Saturday 23 January 2016

Jim Garrison - The Inquest by William W. Turner Ramparts Magazine, June1967



Jim Garrison - The Inquest
William W. Turner
Rampart June 1967


Grand conspiracies need not be grand. There need be only a few central figures in a position to manipulate, wheedle, dupe, blackmail, and buy the bit actors. This is the theory of New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison as applied to the assassination of President Kennedy. “The people who engineered the killing of one of the finest Presidents we ever had are walking around today,” he declares. “Not to do anything about it is un-American.”
__________

The Louisiana populist can hardly be accused of disloyalty. He has, he claims, discovered who killed Kennedy, who organized the plot, and what forces were involved in planning the various steps that led to the assassination. And he has done all this against formidable odds. He has been denounced and ridiculed by such columnists as Bob Considine, Jim Bishop and Victor Reisel. The press has, for the most part, slanted its coverage of his investigation to imply motives of personal glory and political gain.

The government Establishment has given him the cold shoulder, and the FBI, which “cleared” two of his present suspects immediately following the assassination, refused to release its information to him.

The truth, according to Garrison, is certain to rock the republic as it gradually unfolds in court. He is convinced that Lee Harvey Oswald was not a triggerman, and that Jack Ruby was the puppet of a more sophisticated master. He is equally sure that the working level of the conspiracy was composed of rabid anti-Castro exiles in league with elements of the American paramilitary right. The concerted Establishment effort to confine the events of the assassination to Oswald and Ruby suggests the Garrison thesis: a vertically integrated plot rising step by step into high echelons of government and the military-industrial complex. “Honorable men did in Caesar,” dryly observes the prosecutor with a fondness for historical metaphor.

Thus far, the dramatis personae of Garrison’s terse drama have been wildly disparate. On February 22 of this year, after preliminary, lengthy questioning by the DA’s office and shortly before he was to be arrested by Garrison and charged with conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy, David William Ferrie was found dead in his cluttered New Orleans apartment.

The second major figure in Garrison’s probe is 54-year-old Clay L. Shaw, retired executive director of the New Orleans International Trade Mart. Charged with conspiracy by Garrison, he is now awaiting trial.

A third individual expected to figure prominently in the Garrison inquiry is Manuel Garcia Gonzales. The New Orleans DA has come into possession of a photograph taken at Dealey Plaza just before the assassination which shows several Latin men behind the low picket fence at the top of the famed grassy knoll. Most Warren Report critics believe one or more shots were fired from the grassy knoll area, and Garrison thinks Gonzales is one of the men in the photograph. Gonzales has disappeared and has probably fled the country. Oswald? In Garrison’s book he was nothing more than a “decoy and a fall guy.”

A Guide to the CIA’s New Orleans
David Ferrie was gesticulating furiously as he poured out his scheme. “Triangulation … the availability of exit … one man had to be sacrificed to give the other one or two gunmen time to escape.” Leon Oswald listened impassively. So did Clay Bertrand, a tall, courtly, older man with close-cropped white hair. Bertrand, smartly attired in a maroon jacket, looked out of place with his carelessly dressed companions in the disarray of Ferrie’s apartment.

This was the scene on or about September 16, 1963, as described recently in a New Orleans courtroom by Perry Raymond Russo, Jim Garrison’s star witness to date, who had been present in the Ferrie apartment on that fateful night. An articulate young insurance salesman for Equitable Life and a graduate of Jesuit Loyola University, Russo had passed, for what it is worth, a series of Sodium Pentothal (“truth serum”) tests administered by medical experts. His story was sufficiently impressive to cause the three-judge panel to bind over Clay Shaw, whom Russo identified as Clay Bertrand, for trial in the assassination of the President.

Following Ferrie’s rapid-fire dissertation, said Russo, the talk switched to escape. Ferrie declared in favor of a flight to Brazil with a refueling stop in Mexico, or a more risky hop directly to Cuba. (It is a source of puzzlement why Ferrie would want to go to Cuba, given his anti-Castro stance.) Bertrand disagreed, on the grounds that word of the assassination would spread too fast to permit a long flight. “Shut up and leave him alone,” interjected Leon Oswald, whom Russo says was Lee Harvey Oswald, “he’s the pilot.” “A washed-up pilot,” huffed Bertrand, alluding to Ferrie’s dismissal from Eastern Air Lines for homosexual convictions.

From the conversation, Russo deduced that none of the three intended to participate actively in the assassination. Ferrie suggested they “should be in the public eye” on the day of the attempt; he himself would make a speech at a nearby college.

Bertrand said he would go to the west coast on business. Oswald said nothing. Clay Shaw was indeed on the west coast on business on November 22. Two weeks previously, his manager at the New Orleans Trade Mart had written the San Francisco Trade Mart that Shaw would be passing through on that date and would like to discuss mutual interests with their executives. At the moment when Kennedy was killed, Shaw was conferring with the San Francisco men.

Ferrie also had an alibi, of sorts. A New Orleans attorney is fairly certain that on that black Friday, the eccentric little man was in his law office around 12:15 p.m. Ferrie contended he was in New Orleans until late in the afternoon, when he and his two young roommates left on an impromptu trip to Texas to “hunt geese.” On the surface it was a wild goose chase: the trio drove to Houston on Friday, to Galveston on Saturday, and returned to New Orleans on Sunday – over 1,000 miles. But Garrison has witnesses who swear that Ferrie spent several hours at a Houston skating rink waiting by the telephone. It was a curious junket at a curious time, so curious that Garrison, on his own initiative, arrested and held the three for FBI investigation of “subversive activity.” Garrison charges only that the machinations in Ferrie’s apartment set in motion events that culminated in the assassination. What direction the substantive plot may  have taken from there is hinted at in the further testimony of Russo. He had met Ferrie, he said, some four years earlier through Civil Air Patrol activity, and frequently was invited to his apartment. There had been a party before the meeting on the evening in question, and Russo had lingered after the rest of the guests. Among the last to leave were several Cubans in military fatigues, two of who he recalls by the first names,
Manuel and a name sounding like Julian. Manuel, Garrison suspects, is the missing Manuel Garcia Gonzales.

The bizarre quality of Ferrie’s life followed him into death. After being questioned by Garrison, he muttered he did not have long to live. The cause of death, the coroner revealed, had been an embolism at the base of the brain induced by hypertension. But a brain embolism can also be caused by a deftly administered karate chop to the neck, a technique which possibly killed Dallas reporter Jim Koethe, who had participated in an enigmatic meeting at Jack Ruby’s apartment the night Oswald was murdered [The Legacy of Penn Jones Jr., Ramparts, November 1966].

An inveterate activist, Ferrie solicited funds for Castro in 1958 then bitterly turned against him when he struck his communist colors. According to former Havana journalist Diego Gonzales Tendedera, Ferrie flew fire-bomb raids and refugee rescue missions to Cuba from Florida in a twin-engine Piper Apache owned by Eladio del Valle, an ex-Batista official who had escaped to Miami with considerable wealth. Ferrie reportedly was paid $1,000 to $1,500 a mission, depending on the risk involved. The caper ended in 1961, when US government agents confiscated the Apache, and Ferrie headed for New Orleans. On February 22, the day Ferrie died in New Orleans, del Valle’s head was split by a powerful blow with a machete or hatchet and he was shot over the heart. Miami police, noting that he had been involved in narcotics smuggling, called it a gangland slaying.

After the Bay of Pigs, Ferrie boasted he had taken part in the invasion, and indeed it has come to light that a CIA-directed diversionary strike had been launched from a hidden base in the New Orleans area. The loquacious pilot was openly hostile to President Kennedy for failing to commit American military might against Castro. On one occasion a speech he was giving before the New Orleans Chapter of Military Order of World Wars turned into a diatribe against Kennedy for a “double-cross” of the invasion force. Several members walked out and the chairman abruptly adjourned the meeting.

During this period the conspicuous Ferrie was frequently noticed by the New Orleans Cuban colony in the company of Sergio Aracha-Smith, the local director of the anti-Castro Cuban Democratic Revolutionary Front. (New Orleans police intelligence records reflect, states the Washington Post, that the Front was “legitimate in nature and presumably had the unofficial sanction of the Central Intelligence Agency.”) The Lake Pontchartrain waterfront near Aracha’s home seems to have become a locus for mysterious meetings. Various Garrison witnesses claim to have seen Ferrie there, as well as an exchange of money between Oswald and Shaw.

By 1963, Aracha apparently had been deposed as Front director, for he had moved to Houston in 1962 and was living there at the time of the assassination. In 1964 he moved to Dallas. When Garrison investigators recently sought to question him, he refused to talk without police and Dallas Assistant DA Bill Alexander present. However, Garrison secured a warrant charging him with conspiring with Ferrie and one Gordon Novel to burglarize an explosive depot of the Schlumberger Well Services Co. near New Orleans in August 1961. Aracha is presently free on bond.

The strange behavior of Gordon Novel lends still another piquant ingredient to the case. Shortly after being interrogated by Garrison, he hurriedly sold the French Quarter bar he owned and left town. He turned up in McLean, Virginia (headquarters of Army intelligence and CIA), blasted the assassination probe as a fraud, and noisily submitted to a “private” lie detector test given by a former Army intelligence officer that, he said, supported his veracity. In Columbus, Ohio, where he was arrested on a fugitive warrant obtained by Garrison, he cryptically stated, “I think Garrison will expose some CIA operations in Louisiana.” In what he called “his unpublished account of how the explosives disappeared,” the New Orleans States-Item claims that Novel has told several
persons that he, Ferrie, Aracha and several Cubans did not steal the munitions but transported them to New Orleans at the instruction of their CIA contact just before the Bay of Pigs invasion in April 1961. Furthermore, the States-Item says Novel operated a CIA front, the Evergreen Advertising Agency, which prepared cryptographical messages contained in radio commercials for Christmas trees that alerted agents to the invasion date. Novel, however, has denied being a CIA agent.

The mysterious explosives theft dovetailed with another angle in Garrison’s investigation – an April 1961 FBI raid that uncovered a large cache of arms, ammunition and explosives in a cottage near New Orleans. Garrison’s men are seeking a group of Cubans said to have accumulated the cache.

Further CIA aid or comfort for the paramilitary right wing is suggested by the role of private eye W. Guy Banister, who with a partner named Hugh F. Ward, ran a private sleuthing agency in New Orleans. Both a former FBI official and a former superintendent of New Orleans police, Banister was noted for his outspoken ultraconservatism. His office, according to a States-Item informant, was one of the drops for stolen munitions. In 1963, the ever-present David Ferrie worked intermittently for him as an investigator.

While researching an article on The Minutemen [Ramparts, January 1967], I learned from a defector – a Minuteman aide who had access to their headquarters files – about an allied group in New Orleans known as the Anti-Communism League of the Caribbean. The League was said by the aide to have been used by the CIA in its engineering of the 1954 overthrow of the leftist Arbenz government in Guatemala. The Minutemen defector said the names of both Banister and Ward appeared in the secret Minuteman files as members of the Minutemen and as operatives of the AntiCommunism League of the Caribbean. He also divulged that militant anti-Castro Cuban
exiles were prominent in the Minutemen ranks.

With these pieces of the puzzle beginning to fit together, Garrison hopes to complete the picture. But will get no help from Banister and Ward. Potential witnesses to the assassination secrets seem to have a propensity for dying. In 1964, Banister, who drank heavily and was given to wild sprees, suddenly died of a heart attack. On May 23, 1965, Ward, a commercial pilot, was at the controls of a Piper Aztec chartered by former New Orleans Mayor de Lesseps Morrison when the craft, engines sputtering, crashed on a fog-shrouded hill near Ciudad Victoria, Mexico. All aboard were killed.

The Paramilitary Operation at Dealey Plaza

President Kennedy’s murder had all the earmarks of a paramilitary operation. The Dealey Plaza site was ideal: tall buildings at one end, at the other a grassy knoll projecting within a stone’s throw of the roadway and covered by foliage. It is the opinion of Garrison’s investigator’s, and of this writer, that the slowly-rolling Presidential limousine was trapped in a classic guerrilla ambush – with simultaneous fire converging from the knoll and from a multi-storied building. This was the “triangulation,” Russo said, that David Ferrie had talked about – a sniper in the rear position to divert the public’s attention while the sniper in front “could fire the shot that would do the job.”

It was, in fact, the frontal fire that did the dreadful job. The explosive head shot that snapped the President’s head backward and literally blew his brains into the air could not have been the effect of a high-velocity rifle bullet fired from the rear – such bullets pierce cleanly (a nurse at Parkland Hospital said then when doctors attempted a tracheotomy on the President, the damage was so great the tube pushed out the back of his head). It was the effect of a nasty hollow-nose mercury fulminate bullet, generally known as a “dum dum,” which explodes on impact. Although outlawed by the Hague Convention, exploding bullets are favored by guerrilla fighters. An ex-CIA agent who received paramilitary training from the Agency advises that the CIA supplied this type of
bullet to the anti-Castro forces it trained.

The first report of the assassination in the Dallas Times Herald afternoon addition – before the Warren Commission’s three-shot, “magic bullet” theory was proclaimed – read: “Witnesses said six or seven shots were fired.” A bullet mark on the curb belatedly analyzed by the FBI did not show traces of copper, was would have been the case had the bullet been the copper-jacketed type allegedly fired by Oswald. “There definitely was a shot fired from behind the fence,” insists witness S.M. Holland, referring to the partially concealed picket fence on the grassy knoll. Holland, a crusty old railroader who was standing on the Triple Underpass towards which the President’s limousine was heading, is the rare eyewitness who survived both the bamboozling
tactics of the Warren Commission and Secret Service insistence that he change his story.

Holland’s account is complemented by the testimony of the late Lee Bowers, who overlooked the parking lot at the rear of the grassy knoll from his railroad tower. Bowers said he saw two out-of-state automobiles and a Texas automobile, apparently equipped with a two-way radio, prowling the lot shortly before the assassination. He also noticed two men in the lot near the fence; when the shots rang out they were partially obscured by the trees, but there was “something out of the ordinary, a sort of milling around.”

Jim Garrison agrees that Oswald “was no Captain Marvel.” The DA says: “The fatal shots came from the front.” In this context Oswald’s indignant protest while in custody, “I didn’t kill anybody … I’m just a patsy” may prove, after Garrison finishes, to be true.

There is scientific evidence tending to support it. The Dallas police made paraffin casts of Oswald’s hands and right cheek in order to chemically test for nitrates. Although many common substances can deposit nitrates, the blowback from a gun ordinarily deposits an appreciable amount. The test showed positive reactions for both hands; a negative reaction for the cheek.

Ordinarily, a right-handed man who has shot both a pistol and a rifle, as Oswald was accused of doing, would have nitrates on the right hand and cheek. Most likely the source of the nitrates on Oswald’s hands was fingerprint ink – he had been finger and palm printed before the paraffin was applied.

Moreover, the FBI subjected the casts to Nuclear Activation Analysis, a relatively new technique, so sensitive it can detect a thimbleful of acid in a tankard of water.

Deposits on the casts, the FBI reported, “could not be specifically associated with the rifle cartridges,” but ballistics expert Cortlandt Cunningham did not view the result as exculpating Oswald. “A rifle chamber is tightly sealed,” he testified, “and so by its very nature, I would not expect to find residue on the right cheek of the shooter.”

This explanation seemed so plausible I contacted Dr. Vincent Guinn of General Atomics in San Diego, who pioneered the development of the NAA process. He said that he and Raymond Pinker of the Los Angeles police crime lab were also curious about the test, and ordered an Italian Carcano rifle such as Oswald supposedly fired. They fired the obsolete weapon, which some authorities think is liable to blow up, and tested their cheeks. Nitrates from the blowback were present in abundance.

Lee Harvey Oswald
Another component of the Garrison theory is that Oswald was not a dedicated communist at all, but an agent of the CIA who may have been trained at the Agency’s facility at Atsugi Air Force Base in Japan in 1959. He was a revolutionary looking for a revolution – any revolution – and he found a cause with the CIA-sponsored paramilitary right wing planning the overthrow of Castro.

The paramilitary right wing is composed of numerous factions over which the Minutemen exert a loose hegemony. It is cross-pollinized with Birchers, Klanners, States Righters and volatile Cuban anti-Castroites.

It is within this context that the blurred activities of Oswald in the months prior to the assassination come into sharper focus. His fawning attempts to insinuate himself into the confidence of the radical left were a subterfuge. He wrote the national offices of the Communist Party of America, the Socialist Workers Party, and the Fair Play for Cuba Committee offering his services locally. And he handed out “Hands Off Cuba” literature on the streets, a sure way of typing himself publicly. But he was not always meticulous. One set of the “Hands Off Cuba” pro-Castro handbills bore the address 544 Camp St., New Orleans, a building occupied at that time by the right wing Cuban Democratic Revolutionary Front and W. Guy Banister.

The testimony of New Orleans attorney Dean A. Andrews Jr. to the Warren Commission forges another link between Oswald and Clay Bertrand, who, Garrison contends, is Clay Shaw. Andrews, a Falstaffian figure with a flair for colorful language, ran a kind of turnstile law practice in which he secured the release of “gay swishers” arrested in police dragnets. Most of these clients were young Latins, he said, and most were steered to him by a “lawyer without a briefcase” whom he identified as Clay Bertrand. Andrews operated in an appallingly casual style. He hardly ever recorded the names of his clients, and although he had seen Bertrand once, he knew him mostly as “a voice on the phone.”

In the summer of 1963, Bertrand referred Lee Harvey Oswald, who consulted Andrews about getting his “yellow paper discharge” rectified and his Russian wife’s citizenship status straightened out. A stocky Mexican with a menacing air accompanied Oswald to the lawyer’s office.

The day after the assassination Andrews received a phone call from Clay Bertrand asking if he would go to Dallas and defend Oswald. Andrews was in the hospital recuperating from an illness and could not leave immediately. The next morning Oswald was dead.

The FBI went right to work on Andrews. “You can tell when the steam is on,” he recounted to Wesley Liebeler of the Commission. “They never leave. They are like cancer. Eternal.”’ After several unpleasant sessions, he let the G-men put words in his mouth. “You finally came to the conclusion that Clay Bertrand was a figment of your imagination?” asked Liebeler. “That’s what the Feebees [FBI] put on,” allowed Andrews.

But a few months later Andrews encountered Bertrand, “a swinging cat,” in a “little freaky joint” – Cosimo’s bar in the French Quarter. “I was trying to get past him so I could get a nickel in the phone and call the Feebees,” Andrews told Liebler. “But he saw me and spooked and ran. I haven’t seen him since.”

Mark Lane, the energetic destroyer of Warren Report myths, was impressed with Andrews’ candid testimony. Two years ago he called the voluble attorney and arranged to see him. But by the time Lane got to New Orleans, Andrews had clammed up. “I’ll take you to dinner,” he apologized, “but I can’t talk about the case. I called Washington and they told me if I said anything I might get a bullet in the head …”

Andrews has been no more helpful to Garrison. Hailed before the grand jury hearing Garrison’s case, the once cocksure attorney exuded equivocation. “I cannot say positively that he [Clay Shaw] is Clay Bertrand or he is not … the voice I recall is somewhat similar to this cat’s voice, but his voice has overtones … Clay Bertrand’s is a deep, cultured, well-educated voice – he don’t talk like me, he used the King’s English…” The jury felt Andrews might have done better, and indicted him for perjury.

The courageous testimony of Mrs. Sylvia Odio further documents Oswald’sminvolvement with the paramilitary right wing. Mrs. Odio, an aristocratic Cuban refugee whose parents are still imprisoned on the Isles of Pines for contributing to Manolo Ray’s anti-Castro JURE organization, immediately after the assassination volunteered the fact that in late September 1963, she was paid an unannounced visit by two Latins and a man she identified as Oswald. The Latins, who claimed to represent a nascent antiCastro group, introduced themselves by their “war names”: Leopoldo and “something like Angelo.” They called Oswald by the name of Leon Oswald, an interesting point in view of Perry Russo’s assertion that he knew Oswald as Leon. Leopoldo, the spokesman, said they were soliciting aid “to buy arms for Cuba and to help overthrow the dictator Castro.” He confided they had just arrived from New Orleans and were leaving shortly “on a trip.”

Mrs. Odio was noncommittal. The next day, in an obvious attempt to win her over, Leopoldo telephoned and spoke in raptures of Leon, the American, Mrs. Odio testified to the Commission. Leon was an ex-Marine, he enthused, “He is great, he is kind of nuts. He told us we don’t have any guts, you Cubans, because President Kennedy should have been assassinated after the Bay of Pigs … It is so easy to do. He has told us.”

When Mrs. Odio became upset at the assassination talk, Leopoldo switched tactics. He touted Leon as an expert shot but “kind of loco,” he would be the kind of man who “could do anything like getting underground in Cuba, like killing Castro.”

Within hours of his visit to Mrs. Odio, Oswald was headed for Mexico City, and Garrison has not overlooked the possibility he tried to obtain a visa at the Cuban embassy there in order to get into Cuba to assassinate Castro. Such a ploy would have had reasonable expectation of success. Indeed, under “remarks” on his visa application, Oswald carefully noted he was a member of the American Communist Party, secretary of the New Orleans Fair Play for Cuba chapter, and a former resident of the Soviet Union.

Only the last was true, and the embassy, possibly leery of his pretentions, refused to waive the normal waiting period. Oswald left in a huff.

The Commission insisted the matter be further explored. Dallas police files disclosed that about three weeks after the visit to Mrs. Odio, two anti-Castro activists, Loran Eugene Hall and William Seymour, had been briefly detained. Hall had attracted the cops’ attention with his full beard, a suspicious sign in All-American Dallas.

It was not until September 1964 that the G-men finally located Hall in Los Angeles. He readily admitted training with would-be Cuban invasion forces in the Florida Keys with Seymour and a third man, Lawrence Howard Jr. And he acknowledged approaching a Mrs. Odio, whose apartment he correctly located on Magellan Circle, “to ask her assistance in the movement.” Seymour and Howard accompanied him, he said, but he denied knowing Oswald.

Howard confirmed to the FBI that he was with Hall in Dallas in late September 1963, along with a Cuban refugee from Miami, not Seymour. But he disclaimed not only knowing Oswald, but visiting Mrs. Odio as well.

Seymour frankly admitted training in the Florida Keys and the October arrest by the Dallas police. But he was at work in Miami in late September, he said, and employment records corroborated his alibi. By this time the FBI was baffled. It had conveyed to the Warren Commission the impression that Seymour resembled Oswald and may have been mistakenly identified by Mrs. Odio. And the Commission had inserted this dollop in its Report just before it went to press.

An anti-Castro “freedom fighter” well acquainted with both Hall and Howard contends they trained not only in Florida at No Name Key but at bases in the vicinity of New Orleans. He told me the pair was closely associated with Guy Gabaldon, an ex-Marine who in 1961 attempted to organize a private army in Southern California to invade Cuba but was dissuaded by state authorities. Gabaldon, who single-handedly wiped out a squad of Japanese in World War II and was portrayed in the movie “From Hell to Eternity,” subsequently launched a fund-raising “Drive Against Communist Aggression” in which he stumped the right-wing banquet circuit fulminating against Castro.

Sylvia Odio, now living in Puerto Rico, still insists the Warren Report was wrong.

And the trail she pointed out is being followed by Garrison.

Ramparts’ investigation indicates that the trail is not a dead end. When Hall and Seymour were arrested by the Dallas police in October 1963, it was notated that they were “active in the anti-Castro movement … Committee to Free Cuba.” Such an organization does exist, and at his famous midnight press conference after Kennedy was killed, Dallas DA Henry Wade blurted out, “Oswald is a member of the Free Cuba Committee,” and was quickly corrected by Jack Ruby, “No, he is a member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.”

A Freudian slip? Probably, for unnoticed in the Warren Report’s mass of miscellany is a “Supplementary Investigation Report” prepared by Buddy Walthers, one of Dallas Sheriff Bill Decker’s promising young understudies. Dated the day after the
assassination, it states: “… I talked to Sorrels the head of the Dallas Secreat [sic] Service. I advised that for the past few months at a house at 3128 Harlendale some Cubans had been having meetings on the weekends and were possably [sic] connected with the ‘Freedom For Cuba Party’ of which Oswald was a member.”


On November 26, Walthers plaintively added: “I don’t know what action the secret service has taken but I learned today that sometime between seven days before the president was shot and the day after he was shot these Cubans moved from this house. My informant stated that subject Oswald had been to this house before.”

So Oswald was associated with liberation movement Cubans who inexplicably departed Dallas at the crucial time. A glance at a Dallas map reveals the house on Harlendale to be in South Oak Cliff, in the direction Oswald was heading when he left his rooming house after the assassination. Nothing in the record indicates the Secret Service evidenced the least bit of interest in this startling intelligence.

Red Oswald and the White Russians
A former CIA agent with whom I have consulted discloses that at the very least, the Agency would have assigned Oswald a "babysitter” – someone who would befriend him and thus keep an eye on him. When the Oswalds settled in the Dallas-Ft. Worth
area – they had indicated this intention to the American embassy in Moscow months before their departure – they were readily assimilated into the White Russian colony.

Their Red taint, normally anathema to White Russians, seemed to be inconsequential. A man named George DeMohrenschildt and his wife became their most attentive Samaritans – as Marina Oswald put it, “our best friends in Dallas.”

It was an incongruous relationship. George DeMohrenschildt is a haughty Russian émigré who travels in high-rolling financial circles and a rarefied social stratum. An erstwhile financial partner asserts he “was an excellent conversationalist, played fine tennis and was an expert horseman.” By incredible coincidence, he is an old
friend of Janet Bouvier Auchincloss, Jacqueline Kennedy’s mother, and used to play tennis on the Bouvier estate at East Hampton, Long Island. He came to Dallas shortly before the Oswalds, and opened an office as a petroleum geologist. He joined the swank
Dallas Petroleum Club and hobnobbed with Texas’ oil elite. Jeanne DeMohrenschildt was born in China of White Russian parents, and is well-known as a ladies’ fashion designer. This was the couple that befriended nondescript Lee Harvey Oswald and his dowdy Russian wife.

It was DeMohrenschildt who sought out the Oswalds. How he learned of their presence is one of the more mysterious aspects of the case. “I had to go on business to Fort Worth with my very close friend, Colonel Orlov,” he told the Warren Commission.

“And I told him let’s go and meet those people, and the two of us drove to this slum area in Fort Worth and knocked at the door, and there was Marina and the baby …” On April 13, 1963, shortly after someone had taken a rifle shot at General Edwin Walker in his Dallas home, the DeMohrenschildts dropped in on the Oswalds in their new Dallas flat. Jeanne DeMohrenschildt noticed a rifle in a closet and commented on it. George, she related to the Commission, teasingly asked Oswald, “Did you take a pot shot at Walker by any chance?” Later the Commission, relying largely on Marina’s
hearsay evidence that Lee had taken the shot, solemnly declared that the act “established his propensity to kill.”

The couples never saw each other again after this incident. A week later Oswaldleft for New Orleans, followed by Marina. Days later the DeMohrenschildts went to New York City and, in early June, to Haiti on a business venture. The story of how they came to go to Haiti – and in fact the whole DeMohrenschildt saga – is almost more bizarre than the fictions of the Warren Commission.

The saga takes form from the FBI background investigation. There emerges a brilliant, eccentric individualist of ambivalent political views. One FBI source described DeMohrenschildt as a brutal man with “a Prussian personality.” A 1942 report of a government security agency discloses he was suspected of being a Nazi agent but some of his current friends termed him “definitely socialistic but not communistic.” The Bureau found that he was “widely known in White Russian circles in New York City and Dallas,” and listed restaurateur Serge Oblensky and Boston Bank head Serge Semenko as intimate acquaintances.

DeMohrenschildt reminisced before the Commission that he “traveled” in Cuba before Castro, during the Batista days,” on oil exploration trips. In 1957 and 1958 he traveled to Yugoslavia and Ghana as a geological consultant in the pay of the US State
Department. His personal fortunes seem to have alternated: at times he claimed $300,000 in assets, at times he was nearly broke.

In late 1960, during an ebb period, he and Jeanne embarked on an eight-month walking trip from the Texas-Mexico border to the Panama Canal. In one of those recurrent coincidences that mark the man, they arrived at Guatemala City at the precise time the Bay of Pigs expeditionary force was leaving Guatemalan shores. He submitted a full written report on his hiking trip to the US government.

On the trip, the story goes, DeMohrenschildt met some Haitian officials and promoted a contract to make a geological survey of Haiti for $260,000. “The Haitian government could not pay him his fee in cash,” an informant stated to the FBI, “so they worked out an arrangement whereby George would take over a sisal plantation in Haiti, which would be given to him … and take his $260,000 fee out of the profits.”

On the occasion of a recent Dallas visit, DeMohrenschildt told the Dallas Times Herald that when he learned that an assassination suspect had been captured he asked if the name was Oswald. “It was subconscious, a sort of flash and came probably from knowing that Oswald had a gun,” he is quoted as saying.

Jack Ruby
“Joe, you should know this,” Jack Ruby scribbled furtively to his attorney, Joe Tonahill. “Tom Howard [his first attorney who died in 1965] told me to say that I shot Oswald so that Caroline and Mrs. Kennedy wouldn’t have to come to Dallas to testify. OK?” “I don’t think he loved Kennedy that much,” opined Jada, one of his exotic dancers. “I believe he disliked Bobby Kennedy.” Sherri Lynn, another showgirl who had known Ruby for 15 years, thought differently: “A dollar means everything to Jack Ruby and he is the type of person would do anything for money.”

In February 1964, as his provocative background began to surface, two Ruby specialists on the Commission staff wrote to the CIA: “It is possible that Ruby could have been utilized by a politically motivated group either upon the promise of money or because of the influential character of the individual approaching Ruby.”

The letter to the CIA outlined intriguing facets of Ruby’s activities: “Ruby has very carefully cultivated friendships with police officers and other public officials … At the same time, he was, peripherally, if not directly connected with members of the underworld … Ruby also is rumored to have been the tip-off man between the Dallas police and the Dallas underworld … Ruby operated his businesses on a cash basis, keeping no record whatsoever – a strong indication that Ruby himself was involved in illicit operations of some sort … His primary technique in avoiding prosecution was the maintenance of friendship with police officers, public officials, and other influential persons in the Dallas community.”

Nor did the letter ignore Ruby’s affinity for Cuba. “In about 1959, Ruby became interested in the possibility of selling war materials to Cubans and in the possibility of opening a gambling casino in Havana.” The pushy entrepreneur’s continuing interest in Cuba was discussed. CIA, instructed the Commission staffers, should consider the possibility of “ties between Ruby and others who might have been interested in the assassination of President Kennedy.” The specifically mentioned a number of people thought to know Ruby, including former Havana gambler Lewis J. McWillie, a Birch Society official, and oilmen H.L. and Lamar Hunt.

For months the CIA was silent. When finally dunned by the Commission it simply said that its files contained “no information on Jack Ruby or his activities” or any link with Oswald. The reply came after the Commission had concluded its deliberations.

“There is much more to Ruby than meets the eye,” attests one of Garrison’s chief sleuths, Louis Gurvich. Garrison has produced a former Dallas cab driver, Raymond Cummings, who is prepared to testify he twice drove Oswald to Ruby’s Carousel Club, once in the company of David Ferrie.

There already exists a body of evidence tying Oswald to Ruby. For example, there is Wilbryn Waldon “Bob” Litchfield II, who claimed he saw Oswald waiting to see Ruby at the club a month before the assassination. Litchfield was waiting to see Ruby himself, and accurately described a third man – whose presence has been verified.

There is also Carroll Jarnigan, an attorney reputed to have a photographic memory. In a voluntary statement to the FBI, Jarnagin told of overhearing an earpricking colloquy between Oswald and Rub in the Carousel Club the night of October 4, 1963. The gist of it was that Oswald was to be hired to assassinate Texas Governor John Connally with a rifle from a high building. Bobby Kennedy had clamped down on racket activity in Chicago and Castro had ousted the American gamblers from Cuba. The reasoning was that if the straight-laced Connally could be eliminated, Texas, which is “right next to Mexico,” could be opened up and “there’d be money for everybody.”

Jarnigan’s testimony was discounted by the Warren Commission, largely on the strength of a lie detector test given by DA Henry Wade. The result, claimed Wade, was that Jarnagin was sincere but his story “fanciful” – a determination well beyond the capacity of a polygraph.

Ruby’s gangster links are well established, and his connection with one Paul Rolland Jones is a story in itself. Jones averred he had been introduced to Ruby in Chicago in the late 1940s by several syndicate hoods, and later got to know Jack and his sister Eva, who ran the Singapore Club in Dallas, quite well. He had come to Dallas as an emissary of the mob to negotiate “a piece of the action.”

He approached then-sheriff Steve Guthrie and an obscure lieutenant on the police force, George Butler, to arrange for protection. The two pretended to play along, then sprung a trap on Jones and charged him with bribery. Butler became a hero of sorts, and was tapped to assist the Kefauver Committee in its 1950 rackets hearings. But Jones told the FBI he believes Butler was at first in earnest and wanted a payoff, desisting only when he learned the Texas Rangers were wise to the negotiations.

Butler is still a lieutenant, working out of the juvenile bureau. The assignment seemingly permits him leeway for his activities as the self-professed leader of extreme right-elements on the force. In 1961, while in rural Midlothian, Texas, to make an anti-communist speech, he offered Penn Jones Jr., the scrappy editor of the Midlothian Mirror, the opportunity to print a statewide newspaper under the auspices of the Ku Klux Klan. He boasted, Jones says, that on half of the police force belonged to the KKK.

He frequently escorts H.L. Hunt to various public engagements.

It was Lt. George Butler who was in overall charge of the transfer of Oswald on November 24 and who gave the “all clear” to bring the prisoner into the basement.

Early in 1959, when Castro came to power, Ruby looked covetously to Cuba. He made overtures to sell surplus jeeps to the Cuban premier, and tried to wangle a letter of introduction from a known Castro partisan in Houston. Late in 1959 he visited gambler Lewis McWillie in Havana on what he later called a “purely social” trip. While there he boasted to at least two US citizens that he was “in with both sides.” Most prominent of the anti-Castroites whose friendship he claimed was Rolando Masferrer, a Batista henchman.

Ruby’s Cuba interests and crime syndicate connections converge in the testimony of Nancy Perrin Rich, a fast-living young lady four times around the marriage cycle and a one-time police informant. In 1962, she arrived in Dallas on the heels of her then husband, Robert Perrin, who at various times had been a bodyguard to top hoodlums, a narcotics smuggler and a gunrunner to Franco during the Spanish Civil War. Perrin had plenty of police pals, and a detective promptly got her a job hustling drinks in Jack Ruby’s club.

The job didn’t last long. When Ruby shoved her against the bar, the strong-willed Nancy stormed out and filed assault charges against him, but was “persuaded” by the Dallas cops to drop them. She saw Ruby again – in an apartment where she and Robert Perrin had gone to firm up a deal to run military supplies and Enfield rifles to Cuban insurgents. There was some hitch in the money arriving when, she related, “I had the shock of my life … A knock comes on the door and who walks in but my little friend Jack Ruby. And you could have knocked me over with a feather … and everybody looks like this, you know, a big smile – like here comes the Savior.”

Ruby evidently was the bag man, because Perrin’s cut was upped to $15,000. But Nancy scotched the deal because “I smelled an element that I did not want to have any part of.” The element, she elucidated, was organized crime. A man had showed up whom she took to be a relative of syndicate chieftain Vito Genovese. Running scared, she and Perrin moved from city to city, but he finally headed for New Orleans alone. He died there of arsenic poisoning. The arsenic was “voluntarily consumed,” the coroner certified.

In his Whitewash II, Harold Weisberg does some expert collating. In the course of his FBI interview, Rev. Walter J. McChann, a priest who ministered to the Cuban exile community in Dallas, remarked that there was a retired Army colonel named Castor who he felt was “playing the role of an intelligence officer” in his contacts with the Cubans. And an interview with Mrs. C. L. Connell, a volunteer assistant of the Dallas Cuban Relief Committee, contains th  opinion that “General Edwin A. Walker and Colonel (FNU) Caster, a close acquaintance of Walker, have been trying to arouse the feelings of the Cuban refugees, in Dallas, against the Kennedy administration.”

There is one more loose end to the Nancy Perrin Rich story: the Vito Genovese relative she thought was involved in the deal. Buried in the Warren Report is an FBI account of a tip that Ruby was present at a party in a Dallas apartment two nights before the assassination at which Joe F. Frederici, identified as “a nephew of Vito Genovese,” was also present. The tipster said that Frederici and his wife Sandy were to leave the next day “for New Jersey or someplace in the East.” Provocative – and, as far as the record is concerned, unresolved.

What the record does show, however, is that organized crime has been implicated in smuggling war material to the Caribbean. A case brought before the McClellan AntiRacketeering Committee of the Senate by Robert Kennedy in 1959 involves a plot allegedly masterminded by Michael Genovese, Vito’s son, and another man, and financed in part by Teamster’s funds obtained by Louis “Babe” Triscaro, boss of a Miami local. A surplus Air Force Globemaster was to airlift tons of arms and ammunition to Cuba via the Dominican Republic. At the last minute Miami customs agents, who had feigned taking bribes to look the other way, closed in and seized the plane and cargo.

What is known of Jack Ruby’s activities in the period encompassing the assassination only heightens the mystery surround him. The party he reportedly attended was Wednesday night. As for the real story, a Secret Service report synopsizes:

“Numerous witnesses identify Jack Leon Rubenstein alias Jack Ruby, as being in Houston, Texas on November 21, for several hours, one block from the President’s entrance route and from the Rice Hotel where he stayed.” But the Dallas Secret Service, going on the recollections of several persons who vaguely place in town that day, just as flatly ruled out a quickie trip to Houston.

Ruby has gone out in a blaze of ambiguity, ranting about a pogrom against the Jews and intimating Lyndon Johnson harbors dark secrets. The government, if it ever wanted the truth, lost its chance when Chief Justice Earl Warren declined to have Ruby removed to Washington for questioning. “I want to tell the truth,” Ruby had implore, “and I can’t tell it here.”

Cui Bono?
The day after the assassination, Gary Underhill left Washington in a hurry. Late in the evening he showed up at the home of friends in New Jersey. He was very agitated.

A small clique within the CIA was responsible for the assassination, he confided, and he was afraid for his life and probably would have to leave the country. Less than six months later Underhill was found shot to death in his Washington apartment. The coroner ruled it suicide.

J. Garrett Underhill had been an intelligence agent during World War II and was a recognized authority on limited warfare and small arms. A researcher and writer on military affairs, he was on a first-name basis with many of the top brass in the Pentagon.

He was also on intimate terms with a number of high ranking CIA officials – he was one of the Agency’s “un-people” who performed special assignments. At one time he had been a friend of Samuel Cummings of Interarmco, the arms broker that numbers its customers the CIA and, ironically, Klein’s Sporting Goods of Chicago, from whence the mail order Carcano allegedly was purchased by Oswald.

The friends whom Underhill visited say he was sober but badly shook. They say he attributed the Kennedy murder to a CIA clique which was carrying on a lucrative racket in gun-running, narcotics and other contraband, and manipulating political intrigue to serve its own ends. 

Kennedy supposedly got wind that something was going on and was killed before he could “blow the whistle on it.” Although the friends had always known Underhill to be perfectly rational and objective, they at first didn’t take his account seriously. “I think the main reason was,” explains the husband, “that he couldn’t believe that the CIA could contain a corrupt element every bit as ruthless – and more efficient – as the Mafia.”

The verdict of suicide in Underhill’s death is by no means convincing. His body was found by a writing collaborator, Asher Brynes of the New Republic. He had been shot behind the left ear, and an automatic pistol was under his left side. Odd, say Brynes, because Underhill was right-handed. Brynes thinks the pistol was fitted with a silencer, and occupants of the apartment building could not recall hearing a shot.

Underhill obviously had been dead several days.

Gary Underhill’s chilling story is hardly implausible. As a spy apparatus the CIA is honeycombed with self-sustained cliques operating without any real central control.

The hand of the CIA has materialized repeatedly in Jim Garrison’s investigation, and he has implicated anti-Castro Cuban factions aligned with the American paramilitary right– both of which have been utilized by the CIA in its machinations to overthrow Castro.

The ex-CIA agent with whom I talked declares that even after the Bay of Pigs debacle, the CIA continued to cherish its pipe dream of sponsoring an invasion of Cuba, and continued to secretly train Cuban exiles at it paramilitary base in Virginia. Such bootlegging was directly counter to the Kennedy administration’s policy of cracking down on freelance armies aiming their sights at Cuba.

1963 was a summer of discontent for those inalterably committed to the toppling of Castro. The Cuban premier had made conciliatory remarks about the ameliorating United States attitude. On an ABC television interview with Lisa Howard, for instance, he lauded “the stopping of piratical acts against Cuba as “steps in the right direction” of improved relations. The United States had responded, and Kennedy was in fact moving towards a modus vivendi with Castro. Miss Howard, who had Castro’s confidence, was acting as a covert envoy of the administration at the same time that Adlai Stevenson was talking privately with his Cuban opposite number in the United Nations, Dr. Carlos Lechunga.

Apparently a détente was near realization when Kennedy met death. In a UN speech on October 7, Stevenson raised the possibility of an end to the Cuban-US cold war, in effect abandoning the Cuban government-in-exile. In his new book Reds and Blacks, former Kennedy official William Attwood reports that “the President more than the State Department was interested in exploring [the Cuban] overture,” and that a clandestine high-level meeting was imminent. On November 19, Presidential Aide McGeorge Bundy told Attwood, who was acting as an intermediary, that Kennedy wanted to see him after “a brief trip to Dallas.”

Soon after the assassination, Dr. Lechunga said he had been instructed by Castro to begin “formal discussions.” “I informed Bundy,” Attwood says, “and later was told that the Cuban exercise would be put on ice for a while – which it was and where it has
been ever since.”

Since the assassination, the thawing cold war with the Soviet Union has been shoved into the background by the new holy war against communism in Southeast Asia.

This little hot war has enabled the military-industrial complex against which President Eisenhower warned to gain ascendency. The hawks of the Pentagon, whose wings barely fluttered during the Kennedy epoch, are now in full flight, and the CIA, which Kennedy sought to cut down to size, has become an indispensable instrument of US foreign policy in Southeast Asia.

There is no more talk of lowering the oil depletion allowance or of investigating the controversial TFX contract awarded Convair in Ft. Worth. The Texas oil and contracting industries have profited immensely from fueling the war machine and building its warehouses and docks.

No wonder that Garrison, who attributes the assassination to a “powerful domestic force,” sits at the vortex of that force. Its voice is heard in the swirl of scorn and deprecation that has met his efforts.

But the labeling of Garrison as political opportunist and glory-hound is false. He has relayed word to the President, through a Louisiana senator, that he seeks only the truth and will step aside to let the FBI make all the arrests and issue the press releases.

There has been no response, and Johnson continues to devour a daily diet of slanted FBI reports, “Progress of the Garrison investigation,” fed him by his old crony J. Edgar Hoover.

Recently the phone rang at Garrison’s home. A metallic voice warned his wife, “You have kids – we’ll get them on the way to school.” Momentarily frightened, she turned to her husband and pleaded, “Jim, don’t you think of the kids before you get into
these things?” “I do,” Big Jim said calmly. “I don’t want them growing up in a country that can’t stand the truth.” 

William W. Turner, Ramparts June 1967, pp. 17-29

Here is an extract from Warren Hinckle's book, If You Have a Lemon, Make Lemonade, about Jim Garrison: 

My last communication with Garrison was on November 5, 1968. It was not untypical. I was interrupted in midexplanation to an unhappy investor (Keating's stormy departure had not helped the money-raising situation). The investor was turning a tinge yellow at my suggestion that the only way to insure the return of the $20,000 he had previously loaned Ramparts was to cover his bet with an additional $50,000. The interruption was an emergency long-distance telephone call from New Orleans. The caller was in no mood to inquire about the weather. "This is urgent," Jim Garrison said. "Can you take this in your mailroom? They'd never think to tap the mailroom extension."

I excused myself to go to the mailroom for a moment on a matter of high priority and left the investor, sputtering like a referee without a whistle, alone with the latest negative balance sheets. In the mailroom, two bearded Berkeleyite mail boys were running the postage machine under the influence of marijuana. I told them to take a walk around the block and get high on company time, and locked the door behind them.

Garrison began talking when I picked up the mailroom extension: "This is risky, but I have little choice. It is imperative that I get this information to you now. Important new evidence has surfaced. Those Texas oilmen do not appear to be involved in President Kennedy's murder in the way we first thought. It was the Military-Industrial Complex that put up the money for the assassination - but as far as we can tell, the conspiracy was limited to the aerospace wing. I've got the names of three companies and their employees who were involved in setting up the President's murder. Do you have a pencil?"

I wrote down the names of the three defense contractors - Garrison identified them as Lockheed, Boeing, and General Dynamics - and the names of those executives in their employ whom the District Attorney said had been instrumental in the murder of Jack Kennedy. I also logged a good deal of information about a mysterious minister who was supposed to have crossed the border into Mexico with Lee Harvey Oswald shortly before the assassination; the man wasn't a minister at all, Garrison said, but an executive with a major defense supplier, in clerical disguise. I knew little about ministers crossing the Rio Grande with Oswald - but after several years of fielding the dizzying details of the Kennedy assassination, I had learned to leave closed Pandora's boxes lie; I didn't ask.

I said that I had everything down, and Garrison said a hurried good-bye: "It's poor security procedure to use the phone, but the situation warrants the risk. Get this information to Bill Turner. He'll know what to do about the minister. I wanted you to have this, in case something happens... "

I unlocked the mailroom door, and returned to my office. The investor was gone.

I typed up a brief memorandum of the facts as Garrison had relayed them and burned my notes in an oversized ashtray I used for such purposes. I Xeroxed one copy of the memo, which I mailed to myself in care of a post office box in the name of Walter Snelling, a friendly, non-political bartender in the far-removed country town of Cotati, California, where I routinely sent copies of all supersecret Ramparts documents. That night I hand delivered the original to Bill Turner, the former FBI agent in charge of the magazine's investigation of the Warren Commission. Turner had drilled me in a little G-Man security lingo. According to our code, I called him at home and said something about a new vacuum cleaner. He replied that he'd be right over, and said he would meet me at the bar at Trader Vic's, which meant that I was to actually meet him at Blanco's, a dimly lit Filipino bar on the fringe of Chinatown, where we often held secret meetings. That was the way we did things in those days.

"Those days" encompassed several years of sniffing, as Sam Goldwyn might say, along the greenhorn trail of red herrings in the 26 volumes of the Report of the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy. We began asking rude questions in 1965, and by 1968, with paranoia in full bloom, we had divided almost everyone, by some sort of conspiracy litmus test, into "them" and "us." Even "us" was subdivided into good guys, not-so-good-guys, dangerous fanatics and fifth columnists. We ended up seeing "them" lurking behind every potted plant rented by the CIA; and, occasionally, we found a real spook in the shadows. 

Hollande

"[Anti-Semitism] maintains conspiracy theories that spread without limits. Conspiracy theories that have, in the past, led to the worst "(...)" [The] answer is to realize that conspiracy theories are disseminated through the Internet and social networks. Moreover, we must remember that it is words that have in the past prepared extermination. 

We need to act at the European level, and even internationally, so that a legal framework can be defined, and so that Internet platforms that manage social networks are held to account and that sanctions be imposed for failure to enforce" 

President François Hollande
Remarks at the Shoah Memorial
January 27 2015 



Charlie Hebdo was founded in 1960 by former (Vichy) French State Bureaucrats to attack (with Satire) General DeGaulle and his Third Force and Algeria policies.

They are Fascists

Social Fascists.

Tuesday 19 January 2016

Diogenes : Pre-Modern, Post-Modernist Deconstructionist and Complete Dick


"Deconstructionists are like the cynics and skeptics of the ancient world in that they, like Diogenes and Pyrrho, refuse to profess or affirm a doctrine of their own, but only negate the ideas of others. " 



- Tarpley


“Plato had defined Man as an animal, biped and featherless, and was applauded. Diogenes plucked a fowl and brought it into the lecture-room with the words, ‘Here is Plato’s man.’ In consequence of which there was added to the definition, ‘having broad nails.’

 Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers in Ten Books, Book VI, 40, page 43 of the Loeb Classics edition, vol. II


"Derrida is the sort of philosopher who gives bullshit a bad name." - Foucault


"Deconstructionists are like the cynics and skeptics of the ancient world in that they, like Diogenes and Pyrrho, refuse to profess or affirm a doctrine of their own, but only negate the ideas of others. " - Tarpley



No mo' po-mo.


Challenge to Deconstructionism by Webster G. Tarpley 
[Excerpts, from the August 9, 1993, issue of "The New Federalist" ] ^^^^^^^^ 

Currently, education and intellectual life in the United States and many other countries are being destroyed by the triple plague of political correctness, postmodernism, and deconstructionism. After the collapse of Marxism in much of the world, the forces of evil in philosophy and epistemology are now increasingly arrayed under the banner of deconstructionism, which offers a place of regroupment for fascists, communists, irrationalists, and bankrupt ideologues of every sort. If you were wondering what the face of the enemy looked like after the fall of the Berlin Wall, this is it. 

The leading purveyor of deconstructionism, the Frenchman Jacques Derrida, is now unquestionably the most celebrated and influential academic philosopher in the world today. As I will try to show, the continued intellectual hegemony of deconstructionism in schools and universities amounts to a death sentence for human civilization as we have known it. Deconstructionism in the academy and in government is a direct threat to the lives of a very large portion of the 5.3 billion human beings now inhabiting this planet. 

1. The modern campus is now the bastion of euphemism and absurd circumlocution. Karl Marx had demagogically promised that his philosophy would change the world; the deconstructionists only want to change all the names. There is no more right or wrong, good or evil, only appropriate and inappropriate. 

Language is supposedly being purged of ableism, ageism, borealocentrism, ethnocentricity, Eurocentricity, hegemonism, heightism, logocentrism, lookism, phallocentrism, racism, sexism, scentism and smellism. 

Nobody is fat; they only possess an alternative body image. 

The bald must be called "follicularly challenged" or "differently hirsute." 

To be dirty is to be "hygienically challenged," to be tall is to be "vertically endowed." If you're old, you become "chronologically gifted." 

It will be noted that this supposed rebellion afflicts language with all of the horrors of the worst Pentagon bureaucratic prose. Think of "collateral damage" when targets were "serviced" during the Gulf war, killing innocent civilians. "Ethnic cleansing" is a politically correct term for genocide. 

Thus, political correctness offers no hope to the homeless, but it demands they be called "underhoused," "involuntarily undomiciled," or "houseless." The jobless become "non-renewed." 

Political correctness is radical nominalism, in which the verbal signs take the place of ideas and things. As always, this radical nominalism is never very far from paranoid schizophrenia, where the victim believes that by changing the name or sign, he has altered reality itself. As the experience of Baroque Europe (Lyly, Marino, etc.) shows, such ways of talking go together with the collapse of civilization. 




2. Political correctness insists that everything in human affairs can be reduced to race, sex (or "gender"), socioeconomic class, and choice of sexual perversion (sometimes called "sexual orientation"). 

*The New York Times* now recognizes a minimum of five sexes - yes, five - the coprophiles and sadomasochists are insisting on their rights. 

The pessimistic P.C litany is all strictly determinist, denying humanity any freedom: You are, they say, what your race, sex, class, and [sexual orientation] make you. 

You are a slave to that; there is no freedom... Here there can be no imago viva Dei to express the creative faculties that all human beings share. 

3. Countries that permit deconstructionists to assume power over the government (and this has gone quite far in the U.S.A.) are not likely to survive. 

Political correctness attempts to define a "canon" of what is to be studied, seeking to purge the Dead White European Males (DWEMS) in favor of Rigoberta Menchu, Franz Fanon, Jean Genet, or Antonin Artaud 

[BR -- Note, Artaud wrote an interesting essay titled "Van Gogh, the Man Suicided by the Society," which I previously posted in 2 parts. I may do a rerun of the Artaud essay in the future]... 

This [elimination of DWEMS] is a demand to wipe out the progress made by science in western continental Europe, especially Germany, France, Italy, Holland, etc., since the Italian Golden Renaissance of the 1400s. 

If Nicholas Cusanus, Leonardo da Vinci, Kepler, Leibniz, Monge, Gauss, Pasteur, Riemann, Cantor, and other Platonics were wiped out, we could no longer maintain the survival of the 5.3 billion human beings of today. Without the scientific achievement of these DWEMS, the relative potential population density of the world would fall back to the levels of the 1300s, to the time of the Bubonic Plague. We might go all the way back to the Roman Empire. Most of the 5.3 billion who manage to hang on today would be doomed. 

-+- Postmodernism -+- 
Many people who observe the lunatic pageant of the modern campus may conclude that the professors and administrators are all crazy. So they are. But there is a definite method in the madness, a philosophical system or doctrine which dictates the specific policy demands of political correctness. 

One generic name for this is postmodernism, which claims that the raving irrationalists Voltaire, Rousseau, and the rest of the enlightenment were the Age of Reason, but that now the Age of Unreason is upon us.

[Deconstructionism] began its triumphal march through American universities in 1966, when Derrida appeared at Johns Hopkins University to tell American academics that the structuralism of Levi-Strauss was dead and that the future belonged to deconstruction. Derrida is now stronger in the U.S.A. and the Anglo-American sphere than in France, and dominant in much of Ibero-America, Francophone Africa and the Middle East, and eastern Europe. If you want tenure, an endowed chair, a foundation grant, government financing, you have to learn to talk the pedantic deconstructionist gibberish. 

Deconstructionists are like the cynics and skeptics of the ancient world in that they, like Diogenes and Pyrrho, refuse to profess or affirm a doctrine of their own, but only negate the ideas of others. 

Deconstruction is very eclectic. Derrida's world of ideas can be compared to a great sewer into which empty the various gutters and waste waters of the past two or three centuries. Each of these channels contributes to the great Cloaca Maxima of deconstruction. Note that we are here reviewing the disastrous state of human knowledge as we go towards the year 2000. 

-+- Hatred of Reason -+- 
Deconstructionism is an attack on Judaeo-Christian western European civilization powered above all by rage. Derrida hates and resents reason and creativity, which he identifies with the "epoch of Christian creationism and infinitism when these appropriate the resources of Greek conceptuality." (*Of Grammatology*, p. 13). Western European culture is guilty of logocentrism, says Derrida. The western cultural paradigm always aspired to be based on reason. 

This must be rejected. 

The western cultural paradigm also gives priority to speech, to the spoken word, with most literature made to be read aloud or even sung, from Plato's dialogues to Dante and Chaucer to Shakespeare and Schiller. This is the hated "phonocentrism" which Derrida also wants to get rid of. Derrida delves into Plato in an attempt to show that the overtones of the Logos are exclusively paternal and male dominated, giving rise to the further charge of phallologocentrism, which soon enough gives rise to the notion of "phallocentrism" assailed by the maenads of feminist literary theory. 

[Derrida concludes that] the real problem with the West is that our culture is entirely permeated by what he calls "metaphysics. "... For Derrida, metaphysics evidently means anything that cannot be boiled down to sense certainty. Derrida sees "metaphysics" as the principal enemy to be destroyed. Under the heading of metaphysics he lumps God, the self or soul or individual, causality, substance, essence, action, and most other concepts of any importance. They must go, for reasons that are never remotely explained. 

For Derrida, the author is dead, by definition. He never existed. The human self and ego have collapsed into an X marking the spot where they once were... 

All that Derrida will talk about is a text, a written text of black on white, with punctuation, type faces, paragraphs, margins, colphons, logos, copyrights and so forth... 

Everything is a written text in the sense that every thought, utterance or "discourse" is a story that we tell each other about something which exists in the most detached way in a written form. Therefore, says Derrida, there is nothing outside of the text. Everything is a text. There are no more works of art. All black writing on white paper is a text -- Shakespeare, the telephone book, Mickey Mouse, the racing form... all are texts, each one equivalent to the other. 

-+- Deconstructionism's Targets -+- 
Deconstructionists can target any of the written documents which are constituve of civilization itself. Take theology... Deconstructionist theology is quite a feat, since the ban on metaphysics means that this will be a theology without God. 

[Deconstructionist theologian Mark C. Taylor overcomes this difficulty as follows:] 
"One of the distinctive features of deconstruction is its willingness to confront the death of God squarely if not always directly...it would not be too much to suggest that deconstruction is the 'hermeneutic' of the death of God." Taylor calls for "the death of God, erasure of the self, and [an] end to history." 

Since deconstruction sees all writing as the same, it can also be unleashed in the field of law, with devastating effect. Listen to Clare Dalton of the Critical Legal Studies group at Harvard Law School: "Law," she writes, "like every other cultural institution, is a place where we tell one another stories about our relationships with ourselves, one another, and authority."... 

Sanford Levinson, professor of constitutional law at the University of Texas at Austin, chimes in: "The death of 'constitutionalism' may be the central event of our time, just as the death of God was that of the past century..." 

The Clinton White House is redolent of deconstructionism and political correctness. The Clinton Cabinet is dysfunctional, but it certainly respects the distributive requirements of race/sex/class/sexual [orientation]... Donna Shalala of HHS helped to promulgate a code on offensive speech at the University of Wisconsin... 

Vice President Gore's favorite book is reportedly Thomas Kuhn's *Structure of Scientific Revolutions*, which has become a manual for New Age paradigm shifters. We appeal to all of those who share our regard for the potential of the human mind to join us in exposing and defeating the deconstructionists.


The War of the League of Cambrai, Paolo Sarpi and John Locke

Against Oligarchy
Webster G. Tarpley, Ph.D.
From ICLC Conference panel titled: “The Axioms of the American System,” Feb. 18, 1996; appeared in New Federalist, March 18, 1996
Every person, whether he knows it or not, is a philosopher. Each of us necessarily develops a theory of how the world works. This theory is expressed as a set of axioms. The axioms are self-evident ideas that are recognized and accepted by everybody in sight. The axioms define human nature, the content of history, the workings of economics, the purpose of government, the goals of life. Today’s American population operates according to axioms which are false, oligarchical – and suicidal. A dictatorship or a monarchy can get by with slaves or subjects, but a republic demands educated and capable citizens. Without citizens, a republic cannot survive. The most dangerous force in American life today is public opinion itself. In today’s crisis, public opinion rejects out of hand all the urgent measures needed to promote national survival. This public opinion is stupefied by television and spectator sports and crassly manipulated by the news media. This depraved public opinion reflects not so much the admitted failure of political leadership as the degradation of the intellectual life of the average citizen. In the face of this kind of public opinion, world civilization as we have known it cannot long survive.
Is there a remedy? It must be to uncover the false axioms, uproot them, and replace them with the truth. History and philosophy are two powerful weapons in this fight against false axioms. The crisis of the citizen needs to be seen in a long historical perspective – we need to look at the five hundred years since the Italian Renaissance opened the modern era.
Before the Renaissance started about 1400, there was a discouraging sameness in most known forms of human society. Some were better, some were worse, but they were generally two-class systems: ruling elite and mass. The mass made up 95% of the population. They were peasants, serfs, and slaves, almost always laboring on the land, almost always illiterate and benighted. Their lives were nasty, brutish, and short. Over these peasants and serfs commanded a feudal aristocracy. Monarchy is bad enough, but most of the pre-Renaissance societies were something worse: they were small ruling classes called oligarchies. The aristocrats had military retainers, priests, scribes, and lackeys, making up at most 5% of the population. Under these conditions, world population potential was measured in the hundreds of millions, and even these were decimated by frequent plagues and famines.
Now and then a good ruler might appear, and did appear, along with excellent philosophers and scientists. But the oligarchy was always present, waiting to drag the society down again. Usury, constant warfare, slavery, racism, Aristotelian philosophy – these are the trademarks of oligarchy. Oligarchs come in many forms: the Roman senate, the barons of the dark ages, the Russian boyars, east European magnates, the French frondeurs, the princes of the Holy Roman Empire. Most of these feudal aristocrats were very ignorant, brutal, and crude. The medieval feudal aristocrats were easily manipulated by the Venetians, who had inherited the methods of Babylon, Rome, and Byzantium. From about 1000 AD until about 1600, the leading center of oligarchy in Europe and nearby Asia was Venice.
The first sustained breakout from this 2-class model came with the movement starting with Dante and Petrarch and culminating in Cusanus, Leonardo, and the Italian Renaissance of the 1400′s. The high point of the early Renaissance was the Council of Florence in 1439, convened under the sponsorship of the Medici rulers of Florence. In addition to briefly re-uniting the Christian world, this council embraced the theology of the filioque. In political terms filioque meant that each and every human being is made in the image of God, similar to God, by virtue of possessing God-like qualities of intellectual creativity in the form of a human soul. Therefore the dignity of the human person had to be respected. The human mind was capable of scientific discovery, and also capable of creating the modern nation-state.
The impulse from the Council of Florence reached around the world with Columbus and the Florentine Amerigo Vespucci, the Medici envoy who gave his name to the new continents of the Americas. The same impulse of human progress reached into France, where King Louis XI used Florentine methods to create the first modern national state. This was a matter first of all of breaking the power of the turbulent feudal aristocracy. This was done with taxation, which also financed the beginnings of the modern administration. Louis XI had a social base in the commercial and manufacturing classes of the cities and towns – the origins of the modern middle class. As King between 1461 and 1483, Louis promoted industry and commerce, protected the rights of labor, enacted public health statutes, built infrastructure, drained swamps, and built up a national army. The population and prosperity of France increased accordingly. France was the first nation to reach the take-off point into the modern age.
French military power also grew. This was soon noticed by the new Tudor regime in England, as well as by the rulers of Spain. It was clear that the future belonged to the larger nation-states that were smart enough to imitate the methods of Louis XI. If the Louis XI model were to prevail everywhere, there was the hope that the oligarchs as a class might be crushed. The momentum of the Renaissance art, science, and statecraft might overwhelm all resistance and become unstoppable.
The Venetians, who had been waging their own war against Florence and the other Italian Renaissance states for a century, studied events in France carefully. Venice was essentially a city-state with an inland empire in northern Italy and a marine empire in the Mediterranean. At first the Venetians thought they could survive as a great power by playing off the new nation-states one against the other. As soon as Louis XI was dead, the Venetians invited his unworthy and inferior heir Charles VIII to conquer Milan. The French conquered Naples, Florence, and Milan, but their presence also drew in the forces of Spain. It was a time of rapidly shifting alliances. Before long, the main powers had all been antagonized by Venetian perfidy and geopolitics. For the Venetians had been filching territory on all sides, grabbing for every fly that flew by them.
What followed was the War of the League of Cambrai, the great world war that marked the opening of the modern era. If Venice had been destroyed in this war, the European oligarchy would have been deprived of its command center and is likely to have perished. Without Venice, we would have been spared the wars of religion, including the Thirty Years’ War; we would have been spared the British Empire and most of its wars, including the American Civil War and the two world wars of this century. The same goes for most of the depressions and economic crises of these years.
At the heart of the League of Cambrai was the joint commitment in 1508 by King Louis XII of France and Maximilian, the Holy Roman Emperor, to divide the territory of Venice between them. The King of Spain joined in because he wanted to take Venetian possessions in southern Italy. A little later Pope Julius II della Rovere also joined the League. Julius II della Rovere was a professional soldier and an oligarch. He was called the papa terribile; his portrayal by Rex Harrison in the movie The Agony and the Ecstasy is much too kind.
But now the Venetians, the masters of geopolitics and encirclement, were faced in 1509 by a league of virtually all the European states with the exception of Hungary and England. In Venice, the Council of Ten assumed emergency powers. The program of the League of Cambrai was to expropriate all Venetian territory except for the city itself in its lagoon. By this time Venetian wealth derived more from its land possessions than from its ocean trade, so a loss of the land empire, or terrafirma, would have been a fatal blow. Among the French there were those who wanted to go further: the French general Bayard, whose courage is proverbial in France until this day, proclaimed his desire to destroy the Venetian oligarchy because of their opulent contempt for God and Christendom.
In the spring of 1509, a French army of 20,000 soldiers left Milan and crossed the Adda River into Venetian territory. On May 14, 1509 this French force met and destroyed an evenly matched Venetian mercenary army. The Venetians gave up Verona, Bergamo, Brescia, Vicenza, and even Padova, retreating into the natural fortress of their lagoons. The entire Venetian land empire had been lost in a single day. In one battle, Venice had dropped off the list of European great powers. The Venetians called it a “second Cannae.” The Florentine secretary Machiavelli exulted that in one day the Venetians had lost the fruits of 800 years of aggression. The Venetians were able to retake Padova, but had to defend it against the German Emperor and 100,000 troops. The modern era had indeed begun.
Only twice before had the Venetians been in such dire straits. They had been besieged in the lagoons in 810 AD by King Pepin of France, the heir of Charlemagne, and again by the Genoese during the war of Chioggia in 1379.
To multiply the catastrophe, a few months before, the Venetians had received news of the naval battle of Diu in which an Egyptian fleet supported by Indian princes had been wiped out by the Portuguese navy. The old Venetian monopoly in the spice trade with the east was now a dead duck.
At first the Venetians, now under siege in their lagoons, were totally isolated. Then it turned out that they did have a friend: the new King of England, Henry VIII. Advised by Cardinal Woolsey and the Cecils, Henry VIII urged Pope Julius to betray the League of Cambrai, and ally with Venice. When Julius first found that Henry VIII was supporting Venice, he was furious. Julius told the English ambassador: “You Englishmen are all scoundrels.” But soon it was clear that Julius was not so far from Henry’s position. Henry also offered the Venetians a loan, and signed a friendship treaty with them.
Julius II della Rovere now switched sides, and by February, 1510 Julius was the ally of Venice in exchange for territorial cessions and some bribes. In the summer of 1510 the French and Imperial forces reached the lagoons a second time, but their flank was attacked by Julius, and Venice was preserved. Julius II must bear the historical responsibility of permitting the survival of Venice and thus of oligarchy into the modern world.
1511 brought a third Franco-Imperial offensive, which once again reached the shores of the lagoons. Now Spain followed Julius and joined the Venetian-Papal alliance against France and the Empire. Henry VIII also joined this Holy League as a pretext for attacking France.
In the spring of 1512 came a new shift: the Emperor Maximilian decided to join Venice, the Pope, and Spain against the French. The Venetians took advantage of this, re-occupying their battered land empire for the third time.
In February, 1513 Julius II della Rovere, who had made possible the survival of oligarchy into the modern world, finally died. About a month later the Venetians, desperately maneuvering to avoid being despoiled by their nominal allies, sealed an alliance with France. Venice now faced the attacks of the Spanish general Cardona. From the top of their bell towers the Venetians watched as the Spaniards burned the towns along the edge of the lagoon, and fired their cannon toward the city itself. Venice was on the verge of perdition for the fourth time, but Cardona had to retreat.
The war dragged on through 1514. In September, 1515 the French and the Venetians finally won the key battle of Marignano. After that only Verona remained in the hands of the German Imperial forces, and Venice and the Emperor Maximilian finally signed a peace in 1517. In the same year of 1517, a desperate Venetian wartime operation masterminded by Gasparo Contarini bore fruit when Luther nailed his theses to the door of Wittenberg cathedral. From this point on, religious conflicts between Catholics and Protestants in Germany and elsewhere would begin to relieve the immediate pressure on Venice. Venice was 5 million ducats in debt. For 8 years Venice had been devastated by the endless maneuvers of huge armies. Only the wars of religion, reformation and counter- reformation, saved Venice from being finally crushed.
Venice had survived. There remained the question as to how this small and weak state could hope to impose its oligarchical axioms on future humanity. Part of the answer was the metastasis of the Venetian oligarchical cancer to take over a large modern state. For this the Venetians eventually chose England, the power that had been most friendly during the late war.
But the roots of Venetian and Byzantine influence in England were much deeper. The Danish Viking invaders who opposed Alfred were instruments of the Byzantine Empire, whose influence reached Scandinavia along the Varangian way through Russia. The Norwegian army that invaded England in 1066 was commanded by a Byzantine general, Harold Hardrada. During the 1200′s Henry III of England was bankrupted by loans masterminded by the Venetians. When Edward III started the Hundred Years’ War against France around 1340, he was an instrument of Venice, since the Venetians wanted to prevent France from interfering with their wars against Genoa. The Wars of the Roses had been fought by factions manipulated by the Venetians, who viewed Wat Tyler’s rebellion and Wycliff’s Lollards as a dress rehearsal for Luther. Venetian factions were dominant at the court of Henry VIII. So the Venetians moved their family fortunes and their characteristic world outlook to England.
But the move to England and the creation of a British Empire were only part of the answer. As long as the forward motion of Renaissance science continued, the Venetians, the British, and all the others would be forced to imitate it and duplicate it, on pain of being militarily defeated. But the irrational domination of oligarchs could not coexist with continuous progress in science and technology. The Venetians could not simply attack science from the outside. They needed to seize control of science and corrupt science from within.
This task fell to the Venetian intelligence leader Paolo Sarpi, who lived from 1552 to 1623. Sarpi became one of the most famous persons in Europe through his role as Venetian propaganda boss during the Pope’s Interdict against Venice in 1606-1607. Sarpi authored the assassination of King Henry IV of France in 1610. And, with the help of his assets at the court of Frederick V in Heidelberg, Sarpi was decisive in starting the Thirty Years’ War, which killed half of the population of Germany and one third of the population of Europe as a whole.
Yet, Sarpi’s most lasting achievement is the launching of the European Enlightenment, including both the Bacon- Hobbes- Locke- Newton- Berkeley- Hume English empiricism and the Descartes- Voltaire- Rousseau- French Encyclopedia school. Sarpi was one of the greatest corrupters of science and philosophy.
Sarpi was a Servite monk of modest origins who rose to be number two in his order. Early in life, he became an admirer of William of Ockham, one of the stupidest of the medieval nominalist philosophers. Sarpi was also a follower of Pomponazzi, the Venetian professor who argued that man has no soul.
Sarpi lived in Rome and knew the main personalities of the Counter- Reformation, including Carlo Borromeo, Roberto Bellarmino, Pope Sixtus V, and the future Pope Urban VII. Sarpi soon became a creature of the Contarini and Morosini families, who were committed to the Venetian metastasis into northern Europe. The Contarini- Morosini faction, called the Giovani party, became dominant in Venice during the 1580′s. Sarpi became, in the words of the papal nuncio, the boss of half of Venice, and ran a salon for Calvinists and libertines which the Vatican attacked as an “academy of errors.”
The leading British authority on Sarpi is H.R. Trevor-Roper, now Lord Dacre, who calls the friar an “indefatigable polymath” or master of all the sciences. In reality, Sarpi was the chief corrupter of modern science, the greatest charlatan of all time. It is his doctrines which are taught in the universities today.
In astronomy and physics, Sarpi was the case officer who directed the work of the Padua professor Galileo Galilei. Galileo wrote that Sarpi was a mathematician unexcelled in Europe, and contemporaries recognized that Sarpi had been the adviser, author, and director of Galileo’s telescope project. Galileo’s observations were done from Sarpi’s monastery. The telescope itself had been invented by Leonardo. Galileo was until the end of his life a paid agent of the Sarpi group.
Sarpi also tried to build up a reputation as an expert on magnetism, which fascinated him because of its magical overtones. In this he was praised by G.B. della Porta, the author of Magia Naturalis. Sarpi was also famous as a mathematician, and probably wrote a treatise of mathematics which was lost when his monastery burned in 1769. Sarpi had studied the French mathematician Francois Viete. In anatomy, the Venetians attempted to prove for many years that Sarpi had been the first to discover the valves in human veins, and even that he had been the first to describe the circulation of the blood, well before Harvey.
Sarpi wrote A History of the Council of Trent, and his influence on historiography has been immense. John Milton is the English author who praises Sarpi at the greatest length. Milton used Sarpi as a major source, and praised him as the “great unmasker” of the papacy. Edward Gibbon, the author of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, was the leading historian of the British Venetian Party during the eighteenth century. In his great tome, Gibbon wrote: “Should Rome and her religion be annihilated, [Sarpi's] golden volume may still survive, a philosophical history and a salutary warning.” Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay, the Venetian Party historian of the nineteenth century, was also an admirer of Sarpi. For today’s Lord Dacre/Trevor- Roper, Sarpi was simply the greatest among all Catholic historians. So Sarpi was indeed a prodigy among oligarchs.
But what of Sarpi the philosopher? Sarpi never published a work of philosophy, but the Venetian archives were found to contain his philosophical manuscripts, the “Art of Thinking Well” (Arte di Ben Pensare) and the “Thoughts” (Pensieri), which were published in 1910 and again more fully in 1951. Here we find that Sarpi created the basis of modern empiricism. His method was to assert that scientific truth was to be found not in Aristotle, but rather written in mathematical characters in the great book of life. The way to get this truth was to use sense certainty, exactly as Aristotle had recommended. Many of Aristotle’s specific conclusions could be junked, but his method and thus his overall domination could be preserved.
Francis Bacon and Thomas Hobbes both understood Italian. They and their protector, the Earl of Devonshire, corresponded with Sarpi and his group, with Hobbes doing the translation. Hobbes visited Venice in September, 1614 and probably met Sarpi. Bacon’s inductive method is simply a bowdlerization of Sarpi.
Hobbes belonged to the Sarpi networks all his life. The plan for Hobbes’ career as a writer emerged from his meeting with Galileo in 1636, when Galileo suggested that Hobbes write a book of ethics according to the mathematical- geometrical method. All his life Hobbes went around blathering that motion was the only thing that mattered. One of Sarpi’s Pensieri reads: “From the weakness of man derives his characteristic of living in society, but from man’s depravity derives the need to live under a supreme authority….” [405] This, along with Sarpi’s favorite theme of church-state conflict, is the substance of Hobbes’ Leviathan. When Hobbes lived in Paris during the English civil war, he rubbed elbows with Venetian assets like Mersenne, Descartes, and Gassendi. Hobbes and Descartes quarreled, but also partied together.
Then there is the question of Locke. Lord Macauley and other English writers treat Sarpi as one who anticipated Locke. In reality, Locke was a plagiarist of Sarpi. And for this we have the testimony of no less a personage than a mid-eighteenth century doge of Venice, Marco Foscarini. The doge writes that Sarpi’s “Art of Thinking Well” is “the original from which Locke copied.”
Locke’s first book argues that the mind is a blank slate without any inborn or innate ideas. This meshes exactly with Sarpi, who with Aristotle and Pomponazzi tries to show that nothing enters the mind except through the senses. The corollary of this is that there is no human soul.
“Every body which moves operates on what it touches,” is Sarpi’s point of departure. Sarpi “shows how external objects operate on our senses, distinguishing between the object which creates the sensation and the sensation itself.” The sensations we feel are not qualities of the objects, but phenomena of our intellect. The senses deliver the sensations through the nervous system. Then discursive reasoning or the active intellect comes into play with ideas of number and size. The discursive reasoning orders, combines, and compares sense-ideas which have been stored in memory.
This is all closely parallel to Locke’s second book. In “Art of Thinking Well,” Sarpi writes that “knowledge by experience is of greater certainty than knowledge through reason, and no reason can ever manage to equal experience.” Locke’s second book states that all our knowledge is founded on and derives itself from experience. Experience comes from sensation or from reflection, reflection on the sense impressions already stored in the brain. Sarpi also discusses reflection, distinguishing between cognition and later reflection on that same cognition.
Sarpi admits compound ideas, made up of more than one simple sense impression, and so does Locke. Sense impressions in general do not err, says Sarpi, although sometimes impaired vision and the like will cause distortions, and discursive reasoning can become confused. Locke’s second book has similar remarks, with a discussion of color blindness. Both devote space to methods for fixing mistakes in processing sense ideas.
Sarpi argues that the intellect orders ideas according to notions of genus, species, and essence. For Locke, “all the great business of genera and species, and their essences… amounts to no more than this: That… men… enable themselves to consider things in bundles….” [II.31] From these bundles, Sarpi goes on to definitions and then to axioms (ipolipsi). Locke prefers to address axioms as maxims, and he argues that they are of limited utility, serving mainly to win debates. Sarpi is even more pessimistic, asserting that knowledge is actually harmful, and that animals are better off in their natural ignorance than we are.
Sarpi and Locke also agree on the value of syllogisms, which they also consider to be quite limited. Sarpi warns that syllogisms can often be perverse in form. Locke, wanting to show that he is fully modern and in no way a scholastic or schoolman, also denies every claim made for the syllogism – although he hastens to add that this does not in the least diminish the prestige of Aristotle.
Sarpi ends with some notes on language, saying that words were invented not to identify things, but rather the ideas of the speaker. Locke reproduces this argument in toto, stating that “…all words… signify nothing immediately but the ideas in the mind of the speaker.” [II.32] Sarpi regards words as sources of confusion and errors, as does Locke.
Most of Locke’s modern editors and biographers make no mention of Sarpi. But the catalogue of Locke’s library shows a lively interest in the Venetian. Locke owned Sarpi’s works in 6 volumes, Sarpi’s histories of the Council of Trent and of the Inquisition, Sarpi’s Italian letters, his history of Pope Paul IV, plus Micanzio’s first biography of Sarpi, for a total of 13 books
Sarpi uses 22 pages, while Locke requires just short of 1000. But there is no doubt that Sarpi, whatever his obscurity, is the founder of modern British empiricism and as such the chief philosophical charlatan of the British Empire and the English- speaking peoples, including many Americans today. In this way, Sarpi has become the most popular and influential thinker of the modern world. The dead hand of Paolo Sarpi is reaching out of his sarcophagus once again, threatening to throttle world civilization.

Monday 18 January 2016

INLA








Irish National Liberation Army (INLA)
synonyms: People's Liberation Army (PLA); People's Republican Army (PRA); Catholic Reaction Force (CRF)

A Republican paramilitary group which was established in 1975. This group initially used the name People's Liberation Army (PLA) before adopting the name Irish National Liberation Army (INLA). The INLA has also used a number of covernames including: People's Republican Army (PRA) and Catholic Reaction Force (CRF). At the time it was formed the INLA was considered to be the military wing of the Irish Republican Socialist Party (IRSP). The aim of the INLA, and the IRSP, is the re-unification of Ireland and the creation of a revolutionary socialist republic. Many of the initial recruits for the INLA were believed to have come from the Official Irish Republican Army (OIRA) which had called a ceasefire in 1972. Much of the support came from the Markets and Lower Falls areas of Belfast and from parts of County Derry.

The INLA achieved world attention when it claimed responsibility for the bomb which killed Airey Neave within the grounds of the Palace of Westminster. Members of the INLA have been involved in a number of feuds when splinter groups developed and numerous previous members have died at the hands of former associates. During the ceasefires that began in 1994 the INLA did not declare a ceasefire, instead it adopted a policy of 'no-first-strike'. On 27 December 1997 members of the INLA shot and killed Billy Wright, then leader of the Loyalist Volunteer Force (LVF), inside the Maze Prison. In the following weeks 10 Catholic civilians were shot dead by the LVF and the Ulster Freedom Fighters (UFF) in retaliation for Wright's killing.

The INLA has always been a much smaller, and less active, paramilitary group than the Irish Republican Army (IRA). The INLA has killed approximately 125 people during the conflict of whom 45 were members of the security forces. The INLA has had approximately 20 (??) members killed. The INLA called a ceasefire on 22 August 1998 but refused to engage in any of decommissioning under the auspices of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning (IICD). On 8 August 1999 The Sunday Times reported that the INLA had declared that the "war is over" but stated that it would not decommission its weapons. Despite these statements the INLA continued to be involved in violence.

On Sunday 11 October 2009 the Irish Republican Socialist Movement (IRSM) published a statment said to have been issued by the INLA. The statement said that its "armed stuggle is over" and the INLA would pursue its objectives by "exclusively peaceful political stuggle". There were also media reports that the INLA had begun talks on decommissioning of its weapons. This proved to be the case when the leadership of the INLA released a statement, on 8 February 2010, on the issue of weapons held by the INLA.

Membership: Membership was estimated at a couple of dozen active members with a network of supporters in Ireland and continental Europe.

Arsenal: Before decommissioning took place the INLA was believed to have small stocks of rifles, hand guns and, possibly, grenades; it was also believed to have a small stock of commercial explosive from a source in New Zealand in the mid-1990s.

Reading:
Holland, Jack., and McDonald, Henry. (1994). INLA Deadly Divisions.

Sunday 17 January 2016

Weisberg


Jane Fonda with Jet-Setting Celebrity Plagarist and Starfucker Mark Levin ("Lane") of US Army Intelligence, circa 1970

Mark Levin ("Lane") of US Army Intelligence, 194
Jim Garrison's Harshest Critics
Dave Reitzes



"As an investigator, Jim Garrison could not find
a pubic hair in a whorehouse at rush hour."

-- Harold Weisberg


Jim Garrison liked to promote the view that anyone who criticized him was simply opposed to the idea that a conspiracy took the life of President John F. Kennedy. But how then does one account for the fact that some of Garrison's toughest critics have always been conspiracy theorists?
Anthony Summers, author of Conspiracy, writes that the Garrison investigation "has long been recognized by virtually everyone -- including serious scholars who believe there was a conspiracy -- as a grotesque, misdirected shambles."(1)
"What angers investigators about . . . Jim Garrison," Summers writes, "is that his cockeyed caper in 1967 was more than an abuse of the justice system. It was an abuse of history, and -- more than any other single factor -- [responsible] in discrediting . . . genuine researchers for a full decade . . ."(2)
Attorney and Assassination Archives and Research Center (AARC) founder James Lesar adds, "Although a dedicated group of people kept researching the case, it wasn't until 1974 that several things took place that started to again ignite public interest."(3)
Discussing Garrison's cameo appearance in Oliver Stone's JFK (portraying Chief Justice Earl Warren), longtime researcher Paul Hoch writes, "Unintentionally, this is not just an ironic touch: the actions of both men did much to discourage or co-opt other investigations." Hoch quotes David Lifton, author of the conspiracy book Best Evidence (and who worked alongside Garrison for a time), as calling Garrison "intellectually dishonest, a reckless prosecutor, and a total charlatan."(4)
"Jim Garrison was one of the biggest frauds that ever came down the pike," Lifton said in an August 6, 1995, e-mail to Gary Aguilar. "He prosecuted innocent people, did an enormous disservice to the movement, and when the jury acquitted Shaw, it was 'good riddance.'"
Hoch and Lifton express the way most conspiracy theorists felt about Garrison prior to his Oliver Stone-fueled "comeback."
"You have every right to play Mack Sennett in a Keystone Kops Pink Panther," groundbreaking researcher Harold Weisberg (author of theWhitewash series of conspiracy books, among others) wrote to Oliver Stone while JFK was in production, "but as an investigator, Jim Garrison could not find a pubic hair in a whorehouse at rush hour."(5)
Of Stone's movie, Weisberg said, "To do a mishmash like this out of love for the victim and respect for history? I think people who sell sex have more principle."(6)
In a November 20, 1992, letter to author Harrison Livingstone, Weisberg said, "What [Garrison] did not crib and enlarge upon he just made up. [There was n]o substance to anything at all from him."(7)
Weisberg points out angrily that Garrison had a chance to obtain the release of the JFK autopsy photographs and X-rays, and had assistant DA Charles Ward call Weisberg and Bernard Fensterwald at the courthouse and order them to drop the entire lawsuit, just as Judge Charles W. Halleck, Jr., was about to hear Weisberg and Fensterwald's arguments for releasing the materials. Garrison later claimed that the potential release of the materials was part of a CIA plot.(8)
In a personal letter of March 16, 1998, Harold Weisberg wrote to me, "Garrison was a great tragedy, as Stone did not want to know."
In 1967, Sylvia Meagher, author of the influential conspiracy book Accessories after the Fact, wrote that "as the Garrison investigation continued to unfold, it gave cause for increasingly serious misgivings about the validity of his evidence, the credibility of his witnesses, and the scrupulousness of his methods. The fact that many critics of the Warren Report have remained passionate advocates of the Garrison investigation, even condoning tactics which they might not condone on the part of others, is a matter of regret and disappointment."(9)
"[Garrison suspect Clay] Shaw . . . was easily acquitted after a two-month proceeding in which all the shocking evidence against him promised by Garrison failed to materialize," writes Presumed Guilty author Howard Roffman. "Garrison was in consequence widely condemned by the media, and the New Orleans fiasco caused the virtual destruction of whatever foundation for credibility had previously been established by critics of the Warren Report. . . . [H]is unethical behavior and the mockery of justice . . . left the public and the media highly suspicious of Warren Report criticism."(10)
"Garrison was wrong about Clay Shaw and Edgar Eugene Bradley [another indicted suspect]," writes Peter Noyes, author of Legacy of Doubt."The case against them was a monumental fraud. Every time Garrison opened his mouth in the days after Ferrie's death, his appearance of credibility appeared to be giving way to one of lunacy."(11) "Perhaps the most perceptive observer of the circus in New Orleans was Hugh Aynesworth [who wrote] 'Jim Garrison is right. There has been a conspiracy in New Orleans -- but it is a plot of Garrison's own making. It is a scheme to concoct a fantastic 'solution' to the death of John F. Kennedy, and to make it stick; in this cause the district attorney and his staff have been parties to the death of one man and have humiliated, harassed and financially gutted several others.'"(12) "The trial was a sham; it was perhaps the most disgraceful legal event of the twentieth century."(13)
Noyes's statements are reprinted in Peter Dale Scott, Paul L. Hoch and Russell Stetler, eds., The Assassinations: Dallas and Beyond.(14) That book's editors call the Shaw prosecution "seemingly indefensible."(15)
Dr. Michael L. Kurtz, author of Crime of the Century, writes, "As a historian, I find the distortions of Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone appalling."(16)
David E. Scheim, author of Contract on America, writes that "as Garrison's case unfolded, his specific accusations became increasingly outlandish and the thrust of his efforts increasingly questionable."(17)
Writes Henry Hurt, author of Reasonable Doubt: "Jim Garrison's performance proved to be disappointing, particularly after months of highly publicized promises of what he would present at the trial. He produced no witnesses to suggest CIA involvement in an assassination conspiracy. He produced nothing, really, that went beyond what had been presented at the preliminary hearing two years earlier."(18) "To many observers, Jim Garrison seemed obsessed with the destruction of Clay Shaw."(19)
"The Garrison affair was sown with the seeds of its own destruction," author Harrison Livingstone (High Treason, High Treason 2, Killing the Truth) states, "by the premature charging of a suspect (Clay Shaw) with no case against him."(20) "The kindest way of discussing the sad history [of the probe] is that the glare of the public spotlight unbalanced Garrison and those who worked for him so that mistakes were made and their hand was forced."(21) "It was later well demonstrated that Shaw was on more than intimate terms with the CIA [a characterization many would contest -- DR], but so what? . . . This is very lame reliance on guilt by association."(22) "Like so much of what is said and done in the research community, the example of Garrison provides a few hard facts and a lot more loose talk, mistakes, excess, lies, and wrong statements. He is almost a model for slick and not so slick operators who get into the 'conspiracy business' looking for exposure, success, and a buck."(23)"Garrison did not have a case against anyone . . ."(24)
". . . Garrison takes liberties with the truth," Livingstone compatriot Martin Shackelford notes of Big Jim's 1988 memoirs.(25)
"[Jim Garrison] did not have a case against Clay Shaw," says Cover-Up author J. Gary Shaw.(26)
"The evidence of Shaw's participation in a conspiracy was flimsy," states House Select Committee on Assassinations Chief Counsel (and Fatal Hour author) G. Robert Blakey, "and from his indictment to eventual acquittal in 1969, the course of the investigation was downhill to disaster."(27) "The testimony of the 'star witness,' Perry Raymond Russo, had been blatantly concocted."(28)
F. Peter Model and Robert Groden's JFK: The Case for Conspiracy notes that Garrison's investigation "resembled a Barnum & Bailey circus featuring the Spanish Inquisition. Charging that the 'American Power Elite had a vested interest in creating historical mythology,' Garrison weaved his own. . . . Garrison promised he would show the world that [Clay Shaw] was at the core of a cabal involving Texas oil barons, Cuban sugar tycoons, the ex-Nazi rocket experts of NASA, and all others interested in the elevation of Lyndon Johnson. Mind-boggling as this skein was to begin with, it would grow even more absurd by the time Garrison managed to indict Clay Shaw. . . [T]he entire case would end up jerry-built on links, coils and conundrums. And as things got out of hand, and Garrison sensed it, he unhappily lapsed into demagoguery, citing chapter and verse from 'documents' he had not seen nor could he produce."(29)
Many among those who believe that Garrison may have been on the right track have had to question his methods. Gaeton Fonzi (The Last Investigation) believes firmly that some of Garrison's theories were correct, but calls the Shaw prosecution a "debacle," conceding, "As a result of his erratic conduct during that investigation, the hasty charges he filed against New Orleans businessman Clay Shaw, and Shaw's quick acquittal by a jury, Garrison was thoroughly discredited in the news media and by many assassination researchers."(30)
Even one of Garrison's most ardent advocates and a personal friend of the onetime DA had to take exception to the fictionalized Garrison case portrayed by Oliver Stone in JFK. Mark Lane, author of Rush to Judgment and Plausible Denial, writes:

[Oliver] Stone chose as his hero Jim Garrison. I was delighted when I first heard that news. However, unwilling to record history and true only to the Hollywood concept of a technicolor version of black and white in which no grays are countenanced, Stone, to prove how correct Garrison had been, was determined to demonstrate how guilty Clay Shaw had been.Garrison had prosecuted Shaw in New Orleans for conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy. After a lengthy trial Shaw had been acquitted in record time . . . Stone was confronted with a problem. If the evidence Garrison had gathered had not been sufficient to establish Shaw's guilt in the minds of an objective juror, how could he, Stone, prove Shaw's guilt to the satisfaction of his audience?
Here Stone becomes inventive. He was neither bound by the cumbersome rules of evidence nor the rules of criminal procedure. He could create celluloid evidence. Shaw had died; therefore, Stone was not bound by the laws of defamation which apply, in the United States, only to the living. Apparently, the less-codified rules of common decency were not an impediment either"(31)
[...]
Was [mysterious Garrison suspect "Clay Bertrand"] really Clay Shaw, Garrison wondered. Shaw consistently denied that he had ever used that pseudonym. I never saw credible evidence which convinced me that he had ever used the alias. Stone, untroubled by evidence, fact or logic, showed Shaw apparently offering to the first police officer who inquired that he had used the name "Bertrand." If Shaw had used the false name as part of his CIA cover so that the telephone call [to Dean Andrews] could not be traced back to him, why would he have betrayed himself at the first opportunity? Stone did not dwell on the subject. Through the magic of celluloid he abandoned the scene"(32)
[...]
Where Stone labors to demean Clay Shaw and to condemn him by introducing a bizarre gay orgy scene and by inventing a meeting with David Ferrie and the district attorney's staff, he is indulging his own fantasies and misleading the audience."(33)
By embracing Garrison -- even cautiously, such as with early Garrison suspects like Dave Ferrie -- conspiracy theorists have ensured their own marginalization. I speak as someone who myself was blind to how badly Garrison tainted our credibility [Note: obviously, this was written when I was still a conspiracy believer.--DR] until I looked carefully into Garrison's primary sources, and realized it wasn't just a matter of him having no case against Shaw -- it was a matter of him having nothing at all.
Dave



NOTES
1. Anthony Summers, Conspiracy (New York: Paragon House, 1989: 1992 update), "Update . . . November 1991": unnumbered front matter, first page.
2. Anthony Summers, Conspiracy (New York: Paragon House, 1989: 1992 update), "Update . . . November 1991": unnumbered front matter, fourth page.
3. Gerald Posner, Case Closed (New York, Random House, 1993) pp. 453-4.
4. Paul Hoch, Echoes of Conspiracy, Vol. 13, No. 1.
5. Robert Sam Anson, "The Shooting of JFK," Esquire, November 1991; reprinted in Oliver Stone and Zachary Sklar, JFK: The Book of the Film (New York: Applause, 1992), p. 221.
6. George Lardner, Jr., "On the Set: Dallas in Wonderland," Washington Post, May 19, 1991; Stone and Sklar, p. 192.
7. Harrison Livingstone, Killing the Truth (New York: Carroll & Graf, 1993), p. 377.
8. Harold Weisberg, Post Mortem (Frederick, Md.: Weisberg, 1976), pp. 135-6; Livingstone, Killing the Truth, p. 376.
9. Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After the Fact (New York: Vintage, 1992), pp. 456-7.
10. Howard Roffman, Presumed Guilty (Cranbury, New Jersey: A. S. Barnes & Co., 1976), pp. 28-9.
11. Peter Noyes, Legacy of Doubt (New York: Pinnacle, 1973), pp. 108-9.
12. Noyes, p. 111.
13. Noyes, p. 114.
14. Peter Dale Scott, Paul L. Hoch and Russell Stetler, eds., The Assassinations: Dallas and Beyond (New York: Vintage, 1976), pp. 296-300.
15. Scott, Hoch & Stetler, p. 9.
16. Michael L. Kurtz, Crime of the Century (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1993), p. xiii.
17. David E. Scheim, Contract on America: The Mafia Murder of President John F. Kennedy (New York: Shapolsky, 1988), p. 48.
18. Henry Hurt, Reasonable Doubt (New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1985), pp. 276-7.
19. Hurt, p. 278.
20. Harrison Livingstone, Killing the Truth (New York: Carroll & Graf, 1993), p. 535.
21. Harrison Livingstone, High Treason 2 (New York: Carroll & Graf, 1992), p. 509.
22. Harrison Livingstone, High Treason 2 (New York: Carroll & Graf, 1992), p. 509.
23. Harrison Livingstone, High Treason 2 (New York: Carroll & Graf, 1992), p. 511.
24. Harrison Livingstone, High Treason 2 (New York: Carroll & Graf, 1992), p. 512.
25. Martin Shackelford, Newsgroup post, June 5, 2000.
26. Bill Marvel, "Oliver's Twist," Dallas Morning News, December 27, 1991; Stone and Sklar, p. 327.
27. G. Robert Blakey and Richard N. Billings, Fatal Hour: The Assassination of President Kennedy by Organized Crime (New York: Berkley, 1992), p. 53.
28. Blakey & Billings, p. 193.
29. F. Peter Model and Robert J. Groden, JFK: The Case for Conspiracy (New York: Manor, 1976), p. 47.)
30. Gaeton Fonzi, "The Kennedy Assassination: Stepping on Stone: Who Can You Trust?" Gold Coast, April 1992; Stone and Sklar, 500.)
31. Mark Lane, "Fact or Fiction? The Moviegoer's Guide to the Film JFK," Rush to Judgment, (New York: Thunder's Mouth, 1992), p. xxxi.
32. Lane, p. xxxii.

33. Lane, p. xxxiii.

Cyprus




"The Embassy does not believe that the loss of Cyprus-owned physical infrastructure, nor the interruption of key resource exports from the island, would immediately affect the security, national economic security, and/or public health or safety of the United States. A Connecticut-sized Mediterranean island some 5000 miles from the East Coast of the United States, Cyprus simply is too small, too distant, and too lacking in natural resources to affect U.S. interests in that fashion.

Under the terms of the 1960 independence treaties, Great Britain was allowed to retain two "Sovereign Base Areas" (SBAs) and several isolated sites scattered throughout Cyprus, such as the RAF radar dome on Mt. Olympus, the island's highest point, and various antenna arrays in Ayios Nikolaos, near Famagusta. Via varied formal agreements and informal arrangements, the United States enjoys some access to and benefits from these UK facilities. Unlike the Cyprus-owned infrastructure noted above, the damage or complete loss of SBA-housed facilities would pose a threat to our national security interests in the eastern Mediterranean."

Confidential diplomatic cable sent by US Ambassador in Nicosia 
Ronald L. Schlicher to the State Department 
29 January 2008, 
published by WikiLeaks on 1 September 2011