orleans.
wjm"
My reply :
"Dear William,
thanks for your message.Ever since my return home from hospital, where a cancer tumour was removed from my colon in January 2001, my sleep has been disrupted nightly between the hours 1am to 5am. Sometimes the disruption has occurred several times during the same night.The method of disruptions has been mainly by the use of firecrackers -hissing or exploding firecrackers - as well as banging on the wall(where I lived in a weatherboard house), on my door and window and/orusing any kind of external strong noise (like a whistle,,a suddenstart of a car or its tooting,,a sudden strong banging on a metal container,etc.)..In my previous residence the perpetrator was the neighbour in the flat above me, and all he did was knock on his floorin the middle of the night to wake me up, and must have been well paid for that because he did not go to work during the day, and went to sleep instead.The nightly disruptions occurred wherever I lived, and in any new placeI moved to live.Only in one case I was able to identify the perpetrator, but when Icomplained to the local police they refused to take any action against him because they said that he denies my complaint against him (even when he broke my bathroom window).I then went to the local court and obtained an injunction (intervention order) against him, but againthe police refused the enforce the order against him.In recent weeks the deprivation of my sleep has intensified so that I cannot compensate my loss of sleep at night by a nap during the day,as I am being woken each time I fall asleep.There is no one in the world who would/could deprive me of sleep everynight for almost 9 years, no matter where I live, except for Israel'ssecret police, in punishment for my exposing of zionist crimes !You can help by sending protest/reminder message to Raji Sourani whois a member of the Executive Committee of ICJ, urging him to demand protest action by ICJ to stop these violations of the rule of law in Australia.
Sincerely, Benjamin Merhav"
To which he replied as follows :
"I have a couple of more thoughts. If your complaints include honking horns or engines starting up in the middle of the night, your neighbors should hear them as well. If it does not seem to bother them, then they probably understand it as background noise and the effect of living in proximity with other people.
The banging on the ceiling by the person who lives above you might just be him bumping around in the middle of the night for some with nocturnal hours.
If the police are non- responsive to your complaints, talk to them and ask them why. It may be that they think the problem is you rather that what you say. The alternative is that they are in on the conspiracy too, which seems unlikely.
It is puzzling why you are singled out for persecution when there are many, many critics of Israel, including me, who are not so persecuted."
The third Palestine supporter is also American, John Spritzler, and here is his message :
"Could you please describe exactly how the Zionists have been depriving you of sleep? Thank you. --John"
To which I sent him a reply similar to the one I sent to William Martin.
To which he replied as follows :
"Hi Ben,
Do you live with neighbors who are also disturbed by the noise-making at night? If so, I wonder why your neighbors don't also try to get the police to take appropriate action to stop the noise-making,since it presumably disturbs their sleep also. If you don't live with neighbors, could you move to a place with neighbors?
--John"
My reply :
"John,
I did but the disruptions only change, so that the neighbours are not disturbed.
Benjamin"
It is obvious that out of the comments by the three Palestine supporters only the comments by the Palestinian activist, Sami Jamil Jadallah, are frank ,sincere and honest. The other two refuse to believe that the zionist Gestapo has been torturing me for nearly 9 years by sleep deprivation, and by implication they refuse to believe that Palestinian leaders have collaborated with the zionist Gestapo by imposing a hostile silence on this zionist crime.
Still worse, not only do they refuse to protest against this torture, they don't even mention the ongoing psychiatric torture of my daughter (for almost 32 years, and my son for some 19 years), and I provide below the list of links to my blogs of research into the crime of psychiatry and Big Pharma, with whom the zionists are closely allied.
Furthermore, both these two "Palestine supporters" are claiming in irony that they did not suffer any similar "punishment" as inflicted on myself therefore they "ask" why would I be "singled out " when they have been free and safe.
Well, there are two answers to this cynical question. First is that I do not know, and neither do they, what criteria the zionist apartheid regime of Israel use when they single out anybody for "punishment". Secondly, could it be that the zionist Gestapo has considered me more dangerous than they and other puported supporters of the Palestine cause, to be singled out for turture ?
The links to my psychiatry research blogs :
http://1stpartmedfascism.blogspot.com/
http://2ndmedfascism.blogspot.com/
http://3rdmedfascism.blogspot.com/
http://abolishpsychiatrynow.blogspot.com/
http://outlawpsychiatry.blogspot.com/
http://2ndoutlawpsychiatry.blogspot.com/
http://3rdoutlawpsychiatry.blogspot.com
http://4thoutlawpsychiatry.blogspot.com/
http://5thoutlawpsychiatry.blogspot.com/
http://6thoutlawpsychiatry.blogspot.com/
http://7thoutlawpsychiatry.blogspot.com/
http://8thoutlawpsychiatry.blogspot.com/
http://9thoutlawpsychiatry.blogspot.com/
http://10thoutlawpsychiatry.blogspot.com/
http://11thoutlawpsychiatry.blogspot.com/
http://12thoutlawpsychiatry.blogspot.com/
http://13outlawpsychiatry.blogspot.com/
http://14thoutlawpsychiatry.blogspot.com/
http://15thoutlawpsychiatry.blogspot.com/
http://16thoutlawpsychiatry.blogspot.com/
http://17thoutlawpsychiatry.blogspot.com/ http://18thoutlawpsychiatry.blogspot.com/
http://nocrush.blogspot.com/
Below are three messages I got from Palestine supporters and my replies to them.The first is a Palestinian American activist described by his website as follows :
http://www.jeffersoncorner.com/
"Name: Sami Jamil Jadallah
Location: Fairfax, Virginia, United States
Born in the Palestinian city of El-Bireh ( presently under Israeli Military Occupation, Armed Jewish thugs and settlers). Immigrated to the US in 62. After graduating from high school in Gary, Indiana was drafted into the US Army ( 66-68) received the Leadership Award from the US 6th Army NCO Academy in Ft. Lewis, Washington. Five of us brothers where in US military service about the same time. Graduated from Indiana University with BA-72, Master of Public Affairs-74 and Juris Doctor-77, and in senior year at IU,was elected Chairman of the Indiana Student Association. Sami Jamil Jadallah is an international legal and business consultant and is the founder and director of Palestine Agency and Palestine Documentation Center www.palestineagency.com and founder and owner of several business in technology and services."
Here is his comment on my previous post :
"Not so surprising. The Palestinian Security Forces of Arafat and Abbas provided joint security escort yesterday to the Israeli military governor making sure he and his commanders are safe and secure in areas managed by the Palestinian Authority. This is the same security forces together with the preventive security forces of Dahlan and Rajoub supported and generously funded by the late Arafat. No Palestinian prisoner should expect any support from the Palestinian Authority where more prisoners were tortured and murdered than in Israel.
Salam.
Sami"
Here is my reply :
"Dear Sami,
thanks for your message. Can I get your permission to publish it on my blog and circulate it ?
In solidarity, Benjamin"
Sami's reply :
"Yes, why not. You can also circulate my website http://www.jeffersoncorner.com/ and I also publish at http://www.palestinethinktank.com/ and http://www.ramallahonline.com/
all the best.Sami"
The second Palestine supporter is American,William J. Martin. Here is his first comment :
"Dear Ben
What did you do that was so special? I and many others are critics of Israel, I even write articles which are read by the general public, but I have suffered no harassment of the kind that you describe.
Most people on the list serve do not even live in the same continent as you, and must necessarily be of limited help at best. Even if I wrote a letter, I cannot speak from any authority as I know nothing first hand, and anyway, most letters are just ignored. I know that from writing politicians in America.
It seems to me that you are going to have to find a solution yourself within your own continent. Maybe hire a detective to find some evidence. Maybe try to capture your tormentor or tormentors on video camera. Those things would be far more productive than my writing a letter from New Orleans.
wjm"
My reply :
"Dear William,
thanks for your message.Ever since my return home from hospital, where a cancer tumour was removed from my colon in January 2001, my sleep has been disrupted nightly between the hours 1am to 5am. Sometimes the disruption has occurred several times during the same night.The method of disruptions has been mainly by the use of firecrackers -hissing or exploding firecrackers - as well as banging on the wall(where I lived in a weatherboard house), on my door and window and/orusing any kind of external strong noise (like a whistle,,a suddenstart of a car or its tooting,,a sudden strong banging on a metal container,etc.)..In my previous residence the perpetrator was the neighbour in the flat above me, and all he did was knock on his floorin the middle of the night to wake me up, and must have been well paid for that because he did not go to work during the day, and went to sleep instead.The nightly disruptions occurred wherever I lived, and in any new placeI moved to live.Only in one case I was able to identify the perpetrator, but when Icomplained to the local police they refused to take any action against him because they said that he denies my complaint against him (even when he broke my bathroom window).I then went to the local court and obtained an injunction (intervention order) against him, but againthe police refused the enforce the order against him.In recent weeks the deprivation of my sleep has intensified so that I cannot compensate my loss of sleep at night by a nap during the day,as I am being woken each time I fall asleep.There is no one in the world who would/could deprive me of sleep everynight for almost 9 years, no matter where I live, except for Israel'ssecret police, in punishment for my exposing of zionist crimes !You can help by sending protest/reminder message to Raji Sourani whois a member of the Executive Committee of ICJ, urging him to demand protest action by ICJ to stop these violations of the rule of law in Australia.
Sincerely, Benjamin Merhav"
To which he replied as follows :
"I have a couple of more thoughts. If your complaints include honking horns or engines starting up in the middle of the night, your neighbors should hear them as well. If it does not seem to bother them, then they probably understand it as background noise and the effect of living in proximity with other people.
The banging on the ceiling by the person who lives above you might just be him bumping around in the middle of the night for some with nocturnal hours.
If the police are non- responsive to your complaints, talk to them and ask them why. It may be that they think the problem is you rather that what you say. The alternative is that they are in on the conspiracy too, which seems unlikely.
It is puzzling why you are singled out for persecution when there are many, many critics of Israel, including me, who are not so persecuted."
The third Palestine supporter is also American, John Spritzler, and here is his message :
"Could you please describe exactly how the Zionists have been depriving you of sleep? Thank you. --John"
To which I sent him a reply similar to the one I sent to William Martin.
To which he replied as follows :
"Hi Ben,
Do you live with neighbors who are also disturbed by the noise-making at night? If so, I wonder why your neighbors don't also try to get the police to take appropriate action to stop the noise-making,since it presumably disturbs their sleep also. If you don't live with neighbors, could you move to a place with neighbors?
--John"
My reply :
"John,
I did but the disruptions only change, so that the neighbours are not disturbed.
Benjamin"
It is obvious that out of the comments by the three Palestine supporters only the comments by the Palestinian activist, Sami Jamil Jadallah, are frank ,sincere and honest. The other two refuse to believe that the zionist Gestapo has been torturing me for nearly 9 years by sleep deprivation, and by implication they refuse to believe that Palestinian leaders have collaborated with the zionist Gestapo by imposing a hostile silence on this zionist crime.
Still worse, not only do they refuse to protest against this torture, they don't even mention the ongoing psychiatric torture of my daughter (for almost 32 years, and my son for some 19 years), and I provide below the list of links to my blogs of research into the crime of psychiatry and Big Pharma, with whom the zionists are closely allied.
Furthermore, both these two "Palestine supporters" are claiming in irony that they did not suffer any similar "punishment" as inflicted on myself therefore they "ask" why would I be "singled out " when they have been free and safe.
Well, there are two answers to this cynical question. First is that I do not know, and neither do they, what criteria the zionist apartheid regime of Israel use when they single out anybody for "punishment". Secondly, could it be that the zionist Gestapo has considered me more dangerous than they and other puported supporters of the Palestine cause, to be singled out for turture ?
The links to my psychiatry research blogs :
http://1stpartmedfascism.blogspot.com/
http://2ndmedfascism.blogspot.com/
http://3rdmedfascism.blogspot.com/
http://abolishpsychiatrynow.blogspot.com/
http://outlawpsychiatry.blogspot.com/
http://2ndoutlawpsychiatry.blogspot.com/
http://3rdoutlawpsychiatry.blogspot.com
http://4thoutlawpsychiatry.blogspot.com/
http://5thoutlawpsychiatry.blogspot.com/
http://6thoutlawpsychiatry.blogspot.com/
http://7thoutlawpsychiatry.blogspot.com/
http://8thoutlawpsychiatry.blogspot.com/
http://9thoutlawpsychiatry.blogspot.com/
http://10thoutlawpsychiatry.blogspot.com/
http://11thoutlawpsychiatry.blogspot.com/
http://12thoutlawpsychiatry.blogspot.com/
http://13outlawpsychiatry.blogspot.com/
http://14thoutlawpsychiatry.blogspot.com/
http://15thoutlawpsychiatry.blogspot.com/
http://16thoutlawpsychiatry.blogspot.com/
http://17thoutlawpsychiatry.blogspot.com/ http://18thoutlawpsychiatry.blogspot.com/
http://nocrush.blogspot.com/
Saturday, September 26, 2009
THIS
HOSTILE SILENCE CAN NO LONGER BE CONSIDERED A MERE BUNGLE. THIS SILENT
COMPLICITY BY PALESTINIAN LEADERS IN MY ONGOING TORTURE BY THE ZIONIST
GESTAPO CAN ONLY BE DELIBERATE TREACHERY, AND BETRAYAL !
It seems now that the zionist impostors and their cabals are now in control of the Palestinian situation. Which means that the zionist apartheid regime of Israel is in control of Palestine both within and without the Palestinian camp, and therefore very close to fully implementing the first stage of the zionist empire plan.
This situation is also reflected in my torture by the zionist Gestapo. Over the past few weeks I have been deprived of sleep by zionist Gestapo more often than ever before. It is now around the clock torture, 24 hours a day, rather than the nightly torture as it has been for almost 9 years. The psychiatric torture of my daughter and of my son has increased too over the past few weeks.
During this same recent period I have had no solidarity/protest messages from any Palestinian activist, much less from any Palestinian leader, despite my appeals to them, and despite the 16 posts/reminders that I have circulated amongst them ever since my first appeal. Yet I keep up circulating my messages to them hoping that they will wake up to see the gravity of the Palestinian situation (as well as my own situation) before it is too late !
It seems now that the zionist impostors and their cabals are now in control of the Palestinian situation. Which means that the zionist apartheid regime of Israel is in control of Palestine both within and without the Palestinian camp, and therefore very close to fully implementing the first stage of the zionist empire plan.
This situation is also reflected in my torture by the zionist Gestapo. Over the past few weeks I have been deprived of sleep by zionist Gestapo more often than ever before. It is now around the clock torture, 24 hours a day, rather than the nightly torture as it has been for almost 9 years. The psychiatric torture of my daughter and of my son has increased too over the past few weeks.
During this same recent period I have had no solidarity/protest messages from any Palestinian activist, much less from any Palestinian leader, despite my appeals to them, and despite the 16 posts/reminders that I have circulated amongst them ever since my first appeal. Yet I keep up circulating my messages to them hoping that they will wake up to see the gravity of the Palestinian situation (as well as my own situation) before it is too late !
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
THE
SIXTH WEEK OF HOSTILE SILENCE BY PALESTINIAN LEADERS COLLABORATING WITH
THE ZIONIST GESTAPO'S TORTURE OF MY DAUGHTER, MY SON AND MYSELF HERE IN
AUSTRALIA
Today is the beginning of the sixth week of the hostile silence. Although that silence is overwhelming in its collaboration with the zionist Gestapo torture, and in its imposition on Palestinian websites by Palestinian leaders, there have been some rays of light in this darkness of treachery and betrayal.
Following are excerpts of solidarity and protest letters from some supporters of the Palestinian cause :
1. Doris Cadigan (USA) on August 19, 2009 :
0 comments
Today is the beginning of the sixth week of the hostile silence. Although that silence is overwhelming in its collaboration with the zionist Gestapo torture, and in its imposition on Palestinian websites by Palestinian leaders, there have been some rays of light in this darkness of treachery and betrayal.
Following are excerpts of solidarity and protest letters from some supporters of the Palestinian cause :
1. Doris Cadigan (USA) on August 19, 2009 :
"Please consider writing on Benjamin Merhav's behalf to the Australian ICj and to
the director of the Centre of Palestinian Human Rights , Mr. Raji Sourani .
It's beyond disgrace that this man and his family should still be suffering at the
hands of the Zionist Enterprise for opposing their build up of WMD at the Dimona
Nuclear plant in Israel some 46 years ago...
Yet the failure of such officials to respond and investigate Benjamin Merhav's com-
plaint demonstrates once again the cowardly approach many leaders and officials
take today towards the Zionist Enterprise..."
2. Daniel Saykaly (Canada) on 22 August, 2009 :
2. Daniel Saykaly (Canada) on 22 August, 2009 :
"I
am writing to urge you to give your support to Mr. Ben Merhav, a
citizen of Australia who has been subjected to ongoing aggression and
interference.
Mr.
Merhav has written to me concerning the nightly disturbances to which
he has been subjected - disturbances that the police appear unwilling to
properly investigate and suppress. Moreover, his children have been
subjected to great trauma. All this appears to have been the work of
people who resent Mr. Merhav's principled support for the Palestinian
cause.
I urge you to contact him and learn the facts of his case, as I have done. He can be reached at ben.merhav@gmail.com
. I also urge you to intervene on his behalf and insist that Australian
authorities take immediate steps to end the distress to which he and
his children have been subjected.
Yours sincerely,
Daniel Saykaly,
PAJU (Palestinian and Jewish Unity)
Montreal"
3. Dr. Franklin Lamb (Lebanon), President of Sabra Shatila Foundation on September 12, 2009 :
"Dear Benjamin,
The Sabra Shatila Foundation supports and will distribute your appeal to our contacts. Please advise up of what we can do beyond that to help your situation.
very best wishes,
Franklin"
4. James Buels (USA) on September 17, 2009 :
"Dear Mr. Sourani,
I am writing to you regarding a case of the egregious Zionist harassment of a distinguished Australian anti-Zionist activist, Benjamin Merhav, because I know you are a member of the Executive Committee of the International Committee of Jurists.
For years, Mr. Merhav, and his daughter and son, have been tortured by Zionist agents in Australia, and so far his numerous appeals to the Australian authorities to stop this torture have been virtually ignored. I urge you, as a member of the Executive Committee of the International Committee of Jurists, and as director of PCHR, to call for protest actions by ICJ Australia in order to move the Australian government to act against the violations of the rule of law by ASIO, which is collaborating with the Zionist agents rather than defending Mr. Merhav. Thanking you in advance, I am looking forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
James Buels"
3. Dr. Franklin Lamb (Lebanon), President of Sabra Shatila Foundation on September 12, 2009 :
"Dear Benjamin,
The Sabra Shatila Foundation supports and will distribute your appeal to our contacts. Please advise up of what we can do beyond that to help your situation.
very best wishes,
Franklin"
4. James Buels (USA) on September 17, 2009 :
"Dear Mr. Sourani,
I am writing to you regarding a case of the egregious Zionist harassment of a distinguished Australian anti-Zionist activist, Benjamin Merhav, because I know you are a member of the Executive Committee of the International Committee of Jurists.
For years, Mr. Merhav, and his daughter and son, have been tortured by Zionist agents in Australia, and so far his numerous appeals to the Australian authorities to stop this torture have been virtually ignored. I urge you, as a member of the Executive Committee of the International Committee of Jurists, and as director of PCHR, to call for protest actions by ICJ Australia in order to move the Australian government to act against the violations of the rule of law by ASIO, which is collaborating with the Zionist agents rather than defending Mr. Merhav. Thanking you in advance, I am looking forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
James Buels"
Key to Trump Victory
ReplyDelete11,754 views
•Streamed live 15 hours ago - 8/12/2020
Ryan Dawson
79.4K subscribers
Support us https://www.ancreport.com/anc-store/a...
Twitter (for now) https://twitter.com/AncReport
Store https://www.teezily.com/stores/anc
Back up chan https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCD3v...
Get my recent book https://www.amazon.com/Separation-Bus...
Rumble https://rumble.com/vbcp25-syria-israe...
Digital Coins https://www.ancreport.com/digital-coins/
156 Comments
FRÉMAUX SOORMALLY
Add a public comment...
FRÉMAUX SOORMALLY
FRÉMAUX SOORMALLY
10 hours ago
Ryan, is your comment section filtered, or are your commentators that stupid?
1
Ryan Dawson
Highlighted reply
Ryan Dawson
5 hours ago
Youtube filters
2
FRÉMAUX SOORMALLY
FRÉMAUX SOORMALLY
1 second ago
@Ryan Dawson Thank you, Ryan, if it's really you!
I would still like to understand why Brendon O'Connell is still calling you names, and why you keep calling others like Pr. Jim Fetzer names as I always had great respect for all three of you. It looks more than a simple disagreement. I have asked this question a few times and I do not remember ever receiving any reply at all! Brendon parted ways with me in December 2019, but I am still following some of his stuff with keen interest as well as yours and learn much from all of you as I do write too since my College days. I am now 74! And, as the British say, I must have become an expert at understanding certain things, "scientific" and otherwise.
BAFS
Sovereign Freeman-on-the-land as some say here
Belong to no religious or political group
Never voted in my life
Philosophically and spiritually I am a Christic Muslim by free choice.
And a quite annoying old man to entities like the International Ashke Nazi Mafia and Luciferian creatures like Bill Gates that the world in general loves so much and worships even when he claims and brags that over 7 billion of us need a Biological "reset", but not him and the ones who benefit from it as well as that wee need to be depopulated! I warned you I was annoying, Ryan! Some calls it senility!
Regards
BASHEER
8 December 2020
Alex Jones reçoit sa punition sur le bûcher (TO THE WOODSHED!)
ReplyDelete4,052 views
•26 Apr 2013
PARDON MY FRENCH!
RYAN DAWSON