Blog Archives

Constructing Lee Harvey Oswald

Editor’s Note: Mass media and leading officials in government play central roles in presenting and interpreting complex events to the public. Substantial evidence from the historical record now reveals how during times of crisis the institution of American journalism cannot be trusted, for it collectively acts to further the often anti-democratic interests of powerful governing institutions.

Thought studiously avoided by most professionally-trained historians, the JFK assassination remains among the most studied events in US history. This is primarily due to non-academic researchers and authors who have vigorously sought to revisit what actually transpired on November 22, 1963. As a result of such efforts well over half of the American population has rejected the Warren Commission and corporate media’s untenable conspiracy theory that Lee Harvey Oswald was Kennedy’s sole assassin.

Still, the narratives of most complex events established by the nation’s storytellers are typically those that most powerfully (mis)inform the public mind. Note, for example, how in NBC News’ anchorman Frank McGee below insists as the report breaks, “The assassin is believed to have fired from a building overlooking the parade route.” Likewise in the immediate chaos of such events certain facts and observations contradicting official storylines, later suppressed or dispatched to the memory hole by academics and investigatory commissions alike, momentarily rise to inform the historical record and thereby alternative interpretations. Today’s internet technology has allowed for the collaboration and rapid dissemination of what once would have taken years to accomplish.-JFT

(Originally posted at MemoryHoleBlog on March 10, 2014)

By James F. Tracy and NBC News

On November 22, 1963 President John F. Kennedy was killed in a crossfire of bullets while riding in a motorcade in Dallas, Texas. Over the course of the next 72 hours US government sources and major news media presented false and misleading information to cultivate in the public mind the notion that one Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole assassin.

Extensive research and documentation indicate that Oswald was only a “patsy” in the event, having been maneuvered, captured, and presented to the world as the lone culprit.

As New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison observes, the evidence available through the time of Oswald’s autopsy indicated that he “had killed no one, but it made no great difference. The world had been informed that he was the assassin, and that is, for governmental purposes, the same as being the assassin. In either case,” Garrision continues, “there is no difference in the funeral ceremony. Power structures have no compassion. Consequently, what a man has done or has not done is not of any great importance. It is what the government says he has done that is important.”[1]

In 1966 the National Broadcasting Company published Seventy Hours and Thirty Minutes: A Minute-By-Minute Log from the Assassination of President Kennedy Through His Funeral. In this compilation of broadcast transcripts, excerpts of which are reproduced below, one may observe how the Oswald personage–alienated youth, drifter, defector, “Marxist”–took shape over the course of three days to become the enigmatic fixture in the popular historical memory that is unquestioningly maintained by corporate media and proper academics alike.

Oswald is one of many figures to be tried in the court of public opinion long before the facts of their respective cases were gathered and judiciously assessed. Not unlike more recent villains–Timothy McVeigh, Osama Bin Laden, James Holmes, and Adam Lanza–Oswald was methodically designed over the course of several years and subsequently exhibited to secure expedient narrative closure to one of the nation’s greatest tragedies.

Read the rest of this entry

Advertisements

CIA and the Corporate Media: The Case of Kurt Eichenwald

Known For Partisan Attacks,
“Deeply wired into the intelligence community”

Yet another harbinger of corporate news media’s continued demise is evident when a familiar mainstream journalist with admitted ties to US intelligence agencies plays covert roles in the issues and events he claims to report objectively on. The case of Kurt Eichenwald suggests how the CIA’s famous Operation Mockingbird is alive and well in the twenty-first century.

On December 16, 2015 FAU administrators terminated this author on pretextual grounds. Less than 24 hours beforehand the same school officials received an inflammatory email from Newsweek‘s Kurt Eichenwald, among the internet’s most avid gun control advocates and anti-Trump crusaders who boasts of being “deeply wired into the intelligence community.”

In the query, one of thousands of emails produced by FAU during discovery, the fiercely partisan Eichenberg more than subtly pressures the FAU administration on Tracy’s public speech concerning the Sandy Hook massacre event, further suggesting that Tracy is mentally ill, guilty of criminal harassment, and may pose a legal liability to the university.

Newsweek Reporter Kurt Eichenwald. Image Credit: YouTube

Eichenwald’s email was received by the university’s chief public affairs officer and immediately forwarded to FAU President John Kelly, General Counsel David Kian, and Provost Gary Perry. Perry forwarded the email to Associate General Counsel Lawrence Glick and Vice Provost Diane Alperin. Less than 24 hours thereafter Alperin informed this author he would be fired.

Fwd: Interview request re: James Tracy
From: Peter Hull <hullp@fau.edu>
To: John Kelly <—–@fau.edu>, David Kian <—–@fau.edu>, Gary Perry <—–@fau.edu>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 06:25:17 -0500

And now this…

Peter Hull
Vice President for Public Affairs
Florida Atlantic University
Cell: 561———
Office: 561———

Begin forwarded message:
From: KURT EICHENWALD <——–@mac.com>
Date: December 14, 2015 at 10:52:19 PM EST
To: <—–@fau.edu>
Subject: Interview request re: James Tracy

Mr. Hull,

My name is Kurt Eichenwald and I am a senior writer with Newsweek and a contributing editor with Vanity Fair. I am currently working on an article about people in positions of authority who are advocates of bizarre conspiracy theories or advance ideas far outside the mainstream that do not appear to supported by rational evidence.

As you may know, Professor James Tracy of your school has been harassing parents whose children were slaughtered at Sandy Hook. He is suggesting that their children never existed, that they have been bribed and/or received compensation to pretend their children existed, and that – in at least once instance – a five year old killed Sandy Hook was in fact killed two years later in the Peshawar Army School shooting in Pakistan.

I have several questions that I would like to discuss with you:

1. Do any other members of the faculty or administration also advance these theories of Mr. Tracy?
2. Has any official research been conducted by anyone at the university through the use of university funds to determine that the Sandy Hook attack was fake?
3. Does President Kelly subscribe to the belief that the Sandy Hook attack did not occur?
4. As you may be aware, Mr. Tracy has been contacting parents of children killed at Sandy Hook, calling them “so-called parents” and generally harassing them. Are you aware if this has been done during school hours or while using school computers? Does this conform with policy of the school
4. Does Mr. Tracy have tenure?
5. Have there been any complaints from students, parents or other stakeholders in FAU regarding concerns about Mr. Tracy’s mental stability?
6. If neither the school nor President Kelly subscribes to the belief that Sandy Hook never occurred, is there concern on the part of the school that allowing a man who may be mentally unstable to work on campus could place students or faculty in danger?
7. Has administrators school held any discussions about the potential liability Mr. Tracy might pose if the Sandy Hook parents decide to sue the school for facilitating his harassment?

Finally, under the state open records act, I am requesting all emails sent or received by any member of the office of the president regarding Mr. Tracy since the date of the Sandy Hook attack.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Best,

Kurt Eichenwald


Kurt Eichenwald
Senior Writer
Newsweek
Contributing Editor
VANITY FAIR
914———

Read the rest of this entry

This Does Not Represent the Views of the University

“Florida Atlantic University Threatens to End Tenure”

Under TracyvFAU the Kafkaesque Policy Faculty Once Protested is Now Federal Law

[Editor’s Note: This Memory Hole Blog post of September 19, 2015 was published shortly before Florida Atlantic University fired Professor James Tracy because he did not obtain university approval for his constitutionally-protected speech. The post highlights the September 4, 2015 FAU Faculty Senate meeting where another raucous exchange ensued as several professors, including two constitutional law experts, lectured top administrators (three of whom were initially named as individual defendants in TracyvFAU) on their unlawful use of a confusing “Outside Activities Policy” that to this day almost no faculty understand. In TracyvFAU the court quite literally pulled out every stop to protect FAU by preventing the jury from seeing a transcript of the September 4 Faculty Senate meeting. 

The abusive actions included browbeating certain professors with “nasty letters” and threatening formal discipline for extracurricular speech of that university officials deemed undesirable. Less than two months later school officials used the same policy as a pretext to terminate Tracy’s tenured employment. The questionable post-tenure review policy was revised with faculty input; the ambiguous and controversial “Outside Activities Policy” is now federal law. (The piece also appeared at Global Research and the American Association of University Professors Academe Blog.)] 


James F. Tracy
September 19, 2015

“If you can take tenure away, and this document says that you can, essentially this faculty does not have tenure anymore. There is not another university that has anything close to [this].” – FAU professor, September 4, 2015

“I think there’s instances at this university where some faculty should no longer be working at this university [sic].” – FAU Provost Gary Perry, September 4, 2015

A policy promoted by Florida Atlantic University administrators is proving controversial among faculty at the South Florida college. The proposed set of rules, “Post-Tenure/Sustained-Performance Evaluation,” was recently authored by a subcommittee of senior professors, administrators and former administrators under the auspices of the University’s Faculty Senate.

Shortly thereafter, however, the document went through a process of heavy revision overseen by FAU Provost Gary Perry and college deans who want to grant themselves the ability to potentially terminate any tenured faculty member.

At first glance the policy appears to resemble similar post tenure review documents in effect at universities across Florida and the United States, proposing a peer review of tenured faculty members’ teaching, research, and service at periodic intervals after the professor has received tenure. Unlike others policies, however, at FAU the outcome of a “poor” post tenure evaluation can lead to termination of a tenured faculty member for “incompetence.”

What makes FAU’s proposed policy different is that even if a faculty peer review is positive, college deans and the provost are seeking the power to overturn the post tenure committee’s decision with impunity, thereby nullifying the peer review so central to the professoriate’s autonomy over its profession and setting in motion a process that can lead to stripping a faculty member of their tenure protections en route to termination.

The policy can potentially be used to target specific tenured faculty members the University’s Board of Trustees and/or administration cannot presently fire due to protection afforded by tenure.

Provost Perry is also attempting to insert a “dismissal clause” into the post-tenure review document, further streamlining an already draconian anti-tenure policy. At a recent meeting on September 4 Perry informed faculty that the policy would indeed be used to fire certain faculty he deemed undesirable.

Read the rest of this entry

“The US Government Killed MLK Jr.”

WIlliam F. Pepper Esq.

Image Credit: Wikipedia

Editor’s Note: The United States is especially fond of dedicating monuments, boulevards, even airports to the elected leaders and public officials its lettered agencies have murdered. Dr. Pepper’s research and legal efforts that resulted in the 1999 King v. Jowers verdict elaborated on in the video below left no doubt that the US government was directly involved in the April 4, 1968 assassination of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. As Coretta Scott King remarked, “The jury was clearly convinced by the extensive evidence that was presented during the trial that … the conspiracy of the Mafia, local, state and federal government agencies, were deeply involved in the assassination of my husband.”

The indisputable facts brought to light in the case were blacked out entirely by US corporate media. Nor are they a topic of discussion in American college classrooms (let alone grade school), furthering the country’s gross inability to reflect on and come to terms with its complex history. We further wonder when the likes of “Black Lives Matter” will be putting in a kick on how the public has been propagandized on how the most significant black figure of the past half century was killed. 

In this January 17, 2012 lecture attorney William Pepper details the responsibility of the US government for the assassination of Martin Luther King after more than 30 years’ investigation. As he explains here, he won a jury verdict against the US government for that assassination in a civil suit he brought for Coretta Scott King, widow of MLK Jr. Although there were two snipers and their spotters in place, employed by the US, a third shooter in bushes, a hired off-duty Memphis policeman fired the fatal shot. Introduced by Episcopal Priest Rev. Frank Morales. Camera: Joe Friendly.


William Francis Pepper is the author of Orders to Kill: The Truth Behind the Murder of Martin Luther King (1995), An Act of State: The Execution of Martin Luther King (2003), and The Plot to Kill King: The Truth Behind the Assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. (2017). Dr. Pepper is a barrister in the United Kingdom and admitted to the bar in numerous jurisdictions in the United States of America. His primary work is international commercial law. He has represented governments in the Middle East, Africa, South America, and Asia. Today, Pepper represents Sirhan Sirhan, the gunman convicted in the assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy in June 1968.

Bill Pepper was a friend of Martin Luther King in the last year of his life. Some years after King’s death, Bill Pepper went on to represent James Earl Ray in his guilty plea, and subsequent conviction. Pepper believes that Ray was framed by the federal government and that King was killed by a conspiracy that involved the FBI, the CIA, the military, the Memphis police and organized crime figures from New Orleans and Memphis. He later represented James Earl Ray in a televised mock trial in an attempt to get Ray the trial that he never had.

He then represented the King family in a wrongful death civil trial, King family vs. Loyd Jowers and “other unknown co-conspirators.” During a trial that lasted four weeks Bill produced over seventy witnesses. Jowers, testifying by deposition, stated that James Earl Ray was a scapegoat, and not involved in the assassination. Jowers testified that Memphis police officer Earl Clark fired the fatal shots. On December 8, 1999, the Memphis jury found Jowers responsible and found that the assassination plot included also “governmental agencies.” The jury took less than an hour to find in favor of the King family for the requested sum of $1.00

William Pepper is heavily involved in Human Rights Law, for a time convening the International Human Rights Seminar at Oxford University, during which time individuals such as Hugo Chavez, the President of Venezuela, accepted invitations to address the seminar. He lives in the US currently -not primarily- but travels frequently to England.

Major Media Blackout: The Startling Emergence of Epidemic Autism in the New China

Autism and Western Vaccines see Parallel Rise in China ​​​​​​​

F. William Engdahl
(August 30, 2014)

vaccinationThe escalating scandal around the alleged deliberate fraud by the US Government’s Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to drastically alter a major study of the possible link between MMP vaccines (Measles, Mumps, Pertussis) in children vaccinated under three years age, and incidence of autism is throwing light on one of the most criminal strategies of Western pharmaceutical vaccine makers. Now it comes to light that a major epidemic spread of cases of autism in China arose directly parallel to China’s opening up to the Western drug-makers and to WTO trade rules some twenty years ago.

In the mid-1980’s western drug makers introduced multiple combined vaccines and steadily lowered the recommended age at which children should receive the repeated vaccinations. They were backed by what are now provably corrupt official agencies in the US including the CDC. Organizations of US pediatricians, which received millions of dollars in favors from the same drug makers, joined the bandwagon for early and massive infant vaccination. Unknowing parents were in effect terrorized into allowing the vaccination surge in fear of being responsible for horrible disease or damage to their children were they to refuse.

China’s new ‘Opium War’: Vaccines

By the early 1990’s, as the Peoples’ Republic of China continued its unprecedented opening to all things Western, the Government allowed Western drug makers to enter China in a major way.
Read the rest of this entry

“Conspiracy Theorists” (Critical Thinkers) Don’t Deserve Free Speech

Federal Court in TracyvFAU Confirms: Government Employers May Lawfully Censor Workers’ Protected Speech, “Outside Activities”

Revisiting “Why James Tracy, FAU’s Conspiracy Theorist, Should Resign”

On October 31, 2017 The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ruled (rejoinder here) that Florida Atlantic University’s firing of a tenured professor was lawful, and moreover, that FAU could discipline or terminate any employee who fails to disclose their political speech, or any other “outside activity” administrators deem objectionable. The article below was posted at MemoryHoleBlog on May 15, 2013 as a response to an opinion piece penned by three FAU faculty administrators and published simultaneously by South Florida’s major newspapers, the Palm Beach Post and Sun-Sentinel. The FAU middle managers were apparently piqued by Tracy’s public commentary concerning the April 15 Boston Marathon “bombing” event. This marked one of several initial attempts to attack and suppress Tracy’s personal blogging.

Upon the article’s publication unknown parties with access to several dozen faculty mailboxes of Professor Tracy’s FAU colleagues distributed copies of the slanderous article. Tracy’s repeated pleas with FAU administrators to investigate the incident on the grounds of potential retaliatory harassment were left unacknowledged. Subsequent documentation obtained under Florida’s Sunshine Law suggests that FAU administrators were aware of and at least condoned the article’s broad dissemination.

The post observes how in the age of “homeland security” and the so-called “war on terror,” citizen whistleblowers alongside those who otherwise question complex events and their sometimes incredible narratives are forcefully deprived of the same free speech rights enjoyed by the general citizenry. From the country’s founding to today’s phony terror war, every era has its political scapegoats. As the court’s clear bias in the TracyvFAU case suggests, those inquiring on government misdeeds may be readily deprived of both their livelihoods and civil liberties, while today’s “Red Coats” are granted million dollar, taxpayer-funded legal representation and walk free.  

In a recent statement to local newspapers I have been publicly accused by colleagues of being a “conspiracy theorist.” The statement’s authors are asking that I resign my university post because my extracurricular commentary is deemed offensive and allegedly interferes with my ability to properly assess and articulate complex ideas in a scholarly manner.

In addition to blithely accepting official narratives they have not seriously interrogated, these would-be thoughtful and meticulous academics carelessly adopt and wield the “conspiracy theorist” pejorative without deeper consideration of its etymological meaning and cultural significance. In this way they awkwardly violate the exact professional code and etiquette to which they claim an academic should adhere while contradictorily upholding a popular perspective they might otherwise–following their own criteria–see fit to reject.[1]

Disparaging labels draw on and reflect the cultural and political beliefs of the given historical era. They may be used as disciplinary devices that at once legitimate certain worldviews and their attendant assumptions while designating others as dangerous and verboten. As the histories of many religions and political regimes suggest, concerted and vocal alarm directed toward unorthodox thought has typically been the focus of the state-sanctioned intellectual, reflecting the prevailing interests and beliefs of the given time.

Read the rest of this entry

Facebook Says It Is Deleting Accounts at the Direction of the U.S. and Israeli Governments

Editor’s Note: Alongside the feigned pandemonium over “fake news” by The Washington Post and its cadres, and overt censorship of citizen journalism by Google and YouTube, this is yet another example of a long-running war on free speech and political dissent, in this instance being brought to bear by an entire nation state and what is essentially the world’s single corporate social media behemoth.  

Glenn Greenwald
The Intercept

IN SEPTEMBER OF last year, we noted that Facebook representatives were meeting with the Israeli government to determine which Facebook accounts of Palestinians should be deleted on the ground that they constituted “incitement.” The meetings — called for and presided over by one of the most extremist and authoritarian Israeli officials, pro-settlement Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked — came after Israel threatened Facebook that its failure to voluntarily comply with Israeli deletion orders would result in the enactment of laws requiring Facebook to do so, upon pain of being severely fined or even blocked in the country.

(From PressTV, Nov. 26, 2014)

The predictable results of those meetings are now clear and well-documented. Ever since, Facebook has been on a censorship rampage against Palestinian activists who protest the decades-long, illegal Israeli occupation, all directed and determined by Israeli officials. Indeed, Israeli officials have been publicly boasting about how obedient Facebook is when it comes to Israeli censorship orders:

Shortly after news broke earlier this month of the agreement between the Israeli government and Facebook, Israeli Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked said Tel Aviv had submitted 158 requests to the social media giant over the previous four months asking it to remove content it deemed “incitement.” She said Facebook had granted 95 percent of the requests.

She’s right. The submission to Israeli dictates is hard to overstate: As the New York Times put it in December of last year, “Israeli security agencies monitor Facebook and send the company posts they consider incitement. Facebook has responded by removing most of them.”

What makes this censorship particularly consequential is that “96 percent of Palestinians said their primary use of Facebook was for following news.” That means that Israeli officials have virtually unfettered control over a key communications forum of Palestinians.

More…

Trump Executive Order: Eric Schmidt and Other DeepState Swamp Dwellers Running for Cover

Lionel Nation

What no one seemed to notice,” said a colleague of mine, a philologist, “was the ever widening gap, after 1933, between the government and the people. Just think how very wide this gap was to begin with, here in Germany. And it became always wider. You know, it doesn’t make people close to their government to be told that this is a people’s government, a true democracy, or to be enrolled in civilian defense, or even to vote. All this has little, really nothing, to do with knowing one is governing.

“What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could not understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.

“This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.

“You will understand me when I say that my Middle High German was my life. It was all I cared about. I was a scholar, a specialist. Then, suddenly, I was plunged into all the new activity, as the university was drawn into the new situation; meetings, conferences, interviews, ceremonies, and, above all, papers to be filled out, reports, bibliographies, lists, questionnaires. And on top of that were the demands in the community, the things in which one had to, was ‘expected to’ participate that had not been there or had not been important before. It was all rigmarole, of course, but it consumed all one’s energies, coming on top of the work one really wanted to do. You can see how easy it was, then, not to think about fundamental things. One had no time.”

Top Ten Conspiracy Theories That Turned FACT in 2017

By Matt Agorist
Activist Post

(December 22, 2017)

In 2013, Professor Lance Dehaven-Smith—in a peer-reviewed book published by the University of Texas Press—showed that the term “conspiracy theory” was developed by the CIA as a means of undercutting critics of the Warren Commission’s report that President Kennedy was killed by Oswald. The use of this term was heavily promoted in the media by the CIA. And—up until recently—it has served its purpose.

Now, however, in 2017, those who were once called “conspiracy theorists” are being vindicated as they watched instance after instance get exposed all year long. To be clear, we are not talking about outlandish, unprovable, and off the wall theories that completely lack evidence. We are talking about well-researched cases that were deliberately dismissed and ridiculed by the mainstream as a means of oppressing the information and protecting the establishment.

Ironically enough, 2017 is the year the conspiracy theorists were proven right as the mainstream media and government began pushing wild conspiracy theories without evidence to back them up.

To show just how vindicated the well-informed are, below is a list of the top 10 conspiracy theories that were proven as real in 2017.

Read the rest of this entry

%d bloggers like this: