The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
The June 5th Anniversaries: Six-Day War and Assassination of RFK
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

On June 5, 1967, Israel kicked off the Six Days War by wiping out the sitting duck Egyptian Air Force. Exactly one year later, Palestinian immigrant Sirhan Sirhan, angry at Senator Robert F. Kennedy’s promise to send 50 fighters to Israel, murdered RFK minutes after he had won the California Democratic Presidential primary.

As I wrote in Taki’s Magazine in 2012:

Beginning about 1968, conspiracy theories became highly fashionable—the more doubtful, the better. I suspect the key event in this trend was the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy the night he won California’s Democratic primary on June 5, 1968. As Oscar Wilde might have been inclined to say, to lose one Kennedy may be regarded as a tragedy, but to lose two looks like a conspiracy. Or that’s what many people concluded.

It’s largely forgotten today, but in the early 1970s, RFK’s murder was almost as popular an object of conspiracy theorizing about a second gunman as JFK’s was. This was even though Sirhan Sirhan, smoking gun in hand, was tackled by several B-list celebrities including Olympic decathlete Rafer Johnson, NFL star Rosey Grier, and bon vivant George Plimpton (who was possibly on the CIA payroll, but that’s a different story).

Part of the conceptual problem Americans had in dealing with RFK’s murder was that we didn’t have a convenient category yet into which to lump Sirhan, so he got dumped into the dubious-sounding Lone Wacko category. In hindsight, the Palestinian immigrant was obviously an Arab terrorist—he shot Kennedy on the first anniversary of Israel starting the Six Day War in vengeance for Kennedy pandering to Jewish voters by promising to send warplanes to Israel. But the notion of Arab terrorism didn’t emerge until later, and few Americans seemed to make the connection between Arab terrorism and Sirhan.

The Six Days War was another massively important event in American cultural-political history for reasons I outlined in Taki’s Magazine in 2013 looking back on the surprise success of the 1967 movie The Graduate, a film that in previews had failed to impress either Hollywood’s executives nor, on a campus publicity tour, the younger generation. But in the second half of 1967, it became hugely popular in a few theaters on the Upper West Side and went on to make a fortune across the country the following year.

It’s worth noting that The Graduate’s director Mike Nichols came from a center-right background. His parents were anti-Communist Jewish refugees from the Bolsheviks who had found refuge in Berlin, where they moved in the same liberal but anti-Communist circles as the Nabokov family.

The Six Day War was likely the origin of neoconservatism. For example, in Norman Podhoretz’s second volume of memoirs, covering the 1960s, there is no mention of Israel for the first few hundred pages, and then Israel becomes an obsessive topic for Podhoretz after the Six Days War. As George S. Patton said, Americans love a winner.

My guess is that before the Six-Day War, a lot of American Jews didn’t emotionally invest that heavily in Israel, figuring it could be wiped out. Once it had proven immensely victorious, they became huge fans.

Similarly, I started reading the sports pages in 1965 when I was six. The upcoming UCLA – USC football game matching eventual Heisman Trophy winners Gary Beban and Mike Garrett was a big deal at the time. I can recall listening in with perfect neutrality, not having made up my mind which of these two odd acronyms to root for. When I tuned in on the my transistor radio in the second half, USC was up 16-6. But Beban threw two long bombs for touchdowns and UCLA won. This was very exciting and I became a UCLA fan (which paid off in basketball but not in football).

The Six-Day War gave the more conservative American Jews something to be excited about. Richard Nixon and Daniel Patrick Moynihan came up with a plan to make clear to pro-Israel American Jews that Israel’s success would be linked to America’ success in the Cold War.

 
Hide 311 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. OT https://www.outkickthecoverage.com/lebron-james-alleges-racist-graffiti-still-zero-evidence/

    Good follow up questions in the search for the real spray painter

    • Replies: @Bugg
    Where is the video? We are to believe that a wealthy celebrity who has top notch paid security in a multi million dollar house does not have CCTV of the exterior of his home, nor do any of his wealthy neighbors. Would the police not want the public to see the criminal as soon as they had a video? Gets more likely every day this is a hoax, though whether James himself is involved remains to be seen. The police are at this point fearful to even ask, which is the course every one of these hoaxes take.
  2. Jake says:

    The novelist Charles Webb is indeed the perfect example of WASP culture going to its insane telos. For Webb, the story was about the anti-materialistic young WASP rejecting material acquisition. In effect, he grasped that WASP culture had long before then – back to its earliest days – cast aside God for materialism, and that the trade was slow spiritual suicide. For Webb, as for the vast majority of WASPs, a return to Christendom is simply unthinkable, because it is gauche. Even if it could be done, it would be an unsophisticated thing. Only white trash would try it.

    And so the WASP materialism is replaced with anti-materialistic rebellion against parents livened up with sexual revolution.

    What Jews, then the long term BFF partners of WASPs in keeping the white trash down, did is realize that the sexual revolution part is the one that can last and perhaps exterminate any possibly of even the smallest revival of Christendom. And that is why Mike Nichols turned The Graduate into a Jewish story. Jews know how to take an idea and make it an ideology that can go the distance, leaving no prisoners.

    By the way, Webb sold the copyright to the novel to the ADL for a song.

    That is a perfect summation of what has happened: WASP culture gives itself away to Jews, who use the proceeds to wage endless culture on non-WASP whites, which is exactly what WASP culture did for centuries.

    The Jews have been grafted into WASP culture and taken it over, but they are doing nothing really new.

    • Replies: @Kevin C.

    The Jews have been grafted into WASP culture and taken it over, but they are doing nothing really new.
     
    Indeed, it's what "WASP culture" has become that's the problem. An insane (non-theistic) religion, a post-Christian offshoot descendant of New England Puritanism that ditched God and Jesus (except in the "Buddy Christ" form of Moralistic Therapeutic Deism) as insufficiently egalitarian, "equality" having become the key measure of holiness. And with the same fanaticism as their puritan ancestors, seek to "convert the heather" with full fervor, with formerly-Christian virtues, unseated from their contexts and constraints and retranslated to a non-spiritual, utopian context (immanentizing the eschaton), now running amok (see C.S. Lewis on the tyrannies of "virtue" unrestrained).

    And because, as scholars like Winnifred Sullivan have pointed out, America's "religious freedom" was only workable by adopting a very narrow, Protestant definition of "religion", wherein essentially "religion ends at the church door", and "non-theistic religion" is denied as a concept (anthropologists and comparative religious scholars notwithstanding), thereby allowing the first religion to shed explicit theology, the "antigens" where by our First Amendment "immune system" against theocracy recognizes a religion at such, was able to seize the centers of power and become the unofficial Official Religion.

    At best, the Jews — the ones who pose problems, anyway — are conversos to this unofficial Official Religion — the descendant of the State Church of Massachusetts, with HYP as its seminaries, now ruling America and trying to make disciples of all nations — with all the fervor of the converted, and with the over-representation at the upper ranks that we see whenever Jews join any institution, but, as one writer frequently puts it, they are the cape, not the matador.
  3. The best conspiracy-theory way to tie up Oswald, Sirhan, Hinckley, Ruby, etc. would be a massive sleeper cell-hypnosis-brain-wahsing project that bore fruit to create untraceable lone wacko gunmen.

    Unfortunately for all fans of The Manchurian Candidate and MKULTRA, there remains no hard evidence that any brainwashing program could produce such results. Perhaps one day the curtain will be lifted on CIA programs that actually worked to created empty-headed, babbling killers doing what they were programmed to do. You know, how the history of computing had it’s history illuminated when the Brits declassified all the computer stuff they did in WW2 that was previously unknown.

    But until then, the evidence suggests very strongly that:

    -Oswald the communist, acting alone, shot Kennedy for being anti-communist (perhaps at the urging/teasing of Cuban intelligence, who refused to let Oswald defect because they recognized he was a nut).

    -Sirhan the Arab (and church-hopper) shot RFK for helping Israel.

    -Ruby shot Oswald because of the intense hatred/patriotism engendered by JFK’s death. Comparable to the hatred generated against Bin Laden in the few days after 9/11—-I can attest personally that, in New York, had Bin Laden been captured on 9/12 or 9/13, and had been held anywhere near NYC, thousands of New Yorkers would have rioted and lynched him, such was the mood.

    -Hinckley, obsessed with Jodie Foster, shot Reagan in a bizarre attempt to impress her.

    • Agree: syonredux
    • Disagree: Hippopotamusdrome
    • Replies: @BB753
    Ruby a patriot? Really? Sorry, I don't buy it.
    , @Sgt. Joe Friday
    I am reminded of a horrible joke that goes something like this:

    "Dear John,

    " I hope you are doing well. I want you to know that Nancy and I have forgiven you and have no hard feelings about what happened.

    Sincerely,
    Ronald Reagan

    P.s. Did you know Walter Mondale is f**king Jodie foster?"
    , @Buzz Mohawk
    You left out Chapman, the patriotic music fan.

    He killed John Lennon out of fervent love for his country. He knew that the outspoken star would interfere with the neocon war plans that were to be carried out by Bush -- once Hinckley got rid of Reagan.

    Wait a minute... never mind.
    , @LondonBob
    Oswald had a very high level of security clearance as he worked with the U2 spy planes the CIA ran out of Japan. He would have been recruited there, it is believed the ONI had a fake defectors program and that Oswald was selected for this, the Russians were not fooled and it was not a success. Still his background as a purported defector and time in the Marines made him an excellent candidate for sheep dipping.

    Based on all the available evidence there seems to be that by spring 1963, Oswald was an FBI informant who was infiltrating Cuban exile groups and right wing subversive groups as an agent of the Defence Intelligence Agency.

    JFK's commencement address at the American University clearly signaled his intention to wind down the cold war, he was well on the way to reelection on a detente platform.
    , @anonymous
    Where does Valerie Solanas fit into this kabal of vipers or are you conveniently ignoring her?
    , @Art Deco
    Newsweek was, 30 years after the fact, able to locate and interview people in Oswald's social circle. One after another said he was in a low-grade fury at Gov. Connolly. It was known and reported in the press in 1963 that he had written Gov. Connolly when the man was Secretary of the Navy attempting to have his dishonorable discharge from the Marine Corps expunged. Oswald's widow has said in other venues that her husband had no issues with Pres. Kennedy to which he gave voice.

    As for Jack Ruby, he was well known to be highly impetuous, willing and able to mix it up, and not immune to sentimentality. He'd left his dog in the car while doing his errands.
    , @Hrw-500
    Let's throw in the mix, the assasination of the Prime Minister of South Africa,Hendrik Verwoerd in 1966 with some eerie similarities with JFK. http://hendrikverwoerd.blogspot.ca/p/conspiracy.html (in case if this page dissapear, here a link to http://archive.is/7Jgy6 )

    As well as Martin Luther King, where the late Steve Cokely claimed then Jesse Jackson was involved in MLK assasination.
  4. I have read many books about the assassination of Robert Kennedy. About a year ago, I read a book that I happened to find at an estate sale. I think this was the best book I’ve read on the subject, but I can’t find any reviews of it on the Internet.

    The book is titled Why Robert Kennedy Was Killed: The Story of Two Victims, and it was written by Godfrey Jansen. The author was a former Indian diplomat who served in the Middle East for many years and eventually became a journalist based in Lebanon.

    After Sirhan Sirhan was identified as the assassin, Jansen immediately went to Palestine and interviewed many of Sirhan’s relatives there. Jansen then traveled to Los Angeles and interviewed Sirhan’s immediate family and many of his acquaintances there. His book is based on those many interviews.

    Essentially, Sirhan was a victim of the Israelis. The book tells in vivid detail how he and his family suffered. The book really changed my thinking about Sirhan and the assassination. Of course, his assassination of Robert Kennedy was not justified, but Sirhan’s motive was to wreak some vengeance for his family’s suffering.

    Since I no longer owned the book, I searched the Internet for some reviews of the book, and I was surprised to find practically nothing. It seems to me that the book has been suppressed. I was lucky to find it at that estate sale.

    (I did not highlight any words above. It they are still highlighted, then it was done automatically, and I could not fix it.)

    • Agree: European-American
    • Replies: @bored identity



    Essentially, Sirhan was a victim of the Israelis.
    The book tells in vivid detail how he and his family suffered.
    The book really changed my thinking about Sirhan and the assassination.
    Of course, his assassination of Robert Kennedy was not justified, but Sirhan’s motive was to wreak some vengeance for his family’s suffering.

     

    Gee, your piece was perfectly written... for a tiny violin and sirhanmonic orchestra.

    Now, bored identity will do some essential splainin' for you:


    Duran Duran with US Visa/Residence/Passport = Good.
    Sirhan Sirhan with US Visa/Residence/Passport = Not Good.


    M'kay?
    , @kaganovitch
    "Since I no longer owned the book, I searched the Internet for some reviews of the book, and I was surprised to find practically nothing. It seems to me that the book has been suppressed. I was lucky to find it at that estate sale."


    There are 8 copies on amazon. It's listed in just about every bibliography of RFK assassination books. It's listed first among secondary sources on the Maryland State Archives site for teaching History. How do you think it was suppressed? Do you think the Elders of Zion can prevent someone from reviewing it on the internet??
    , @Art Deco
    Essentially, Sirhan was a victim of the Israelis.

    No, Sirhan was a victim of his father. "The Israelis" are an attractive target for people who despise the Jews.
  5. Hey! What about Moshe Dayan personally giving the order to attack the USS Liberty?

    I never bought into the idea that Katherine Ross’ would fall for a short Jewish nebbish for no apparent reason at all and I found it particularly irksome that the director thought that traveling between Berkeley and Santa Barbara in the shortest amount of time would take one across the Golden Gate Bridge. That Duetto Spider was definitely a bitchin’ ride though.

    I was fighting in Vietnam at the time of RFK’s assassination. Anti-communist projects like regime change in Vietnam were always a Kennedy family specialty until Eugene McCarthy stunned LBJ in the New Hampshire primary and that opportunistic little weasel Bobby jumped into the race. When I heard he got shot I shed no tears.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    I never bought into the idea that Katherine Ross’ would fall for a short Jewish nebbish for no apparent reason at all and I found it particularly irksome that the director thought that traveling between Berkeley and Santa Barbara in the shortest amount of time would take one across the Golden Gate Bridge.
     
    I never bought the idea that any guy would prefer Katherine Ross to Anne Bancroft.
    , @hhsiii
    Ben Braddock clearly isn't meant to be Jewish.

    And I doubt you fought in Nam. But if you did, I really don't care. Thanks for your service.
    , @guest
    Ross leaves her fiancee, but we're not left with the idea that she's going to end up with Hoffman. Could be he just gave her an excuse to go runaway bride.

    As for the "short Jewish nebbish," I think Hoffman once said something like, "The guy's named Braddock, not Bratowski." He's not supposed to be Jewish, but he seems that way because he's alienated, doesn't fit in with all the WASPs, mopes around depressed-like, and it doesn't hurt that he becomes obsessed with abnormal sex. Also, because he's played by Dustin Hoffman and the movie was directed by Mike Nichols.
    , @Art Deco
    Hey! What about Moshe Dayan personally giving the order to attack the USS Liberty?

    What about it? It's a fiction.

  6. Mike Nichols came from a center-right background. His parents were anti-Communist Jewish refugees from the Bolsheviks

    So how did these Russian Jews end up with a Scottish surname? Are they not proud of their own family name? Certainly these Jews cannot complain about being held down in America, so perhaps they should change it back.

    In his Taki’s article Steve mentions the scenes of WASPs dressed in formal attire blocking Hoffman from the door and the crude symbology of the ending in which Hoffman defeats the WASPs by wielding a large cross, practically hitting the audience in the head with it.

    But the other scene which was striking watching the film was when Hoffman goes into the fraternity house locker room to ask the location of the wedding of his shiksa goddess and his WASP rival. You nearly expected the tall, blond actors playing the fraternity brothers to be getting dressed in their SS uniforms as the short Jewish Hoffman runs around the room trying to get information.

    The fraternity brothers make comments about Hoffman’s WASP rival being a make-out king always staying one step ahead of the shotgun, the point of which would seem to be either to contrast the virtuous Jew against the unvirtuous WASP or more likely to say, see, these supposed prim and uptight WASPs are hypocrites who are just as personally sleazy as us Eastern European Jews.

    As to Sirhan Sirhan, Wikipedia brooks no delay in listing his Orthodox Christian background in only the third sentence of its entry. That this fact may surprise some today is because the old pan-Arab nationalist movement has been completely overtaken and absorbed by Islamism.

    • Replies: @European-American
    > Wikipedia brooks no delay in listing his Orthodox Christian background

    Except most sources I see list him as a Maronite Christian (Catholic). Someone should correct Wikipedia on this.

    Something called murderpedia correctly lists his faith, but writes "unknown, hypno-programmed?" for his motive...
    http://murderpedia.org/male.S/s/sirhan-sirhan.htm

    Some commenters here would say I'm being paranoid, but I think it's typical of the comparative neglect of the topic of Sirhan that Wikipedia has such a mistake. Who cares about that crazy Arab guy except conspiracy nuts? A very sad, tragic thing happened. That is all. Shit happens. There are crazies everywhere, don't give them the attention they crave. But evil will not triumph. Think good thoughts!

    , @hhsiii
    Hoffman's character isn't Jewish. I know it's hard. Nichols and Hoffman are. The character is a nebbish. But he ain't.
    , @guest
    "So how did these Russian Jews end up with a Scottish surname"

    According to Wikipedia, Nichols was born in Germany as a Peschkowsky. The family moved to New York to get away from the Nazis, and the father changed his name to Nichols based on his patronymic, Nikolaevich. Presumably to fit in.

  7. Question: Has the CIA ever had anyone on it’s payroll the rest of us would consider an actual patriotic American? Instead of some leftist.

    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
    E. Howard Hunt? The guys who hunted down Che. I don't know what your definition of a patriotic American is. For quite a few people here American patriotism somehow requires fealty to vlad the shirtless.
  8. Personally, I think it was the CIA since they were afraid he would be elected and uncover the facts of his brother’s assassination.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/nov/20/usa.features11

  9. Don’t forget the fiftieth anniversary this June of Israel’s brutal and unprovoked attack on the USS Liberty and the subsequent coverup which was orchestrated by Zionist traitors in this country. A conspiracy which has been revealed as such but goes on to this day: https://www.unz.com/article/infamy-at-sea/

  10. I think your articles might get more clicks from Twitter when you include photos. There are some iconic ones of JFK and of course from the Six-Day War.

  11. “But the notion of Arab terrorism didn’t emerge until later, and few Americans seemed to make the connection between Arab terrorism and Sirhan.”

    Few Americans make the connection even now. After all, if we’re a ‘nation of immigrants’ and anyone should be allowed in, then its wrong to notice that terrorism originating from a particular region of the world might have a name. Much like Manchester attacks last month and London bridge this month: Nothing to see here, and please stop noticing that there is.

  12. Sirhan Sirhan, as an Arab Orthodox Christian and not a jihadist, was a true outlier.

    • Replies: @Ghost of Bull Moose
    George Habash was Christian. And a communist. Palestinian terror organizations like the PFLP and even Fatah were much more Diverse than they are now.

    Palestinian 'nationalism' doesn't really mean anything anymore since Hamas and the Jihadis took over. The Palestinian cause is simply the return of lands conquered by Muslims.

    They have the same feelings about Al- Andalus. Any land conquered by Muslims is for all eternity, and the rest just hasn't been conquered yet.

    , @kaganovitch
    Back in the day it was not so unusual. Both George Habbash and Wadi Haddad (founders of PFLP and pioneers of aircraft hijacking) were from Orthodox Christian homes. The regnant attitude then was more Marxist/Pan-Arab and such. Jihadism as we know it today is a later development among the terrorist crowd, albeit based on Qutb , al-Banna, Maududi etc.
    , @bored identity
    Hmmm...


    Sirhan me once, shame on you; Sirhan me twice...
  13. By the way, the ’68 CA primary was technically fifty years ago today, on June 4th. RFK was killed sometime after midnight on June 4th.

    Still remains unclear as to why CA holds its primary so late in the campaign season.

    • Replies: @FPD72
    June 4, 1968 was also the date of Don Drysdale's fifth consecutive complete game shutout, this one against the Pirates. Because I had stayed after the game to meet the Pittsburgh pitching coach, Elroy Face, I was late getting home from the game. My mom was still up, watching the election returns, and told me that Kennedy had just been shot.

    Although Sirhan Sirhan had been born into a Christian family, it's my understanding that he had been a member of the Rosicrucians since 1966. Back then Rosicrucians used to advertise in the back of comic books and science fiction magazines.
  14. …in vengeance for Kennedy pandering to Jewish voters …

    American politicians don’t pander to Jewish votes, but to Jewish money. 2% of the population, but (for the Democrats) 60% of the money from Jewish donors.

  15. The book “Mary’s Mosaic” has an interesting twist on the Kennedy assassinations.

    http://www.marysmosaic.net/

  16. @Mark Caplan
    Sirhan Sirhan, as an Arab Orthodox Christian and not a jihadist, was a true outlier.

    George Habash was Christian. And a communist. Palestinian terror organizations like the PFLP and even Fatah were much more Diverse than they are now.

    Palestinian ‘nationalism’ doesn’t really mean anything anymore since Hamas and the Jihadis took over. The Palestinian cause is simply the return of lands conquered by Muslims.

    They have the same feelings about Al- Andalus. Any land conquered by Muslims is for all eternity, and the rest just hasn’t been conquered yet.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "Any land conquered by Muslims is for all eternity, and the rest just hasn’t been conquered yet."

    That's orthodox Islam, the religion of peace.
    , @Opinionator
    They have the same feelings about Al- Andalus. Any land conquered by Muslims is for all eternity, and the rest just hasn’t been conquered yet.


    Citation needed.
  17. Hmmm…

    Sirhan me once, shame on you; Sirhan me twice…

  18. @Ghost of Bull Moose
    George Habash was Christian. And a communist. Palestinian terror organizations like the PFLP and even Fatah were much more Diverse than they are now.

    Palestinian 'nationalism' doesn't really mean anything anymore since Hamas and the Jihadis took over. The Palestinian cause is simply the return of lands conquered by Muslims.

    They have the same feelings about Al- Andalus. Any land conquered by Muslims is for all eternity, and the rest just hasn't been conquered yet.

    “Any land conquered by Muslims is for all eternity, and the rest just hasn’t been conquered yet.”

    That’s orthodox Islam, the religion of peace.

  19. Sirhan, now 73, is at the R.J. Donovan prison in San Diego.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    I checked into this post because I never noticed any prisons in San Diego during my many years living there, and they are usually hard to miss (prisons, not my years in San Diego; I miss those dearly every day...).

    It turns out I remembered its absence correctly: the prison is indeed outside America's Finest City (though very near, and within its namesake's county).

    The more fun fact I learned is that some dude calling himself "Big Lurch," a sometime rapper who murdered and ate his roommate, is quartered in the same prison – cannibalism is way more fun than politically motivated assassinationa and conspiracies.

  20. Sirhan Sirhan was not widely identified as a Palestinian becuase that identity was just on the verge of being invented and popularized in 1969.

    • Replies: @James Richard
    Bullshit. That area of the Levant between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River from Phoenicia to Egypt has been referred to as Palestine since ancient times.
    , @Paul Walker - Most beautiful man ever...
    "Sirhan Sirhan was not widely identified as a Palestinian becuase that identity was just on the verge of being invented and popularized in 1969."
    Your lie makes baby Jesus cry.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument)
  21. @Mark Caplan
    Sirhan Sirhan, as an Arab Orthodox Christian and not a jihadist, was a true outlier.

    Back in the day it was not so unusual. Both George Habbash and Wadi Haddad (founders of PFLP and pioneers of aircraft hijacking) were from Orthodox Christian homes. The regnant attitude then was more Marxist/Pan-Arab and such. Jihadism as we know it today is a later development among the terrorist crowd, albeit based on Qutb , al-Banna, Maududi etc.

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    I see g.o.b.m. beat me to it. Drat! Foiled again.
  22. Part of the conceptual problem Americans had in dealing with RFK’s murder was that we didn’t have a convenient category yet into which to lump Sirhan, so he got dumped into the dubious-sounding Lone Wacko category. In hindsight, the Palestinian immigrant was obviously an Arab terrorist—he shot Kennedy on the first anniversary of Israel starting the Six Day War in vengeance for Kennedy pandering to Jewish voters by promising to send warplanes to Israel. But the notion of Arab terrorism didn’t emerge until later, and few Americans seemed to make the connection between Arab terrorism and Sirhan.

    JFK and RFK :

    JFK: Assassinated by an admitted communist.

    Media Mythology: JFK’s assassination had nothing to do with communism. He was actually killed by a cabal of anti-Black Right-Wingers who thought that he was going to pull out of Vietnam.

    RFK: Assassinated by an Arab because he supported Israel.

    Media Mythology: Same as above.

    If anyone still needs proof that the Left controls discourse in the USA….

    • Replies: @Laugh Track

    JFK and RFK :

    JFK: Assassinated by an admitted communist.

    Media Mythology: JFK’s assassination had nothing to do with communism. He was actually killed by a cabal of anti-Black Right-Wingers who thought that he was going to pull out of Vietnam.

    RFK: Assassinated by an Arab because he supported Israel.

    Media Mythology: Same as above.

    If anyone still needs proof that the Left controls discourse in the USA….
     
    It seems to me -- YMMV -- that your supposedly obvious facts are the "Media Mythology". The respectable MSM never bought into the conspiracy researcher community's various and conflicting explanations and, instead, usually just disseminated the pat explanations favored by the Warren Commission and other govt. authorities and sources.

    A cursory reading of even just a few of the best "conspiracy" research books makes clear that the facts surrounding Oswald and Sirhan were complicated and capable of all sorts of conflicting interpretations. But, of course, that is just my own personal opinion.
  23. @kaganovitch
    Back in the day it was not so unusual. Both George Habbash and Wadi Haddad (founders of PFLP and pioneers of aircraft hijacking) were from Orthodox Christian homes. The regnant attitude then was more Marxist/Pan-Arab and such. Jihadism as we know it today is a later development among the terrorist crowd, albeit based on Qutb , al-Banna, Maududi etc.

    I see g.o.b.m. beat me to it. Drat! Foiled again.

  24. On April 30th, 1982 my wife and I traveled by bus from Tel Aviv to Cairo, a trip that took 10 hours across the Sinai Desert. The desert was still littered with debris from the Six Day War. A burned out tank here, a crushed jet fuselage there. It was 15 years since the war and this was the inaugural run of the Egged/Delta Bus Line. We rode in a brand new Renault bus. I still have my bus ticket in a scrap book. If I had known that this was the first day, first bus, I would have stayed another day in Cairo. RFK’s assassination happened the day of our formal Junior Class Dance in college. I was driving my father-in-law’s Lincoln Town Car with the suicide doors in the back and we were headed out for drinks with two other couples in the car. I think we were all stunned and numb. Just some random memories that haven’t faded in 50 years.

    • Replies: @Busby
    There was a dust up over the same territory in 1973.
  25. @Ghost of Bull Moose
    George Habash was Christian. And a communist. Palestinian terror organizations like the PFLP and even Fatah were much more Diverse than they are now.

    Palestinian 'nationalism' doesn't really mean anything anymore since Hamas and the Jihadis took over. The Palestinian cause is simply the return of lands conquered by Muslims.

    They have the same feelings about Al- Andalus. Any land conquered by Muslims is for all eternity, and the rest just hasn't been conquered yet.

    They have the same feelings about Al- Andalus. Any land conquered by Muslims is for all eternity, and the rest just hasn’t been conquered yet.

    Citation needed.

    • Replies: @anon
    Do your own research. Act like a man for once in your life.
    , @anonymous

    Citation needed.
     
    You need to up your deflecting game.
  26. bored identity has a hard time to grasp that any respectable Main Smear Media outlet would ever get engaged in Fake News Staging.

    Is bored identity supposed to believe his lying eyes that a half dozen of Muslim Mom Ninjas were deliberately corralled from some Londonistan’s madrassa, and then supplied with a numerous “Keeping Aleikum With Dhimmi Joneses” placards – so CNN can feed normies with a staged footage of Peace Luvin, Frontlashing Muzzies doing Taqiya at its best?

    Via Cernovich:

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    bored, Wow that is some incriminating footage, but it will never see the light of day on the MSM.
  27. June 8, 1967 – USS Liberty attacked by Israeli Air Force utilizing napalm, rockets and 30mm cannons, followed by Israeli Motor Torpedo Boat attack with cannons, machine guns and torpedo.

    34 KIA, 171 wounded, ship written off.

    http://www.gtr5.com/

    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
    Relevant:

    https://twitter.com/thehill/status/870801482215501825

    https://twitter.com/RichardBSpencer/status/870819111366004737
    , @bored identity
    You're Georgian Soviet, and , therefore, you're having it all wrong:

    First, friends don't let friends eavesdropping their private war conversations.
    Second, friendly fire is just like a tough love.

    That's how you learn who's your daddy.
  28. And then there was Ted. He managed, I suspect, to do more damage to his country than either JFK or RFK.

    What a shower they were.

    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
    I'm half Irish Catholic and proud of my roots. My Irish ancestors first showed up in Massachusetts sometime before 1800. From the beginning they made contributions to their new homeland. One of my ancestors was a Civil War hero. I can remember learning to hate the Kennedys from my grandmother back in the 1950s. Even as a child I'd learned about their slimey backgrounds in corrupt machine politics, stock fraud, and organized crime. I loathe the whole crew. They've done irreparable damage to this country and continue to do so.
  29. “But the notion of Arab terrorism didn’t emerge until later, and few Americans seemed to make the connection between Arab terrorism and Sirhan.”

    I know I didn’t, except in the most vague sense that Sirhan was a foreigner of some sort with a pet wrong he was eager to avenge until your Taki column that made the link explicit. This gets left out of The Narrative in the same way that the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was a devout Marxist (or, as “devout” as his shabby intellect had the ability to muster), ex-defector to the Soviet Union, and, at the time of Kennedy’s assassination, proud “Secretary” and sole member of the New Orleans chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.

    Instead, we hear non-stop any time the subject comes up about Dallas being the epicenter of an “atmosphere of Right-wing hate” – Magic Right-wing Hate Air made Lee Oswald the convinced communist shoot a liberal Democratic President! Potent stuff, that Hate Air.

    In any event, it is indeed worthy of note how the decade between the actual – as opposed to the numerical – start and end of what we collectively think of as “the 1960s,” those years that commenced around 1 pm Central Standard Time on November 22, 1963 and ended at noon on August 9, 1974, radicalized practically everybody.

    Much attention is paid to the Leftist agitation that provoked these crises of American confidence and stability during the Sixties, with the liberal media egging them on while many Blacks took their cues from pampered white college liberals and celebrities and began burning down cities in the background as their own less nuanced versions of “heightening the contradictions” and “making the political personal” made inner cities everywhere no-go war zones even as the welfare checks and other freebies ramped up to a level never seen before in an organized human effort to pay people to nothing other than breathe and breed at their leisure.

    And such attention should be paid, given the cultural, societal, and actual, in many cases, physical destruction the American Left’s ideological insanities cost us during those boiling, roiling times. But I find it more interesting in many cases what the reaction was among what Richard Nixon, via Pat Buchanan’s pen, called “the Silent Majority”: they radicalized, too, in response. Just in a different, healthier, more sane, and better direction.

    One anecdote: I have asked my parents a lot about those years (I was born in 1969), and in 1964 my Mom, the daughter of a Payne County (Oklahoma) Democratic Party volunteer vice-chairwoman, voted for Lyndon Baines Johnson for president; her husband, my Dad, a junior NCO in the United States Air Force, voted for Barry Goldwater, to his wife’s dismay.

    By 1968 – after four years of chaos on college campuses and cities going up in flames and just the general disdain toward regular Americans like my parents that liberal elites suddenly felt free by circumstances to exude and spew – my mother had moved to the Right of my father: she attended a George Wallace rally in Oklahoma City while she was pregnant with me, and enthusiastically voted for him in November, 1968; my Dad stuck with Nixon. Why did she vote for Wallace over Nixon in ’68, I once asked her? “He was too liberal,” she said, “by then, I was done with liberals.”

    Of course, people like my Mom – the children of bred-in-the-bone Depression Era FDR & Harry Truman Democrats – gave Wallace his impressive 13.5% of the vote in ’68, Nixon his landslide in ’72 and Reagan his own versions of same in 1980 and ’84, and for good reasons: the Democrats didn’t just leave those people, but snarled at them as moral inferiors as they ushered them out the door.

    But I’ve always thought a good, conscientious historian or chronicler of our modern and recent times could do justice with a book examining what got someone like my Mom from “All the Way with LBJ!” in 1964 to Richard Nixon, of all people, being “too liberal” for her by 1968.*

    That is a very short turnaround time and radicalization of political views for what were fundamentally basic, solid, decent, hard-working people, in a compressed frame of time: “by then, I was done with liberals.”

    Our times continue to show why any intellectually honest person should be done with them, but slightly more than half of the country, from varied motives and reasons, are not.

    *Hint: Steve Sailer should write it. Your mastery of the data and instinctual understanding of the trends in modern American history since about forever would be a masterpiece of writing, scholarship, and an invaluable academic gem centuries hence, for scholars as-yet unborn for generation’s-to-come attempting to decode American history as it both has and continues to unfold during our times.

    • Replies: @yaqub the mad scientist
    I've talked to a number of working class union men whose transformation happened at the same time.
    , @whorefinder
    The shocking thing about historylessons/1984 is how little I heard about Wallace's formidable insurgency in my schooling.

    Instead, it was all how Nixon was evil and capitalized on Vietnam to steal the presidency from the Good Democrats and how RFK was killed before he could lead us to Camelot II.

    Nothing about black riots, unless it was termed "unrest" and the picture showed a white college student doing the unrest. If anything was mentioned about Wallace's run, it was as if he were the "last remnant" of a "dying class of racists" who held no power. NOTHING about the attempted assassination on him, or his paralysis as a result; I actually heard about pornographer Jerry Flynt's paralysis/assassination attempt in school, but not Wallace's. Because bigots hate free speech, you know.

    The re-write of 20th Century history with truth and facts is something the Alt-Right must do if it wants to change the minds and hearts of centrist Americans. The story of the 1960s and Nixon's rise and fall are prime things that must be re-explained since the Left has lied about it so long, and the 1960s are a very deep part of the Left's religious dogma.

    , @Jim Christian

    *Hint: Steve Sailer should write it.
     
    No offense to Steve, but liberal as the prick was, Teddy White wrote the series Making of the President 1956-1980 and it was a pretty accurate portrayal of the beginnings of rot on our campuses the war and the public discourse in general. Read that series from 1956 on up to 1972 or 1976 and you'll have a pretty accurate background on that particularly destructive period.

    Robert Caro's series of The Years of Lyndon Johnson gives an extremely opposite view of things 1950 or so, when Johnson turned up in Congress on up to the period 1964-1968. The chronicle of events between White's and Caro's accounts are in parallel. But the contrast in views on the personalities involved are in striking difference. I don't know how folks comment and write serious history on the period without reading and crediting both authors. These, to me, are the preeminent sources of the historical record. Good reads,all, Jason.

    I still have my Mom's collection of Teddy White's "Making of the President" in hardback, all of them. Also have Death of a President from William Manchester, which while a major record at the time has been shown to be a puff-piece, all authorized by the Kennedy Family, a grandiose depiction of the tragedy, every aspect pro-Kennedy. Still worth reading, however.

  30. @Jake
    The novelist Charles Webb is indeed the perfect example of WASP culture going to its insane telos. For Webb, the story was about the anti-materialistic young WASP rejecting material acquisition. In effect, he grasped that WASP culture had long before then - back to its earliest days - cast aside God for materialism, and that the trade was slow spiritual suicide. For Webb, as for the vast majority of WASPs, a return to Christendom is simply unthinkable, because it is gauche. Even if it could be done, it would be an unsophisticated thing. Only white trash would try it.

    And so the WASP materialism is replaced with anti-materialistic rebellion against parents livened up with sexual revolution.

    What Jews, then the long term BFF partners of WASPs in keeping the white trash down, did is realize that the sexual revolution part is the one that can last and perhaps exterminate any possibly of even the smallest revival of Christendom. And that is why Mike Nichols turned The Graduate into a Jewish story. Jews know how to take an idea and make it an ideology that can go the distance, leaving no prisoners.

    By the way, Webb sold the copyright to the novel to the ADL for a song.

    That is a perfect summation of what has happened: WASP culture gives itself away to Jews, who use the proceeds to wage endless culture on non-WASP whites, which is exactly what WASP culture did for centuries.

    The Jews have been grafted into WASP culture and taken it over, but they are doing nothing really new.

    The Jews have been grafted into WASP culture and taken it over, but they are doing nothing really new.

    Indeed, it’s what “WASP culture” has become that’s the problem. An insane (non-theistic) religion, a post-Christian offshoot descendant of New England Puritanism that ditched God and Jesus (except in the “Buddy Christ” form of Moralistic Therapeutic Deism) as insufficiently egalitarian, “equality” having become the key measure of holiness. And with the same fanaticism as their puritan ancestors, seek to “convert the heather” with full fervor, with formerly-Christian virtues, unseated from their contexts and constraints and retranslated to a non-spiritual, utopian context (immanentizing the eschaton), now running amok (see C.S. Lewis on the tyrannies of “virtue” unrestrained).

    And because, as scholars like Winnifred Sullivan have pointed out, America’s “religious freedom” was only workable by adopting a very narrow, Protestant definition of “religion”, wherein essentially “religion ends at the church door”, and “non-theistic religion” is denied as a concept (anthropologists and comparative religious scholars notwithstanding), thereby allowing the first religion to shed explicit theology, the “antigens” where by our First Amendment “immune system” against theocracy recognizes a religion at such, was able to seize the centers of power and become the unofficial Official Religion.

    At best, the Jews — the ones who pose problems, anyway — are conversos to this unofficial Official Religion — the descendant of the State Church of Massachusetts, with HYP as its seminaries, now ruling America and trying to make disciples of all nations — with all the fervor of the converted, and with the over-representation at the upper ranks that we see whenever Jews join any institution, but, as one writer frequently puts it, they are the cape, not the matador.

    • Replies: @Jack D

    they are the cape, not the matador
     
    Very well put. This puts anti-Semites in the position of the enraged bull, who is constantly charging for the cape while the matador deftly steps aside and stabs him in the back.
  31. @Mark Caplan
    Sirhan Sirhan, as an Arab Orthodox Christian and not a jihadist, was a true outlier.

    Hmmm…

    Sirhan me once, shame on you; Sirhan me twice…

  32. Just in case any of the Zuckerbergs are reading this article I think a link to an amazingly similar situation in ancient Rome. No Roman equivalent to Ted though.

    The Gracchus brothers, Tiberius and Gaius, were Romans who both served as tribunes in the late 2nd century BC. They attempted to pass land reform legislation that would redistribute the major aristocratic landholdings among the urban poor and veterans, in addition to other reform measures. After achieving some early success, both were assassinated by enemies of these reforms.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gracchi

    • Replies: @Jim Christian
    Teddy White made the Gracci/Kennedy-Camelot comparison in The Making of the President:1968. John was isolated in his death until the death of his brother Robert in 1968. Upon Robert's death the Kennedys REALLY became the Kennedys. They were now the Gracci.

    I suspect the real Gracci were a more noble lot. But at that paygrade, there is corruption in every heart I suppose.
  33. @prosa123
    Sirhan, now 73, is at the R.J. Donovan prison in San Diego.

    I checked into this post because I never noticed any prisons in San Diego during my many years living there, and they are usually hard to miss (prisons, not my years in San Diego; I miss those dearly every day…).

    It turns out I remembered its absence correctly: the prison is indeed outside America’s Finest City (though very near, and within its namesake’s county).

    The more fun fact I learned is that some dude calling himself “Big Lurch,” a sometime rapper who murdered and ate his roommate, is quartered in the same prison – cannibalism is way more fun than politically motivated assassinationa and conspiracies.

  34. Sirhan was a Christian refugee from Palestine who was exacting revenge on RFK for the New York Senator’s perfidiousness and his lethal hypocrisy. Sirhan’s revenge was one of the first instances of Arab blowback directed at a US politician.

    That ‘antiwar’ RFK was willing to unconditionally stand with Israel and support the Six Day Zionist land-grab made RFK a target. And appropriately so. RFK betrayed everyone who looked up to him as a beacon of fairness, justice and compassion. Idealistic Sirhan didn’t understand that carrying water for Israel was an integral part of Kennedy’s job.

    RFK was a member of Israel’s insider apparatus that subsidized and sanitized the Jewish state’s political machine inside Washington, New York and beyond. Robert Kennedy famously supported America’s retreat in Vietnam, but never dared to criticize our government’s unconditional support for Israel, even when the Zionist state demanded US-manufactured WMD, F-14s, cash or diplomatic protection. Sirhan was naive. Kennedy was ambitious.

    1967 was the year that Israel conquered not only Egypt, Jordan and Syria, but Washington. too.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Strong post.
    , @Jack D

    RFK a target. And appropriately so.
     
    So you are saying that it is appropriate to assassinate politicians that you disagree with?
  35. Remember the “Liberty” .

    • Agree: James Richard
  36. You really believe that Sirhan Sirhan crap?

    Every day you report on the utter bullshit of the media yet you seem to need to believe it’s a recent scourge.

    Grow up.

  37. Zionists have deemed it convenient to remove Sirhan Sirhan from our collective memory because the incident serves as a vivid example of the cost to the United States of its collusion with the Zionist entity.

  38. Has anyone mentioned the USS Liberty yet?

  39. @whorefinder
    The best conspiracy-theory way to tie up Oswald, Sirhan, Hinckley, Ruby, etc. would be a massive sleeper cell-hypnosis-brain-wahsing project that bore fruit to create untraceable lone wacko gunmen.

    Unfortunately for all fans of The Manchurian Candidate and MKULTRA, there remains no hard evidence that any brainwashing program could produce such results. Perhaps one day the curtain will be lifted on CIA programs that actually worked to created empty-headed, babbling killers doing what they were programmed to do. You know, how the history of computing had it's history illuminated when the Brits declassified all the computer stuff they did in WW2 that was previously unknown.

    But until then, the evidence suggests very strongly that:

    -Oswald the communist, acting alone, shot Kennedy for being anti-communist (perhaps at the urging/teasing of Cuban intelligence, who refused to let Oswald defect because they recognized he was a nut).

    -Sirhan the Arab (and church-hopper) shot RFK for helping Israel.

    -Ruby shot Oswald because of the intense hatred/patriotism engendered by JFK's death. Comparable to the hatred generated against Bin Laden in the few days after 9/11----I can attest personally that, in New York, had Bin Laden been captured on 9/12 or 9/13, and had been held anywhere near NYC, thousands of New Yorkers would have rioted and lynched him, such was the mood.

    -Hinckley, obsessed with Jodie Foster, shot Reagan in a bizarre attempt to impress her.

    Ruby a patriot? Really? Sorry, I don’t buy it.

    • Replies: @whorefinder
    Please. Recall the aftermath of 9/11. We had lots of social scum in Hollywood (including rappers) screaming in "solidarity" for our nation and praising President Bush.

    Or recall how the mob was more than happy to bash German skulls in WW2 when the state department used them as strike breakers and to break up pro-Nazi rallies in the U.S. It wasn't all just for Lucky Luciano's release; the mob could have shaken down the feds with union strikes and such.

    Even criminals have some honor to them as The Godfather over-dramatized, with war-hero Michael.

    Ruby was reacting, as most thugs do, to the situation around him. A president had been murdered by a communist in his city. He spouted off and killed him in anger, feeling patriotic and hot-headed. He was known for such reactions. Not hard to see.
    , @LondonBob
    Sure, Ruby bragged of gun running to Israel in the late 40s. In fact, the official published history of a major Zionist arms smuggling operation, the Sonneborn Institute, reports its agents smuggled aircraft parts out of Texas to Israel. This was happening when a then recently discharged Army Air Corps aircraft mechanic, Jack Ruby, was re-settling in Dallas in 1947, the year prior to Israel's birth, when Sonneborn's activities were at a zenith. Ruby was clearly deeply involved in organising the assassination and was deeply linked to the CIA, Israel and was of course a prominent member of organised crime.
  40. @Joe Stalin
    June 8, 1967 - USS Liberty attacked by Israeli Air Force utilizing napalm, rockets and 30mm cannons, followed by Israeli Motor Torpedo Boat attack with cannons, machine guns and torpedo.

    34 KIA, 171 wounded, ship written off.

    http://www.gtr5.com/

    Relevant:

    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
    LOL. It seems that Unz’s coding auto-strips html from links to Spencer’s tweets. Hence the cryptic fortune-cookie block quote. I guess Spencer’s White Nationalism is beyond the pale, at least from a forum-moderating perspective. Fair enough.

    On Sailer’s Twitter page, under the sidebar “You may also like * Refresh,” Twitter groups together Sailer, Spencer, hbd chick, KMac, Derb, Jared Taylor, Takimag, AmRen, Counter-Currents, Nathan Damigo, and Charles Murray amongst others. Obviously there are differences, but it seems like a sensible grouping to me. Who’s A-list, B-list, or doesn’t belong?
    , @Jack D
    I assume these are 2 different Richards.

    Mentioning the USS Liberty is useful because anyone who does outs himself as an anti-Semite. There is nothing to be gained by rehashing this incident otherwise. Casualties from "friendly fire" are unfortunately very common in the fog of war. Just the other day the London cops shot a bystander in the head in the course of killing the terrorists. They should not have needed 50 shots to kill 3 terrrorists but once the adrenaline starts pumping people don't think clearly. It's very easy to be an armchair general.
  41. @bored identity
    bored identity has a hard time to grasp that any respectable Main Smear Media outlet would ever get engaged in Fake News Staging.

    Is bored identity supposed to believe his lying eyes that a half dozen of Muslim Mom Ninjas were deliberately corralled from some Londonistan's madrassa, and then supplied with a numerous "Keeping Aleikum With Dhimmi Joneses" placards - so CNN can feed normies with a staged footage of Peace Luvin, Frontlashing Muzzies doing Taqiya at its best?


    Via Cernovich:

    https://youtu.be/wB4RelW5M-c

    bored, Wow that is some incriminating footage, but it will never see the light of day on the MSM.

    • Replies: @bored identity
    You never know.

    Maybe "The Best Political Team on Television" that also doubles as "The Most Trusted Name in News" decides that you should "Be the first to know"?


    Oh, wait...
  42. @Joe Stalin
    June 8, 1967 - USS Liberty attacked by Israeli Air Force utilizing napalm, rockets and 30mm cannons, followed by Israeli Motor Torpedo Boat attack with cannons, machine guns and torpedo.

    34 KIA, 171 wounded, ship written off.

    http://www.gtr5.com/

    You’re Georgian Soviet, and , therefore, you’re having it all wrong:

    First, friends don’t let friends eavesdropping their private war conversations.
    Second, friendly fire is just like a tough love.

    That’s how you learn who’s your daddy.

  43. @Opinionator
    They have the same feelings about Al- Andalus. Any land conquered by Muslims is for all eternity, and the rest just hasn’t been conquered yet.


    Citation needed.

    Do your own research. Act like a man for once in your life.

    • Replies: @bored identity
    You Go, Girl !
    , @Moshe
    Correct. That whole, "link?" response is the annoying left's trollish behavior.

    Usually they know you're right but just wish you weren't.

    Well, done, great and well deserves response. "Opinionator" (he literally tells you he isn't worth reading in rhe name) is one of those wonderful people who hates arabs -until they kill jews or people who can (if you look just right) be friends of Jews.

    The lying bastard claims to have taken 7 years of years of ayissish yet can't even use the expression "oy vey" accurately.

    He gives rational skeptics of all matters (including Jewish related ones) a bad name.

    He is, after all just an opinionator. His opinions can be taken as seriously as a fart in the wind.
  44. @Jason Sylvester
    "But the notion of Arab terrorism didn’t emerge until later, and few Americans seemed to make the connection between Arab terrorism and Sirhan."

    I know I didn't, except in the most vague sense that Sirhan was a foreigner of some sort with a pet wrong he was eager to avenge until your Taki column that made the link explicit. This gets left out of The Narrative in the same way that the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was a devout Marxist (or, as "devout" as his shabby intellect had the ability to muster), ex-defector to the Soviet Union, and, at the time of Kennedy's assassination, proud "Secretary" and sole member of the New Orleans chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.

    Instead, we hear non-stop any time the subject comes up about Dallas being the epicenter of an "atmosphere of Right-wing hate" - Magic Right-wing Hate Air made Lee Oswald the convinced communist shoot a liberal Democratic President! Potent stuff, that Hate Air.

    In any event, it is indeed worthy of note how the decade between the actual - as opposed to the numerical - start and end of what we collectively think of as "the 1960s," those years that commenced around 1 pm Central Standard Time on November 22, 1963 and ended at noon on August 9, 1974, radicalized practically everybody.

    Much attention is paid to the Leftist agitation that provoked these crises of American confidence and stability during the Sixties, with the liberal media egging them on while many Blacks took their cues from pampered white college liberals and celebrities and began burning down cities in the background as their own less nuanced versions of "heightening the contradictions" and "making the political personal" made inner cities everywhere no-go war zones even as the welfare checks and other freebies ramped up to a level never seen before in an organized human effort to pay people to nothing other than breathe and breed at their leisure.

    And such attention should be paid, given the cultural, societal, and actual, in many cases, physical destruction the American Left's ideological insanities cost us during those boiling, roiling times. But I find it more interesting in many cases what the reaction was among what Richard Nixon, via Pat Buchanan's pen, called "the Silent Majority": they radicalized, too, in response. Just in a different, healthier, more sane, and better direction.

    One anecdote: I have asked my parents a lot about those years (I was born in 1969), and in 1964 my Mom, the daughter of a Payne County (Oklahoma) Democratic Party volunteer vice-chairwoman, voted for Lyndon Baines Johnson for president; her husband, my Dad, a junior NCO in the United States Air Force, voted for Barry Goldwater, to his wife's dismay.

    By 1968 - after four years of chaos on college campuses and cities going up in flames and just the general disdain toward regular Americans like my parents that liberal elites suddenly felt free by circumstances to exude and spew - my mother had moved to the Right of my father: she attended a George Wallace rally in Oklahoma City while she was pregnant with me, and enthusiastically voted for him in November, 1968; my Dad stuck with Nixon. Why did she vote for Wallace over Nixon in '68, I once asked her? "He was too liberal," she said, "by then, I was done with liberals."

    Of course, people like my Mom - the children of bred-in-the-bone Depression Era FDR & Harry Truman Democrats - gave Wallace his impressive 13.5% of the vote in '68, Nixon his landslide in '72 and Reagan his own versions of same in 1980 and '84, and for good reasons: the Democrats didn't just leave those people, but snarled at them as moral inferiors as they ushered them out the door.

    But I've always thought a good, conscientious historian or chronicler of our modern and recent times could do justice with a book examining what got someone like my Mom from "All the Way with LBJ!" in 1964 to Richard Nixon, of all people, being "too liberal" for her by 1968.*

    That is a very short turnaround time and radicalization of political views for what were fundamentally basic, solid, decent, hard-working people, in a compressed frame of time: "by then, I was done with liberals."

    Our times continue to show why any intellectually honest person should be done with them, but slightly more than half of the country, from varied motives and reasons, are not.

    *Hint: Steve Sailer should write it. Your mastery of the data and instinctual understanding of the trends in modern American history since about forever would be a masterpiece of writing, scholarship, and an invaluable academic gem centuries hence, for scholars as-yet unborn for generation's-to-come attempting to decode American history as it both has and continues to unfold during our times.

    I’ve talked to a number of working class union men whose transformation happened at the same time.

  45. Noam Chomsky often points out America or even American Jews hadn’t given a crap about Israel until 1967

    “Furthermore, I think it’s changed because of what’s happened since 1967. In 1967 Israel won a dramatic military victory, demonstrated its military power, in fact, smashed up the entire Arab world, and that won great respect. A lot of Americans, especially privileged Americans, love violence and want to be on the side of the guy with the gun, and here was a powerful, violent state that smashed up its enemies and demonstrated that it was the dominant military power in the Middle East, put those Third World upstarts in their place. This was particularly dramatic because that was 1967, a time when the United States was having only minimal success in carrying out its invasion of by then all of Indochina, and it’s well worth remembering that elite opinion, including liberal opinion, overwhelmingly supported the war in Vietnam and was quite disturbed by the incapacity of the United States to win it, at least at the level they wanted. Israel came along and showed them how to do it, and that had a symbolic effect. Since then it has been presenting itself, with some justice, as the Sparta of the Middle East, a militarily advanced, technologically compe- tent, powerful society. That’s the kind of thing we like. It also became a strategic asset of the United States; one of the reasons why the United States maintains the military confrontation is to assure that it’s a dependable, reliable ally that will do what we want, like, say, support genocide in Guatemala or whatever, and that also increases the respect for Israel and with it tends to diminish anti-Semitism. I suppose that’s a factor.

    CHOMSKY: The American liberal community since 1967 has been mobilized at an almost fanatic level in support of an expansionist Israel, and they have been consistently opposed to any political settlement. They have been in favor of the aggrandizement of Israeli power. They have used their position of quite considerable influence in the media in the political system to defeat and overcome any challenge to the system of military confrontation using all the standard techniques of vilification, defamation, closing off control over expression, etc. and it’s certainly had an effect. I don’t know if it was a decisive effect, but it had some noticeable effect on bringing about U.S. government support for the persistent military confrontation and U.S. government opposition to political settlement. For Israel that’s destructive. In fact, Israeli doves constantly deplore it. They constantly refer to it as Stalinism. They refer to the Stalinist character of the support for Israel on the part of what they call the “Jewish community,” but that’s because they don’t understand enough about the United States. It’s not just the Jewish community, which is what they see; it’s basically the intellectual community at large.

    QUESTION: Edward Said, for example, has pointed out that there is much more pluralism in terms of the discussion, the debate, in Israel itself than inside the United States.

    CHOMSKY: There’s no question about that. For example, the editor of the Labor Party journal, the main newspaper of the Labor Party, has asked me to write regular columns. I won’t do it because I’m concerned with things here, but that’s totally inconceivable in the United States, you can’t even imagine it, you can’t even imagine an occasional op-ed. That’s quite typical. Positions that I maintain, which are essentially in terms of the international consensus, they’re not a majority position in Israel, but they’re part of the political spectrum, they’re respectable positions. Here it’s considered outlandish”

    • Replies: @Gabriel M
    Every so often you wonder whether Chomsky could really make a career out of just saying over and over again things that are obviously not true to armies of cretins and then someone comes to remind that, yes, he can.

    Blah, blah, blah, support genocide in Guatemala or whatever, blah, blah
     
    Wut? Or whatever? The Guatemalan civil war has a lot of atrocities, though nothing outlandish by 20th century standards and most of them were committed by anti-Communists. Nothing even remotely resembling 'genocide' either in thought or deed. Chomsky thinks is people try to stop communists destroying their country that is genocide, but when Commies go nutso in Cambodia and fill caves with skulls he spends a whole decade trying to discredit anyone reporting it. Really sick.

    For Israel that’s destructive. In fact, Israeli doves constantly deplore it. They constantly refer to it as Stalinism. They refer to the Stalinist character of the support for Israel on the part of what they call the “Jewish community,” but that’s because they don’t understand enough about the United States.
     
    The only people who think like this are Lefty university professors in Tel Aviv. No-one else thinks 'gosh, I hate it when those Americans support us too much'. It sure sounds like Chumpsky has no experience talking to anyone who is not a university professor in Tel Aviv.

    There’s no question about that. For example, the editor of the Labor Party journal, the main newspaper of the Labor Party, has asked me to write regular columns. I won’t do it because I’m concerned with things here, but that’s totally inconceivable in the United States, you can’t even imagine it, you can’t even imagine an occasional op-ed.
     
    Waah, waah, waah. No-one gets to hear Chomsky talk, except everyone ALL THE F**KING TIME.

    What a jerk.
    , @Jim Don Bob
    Chomsky has achieved great success by being wrong about almost everything.
  46. @biz
    Sirhan Sirhan was not widely identified as a Palestinian becuase that identity was just on the verge of being invented and popularized in 1969.

    Bullshit. That area of the Levant between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River from Phoenicia to Egypt has been referred to as Palestine since ancient times.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    It had been referred to as that since the Romans put down the Bar Kochba revolt in the 2nd century, but Arabs didn't call themselves "Palestinian" until the 1960s (they actually don't call themselves that in Arabic, because there's no "P" in Arabic). Prior to the '60s, "Palestinian" had Jewish connotations in the 20th Century. E.g., The Jerusalem Post was founded as the Palestine Post, and the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra was founded as the Palestine Orchestra.
    , @Art Deco
    Bullshit. That area of the Levant between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River from Phoenicia to Egypt has been referred to as Palestine since ancient times.

    No, it has not. Britain in 1920 assembled three Ottoman sub-prefectures and applied to the resultant territory a Roman-Byzantine place name that hadn't been used in about 1,300 years. The territory in question was composed of desert with a transhumant population (not distinct from the Transjordan or the Sinai) and a swatch of town and country not distinct from the rest of Syria. In one part, vernacular Arabic of the Eastern Bedawi sort was spoken and in another dialects on the Levantine spectrum were spoken.
  47. @whorefinder
    The best conspiracy-theory way to tie up Oswald, Sirhan, Hinckley, Ruby, etc. would be a massive sleeper cell-hypnosis-brain-wahsing project that bore fruit to create untraceable lone wacko gunmen.

    Unfortunately for all fans of The Manchurian Candidate and MKULTRA, there remains no hard evidence that any brainwashing program could produce such results. Perhaps one day the curtain will be lifted on CIA programs that actually worked to created empty-headed, babbling killers doing what they were programmed to do. You know, how the history of computing had it's history illuminated when the Brits declassified all the computer stuff they did in WW2 that was previously unknown.

    But until then, the evidence suggests very strongly that:

    -Oswald the communist, acting alone, shot Kennedy for being anti-communist (perhaps at the urging/teasing of Cuban intelligence, who refused to let Oswald defect because they recognized he was a nut).

    -Sirhan the Arab (and church-hopper) shot RFK for helping Israel.

    -Ruby shot Oswald because of the intense hatred/patriotism engendered by JFK's death. Comparable to the hatred generated against Bin Laden in the few days after 9/11----I can attest personally that, in New York, had Bin Laden been captured on 9/12 or 9/13, and had been held anywhere near NYC, thousands of New Yorkers would have rioted and lynched him, such was the mood.

    -Hinckley, obsessed with Jodie Foster, shot Reagan in a bizarre attempt to impress her.

    I am reminded of a horrible joke that goes something like this:

    “Dear John,

    ” I hope you are doing well. I want you to know that Nancy and I have forgiven you and have no hard feelings about what happened.

    Sincerely,
    Ronald Reagan

    P.s. Did you know Walter Mondale is f**king Jodie foster?”

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    Funny.
  48. @BB753
    Ruby a patriot? Really? Sorry, I don't buy it.

    Please. Recall the aftermath of 9/11. We had lots of social scum in Hollywood (including rappers) screaming in “solidarity” for our nation and praising President Bush.

    Or recall how the mob was more than happy to bash German skulls in WW2 when the state department used them as strike breakers and to break up pro-Nazi rallies in the U.S. It wasn’t all just for Lucky Luciano’s release; the mob could have shaken down the feds with union strikes and such.

    Even criminals have some honor to them as The Godfather over-dramatized, with war-hero Michael.

    Ruby was reacting, as most thugs do, to the situation around him. A president had been murdered by a communist in his city. He spouted off and killed him in anger, feeling patriotic and hot-headed. He was known for such reactions. Not hard to see.

  49. @Mike Sylwester
    I have read many books about the assassination of Robert Kennedy. About a year ago, I read a book that I happened to find at an estate sale. I think this was the best book I've read on the subject, but I can't find any reviews of it on the Internet.

    The book is titled Why Robert Kennedy Was Killed: The Story of Two Victims, and it was written by Godfrey Jansen. The author was a former Indian diplomat who served in the Middle East for many years and eventually became a journalist based in Lebanon.

    After Sirhan Sirhan was identified as the assassin, Jansen immediately went to Palestine and interviewed many of Sirhan's relatives there. Jansen then traveled to Los Angeles and interviewed Sirhan's immediate family and many of his acquaintances there. His book is based on those many interviews.

    Essentially, Sirhan was a victim of the Israelis. The book tells in vivid detail how he and his family suffered. The book really changed my thinking about Sirhan and the assassination. Of course, his assassination of Robert Kennedy was not justified, but Sirhan's motive was to wreak some vengeance for his family's suffering.

    Since I no longer owned the book, I searched the Internet for some reviews of the book, and I was surprised to find practically nothing. It seems to me that the book has been suppressed. I was lucky to find it at that estate sale.

    (I did not highlight any words above. It they are still highlighted, then it was done automatically, and I could not fix it.)

    Essentially, Sirhan was a victim of the Israelis.
    The book tells in vivid detail how he and his family suffered.
    The book really changed my thinking about Sirhan and the assassination.
    Of course, his assassination of Robert Kennedy was not justified, but Sirhan’s motive was to wreak some vengeance for his family’s suffering.

    Gee, your piece was perfectly written… for a tiny violin and sirhanmonic orchestra.

    Now, bored identity will do some essential splainin’ for you:


    Duran Duran with US Visa/Residence/Passport = Good.
    Sirhan Sirhan with US Visa/Residence/Passport = Not Good.

    M’kay?

    • Replies: @Mike Sylwester

    Duran Duran with US Visa/Residence/Passport = Good.
    Sirhan Sirhan with US Visa/Residence/Passport = Not Good.

    M’kay?
     
    I don't understand.
  50. iSteve,

    Respectfully request you edit the opening sentence to read,

    On May 22, 1967, Egyptian President Nasser ended the existing armistice by declaring the Straits of Tiran closed, thus blockading the Israeli port city of Eilat.

    reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_Six-Day_War

    • Replies: @middle aged vet .. .. ..
    Karl - Steve is a mensch, you do not need to preface a comment with 'respectfully' - he is not some middle class media loser who needs flattery. Tell him something relevant he doesn't know, that is what makes him happy. Like, how the Algerians got tired of Europeans, so when the Algerians were able to get them to leave, well, they got them to leave. If Steve is more interested in things he will never be able to know with certainty like the details of the territorial wars of his childhood, well, who cares? Let's all pray for peace and all that, but let's not kid ourselves that anything less than real prayer from a real saint to a real God will make all that much of a difference overall, albeit let us try to be honest and brave in the meantime.
    , @Chris Mallory
    So nice of you to admit that Israel's current blockades of Gaza is an act of war and the residents are fully justified in their attacks upon Israel.
  51. @Jason Sylvester
    "But the notion of Arab terrorism didn’t emerge until later, and few Americans seemed to make the connection between Arab terrorism and Sirhan."

    I know I didn't, except in the most vague sense that Sirhan was a foreigner of some sort with a pet wrong he was eager to avenge until your Taki column that made the link explicit. This gets left out of The Narrative in the same way that the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was a devout Marxist (or, as "devout" as his shabby intellect had the ability to muster), ex-defector to the Soviet Union, and, at the time of Kennedy's assassination, proud "Secretary" and sole member of the New Orleans chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.

    Instead, we hear non-stop any time the subject comes up about Dallas being the epicenter of an "atmosphere of Right-wing hate" - Magic Right-wing Hate Air made Lee Oswald the convinced communist shoot a liberal Democratic President! Potent stuff, that Hate Air.

    In any event, it is indeed worthy of note how the decade between the actual - as opposed to the numerical - start and end of what we collectively think of as "the 1960s," those years that commenced around 1 pm Central Standard Time on November 22, 1963 and ended at noon on August 9, 1974, radicalized practically everybody.

    Much attention is paid to the Leftist agitation that provoked these crises of American confidence and stability during the Sixties, with the liberal media egging them on while many Blacks took their cues from pampered white college liberals and celebrities and began burning down cities in the background as their own less nuanced versions of "heightening the contradictions" and "making the political personal" made inner cities everywhere no-go war zones even as the welfare checks and other freebies ramped up to a level never seen before in an organized human effort to pay people to nothing other than breathe and breed at their leisure.

    And such attention should be paid, given the cultural, societal, and actual, in many cases, physical destruction the American Left's ideological insanities cost us during those boiling, roiling times. But I find it more interesting in many cases what the reaction was among what Richard Nixon, via Pat Buchanan's pen, called "the Silent Majority": they radicalized, too, in response. Just in a different, healthier, more sane, and better direction.

    One anecdote: I have asked my parents a lot about those years (I was born in 1969), and in 1964 my Mom, the daughter of a Payne County (Oklahoma) Democratic Party volunteer vice-chairwoman, voted for Lyndon Baines Johnson for president; her husband, my Dad, a junior NCO in the United States Air Force, voted for Barry Goldwater, to his wife's dismay.

    By 1968 - after four years of chaos on college campuses and cities going up in flames and just the general disdain toward regular Americans like my parents that liberal elites suddenly felt free by circumstances to exude and spew - my mother had moved to the Right of my father: she attended a George Wallace rally in Oklahoma City while she was pregnant with me, and enthusiastically voted for him in November, 1968; my Dad stuck with Nixon. Why did she vote for Wallace over Nixon in '68, I once asked her? "He was too liberal," she said, "by then, I was done with liberals."

    Of course, people like my Mom - the children of bred-in-the-bone Depression Era FDR & Harry Truman Democrats - gave Wallace his impressive 13.5% of the vote in '68, Nixon his landslide in '72 and Reagan his own versions of same in 1980 and '84, and for good reasons: the Democrats didn't just leave those people, but snarled at them as moral inferiors as they ushered them out the door.

    But I've always thought a good, conscientious historian or chronicler of our modern and recent times could do justice with a book examining what got someone like my Mom from "All the Way with LBJ!" in 1964 to Richard Nixon, of all people, being "too liberal" for her by 1968.*

    That is a very short turnaround time and radicalization of political views for what were fundamentally basic, solid, decent, hard-working people, in a compressed frame of time: "by then, I was done with liberals."

    Our times continue to show why any intellectually honest person should be done with them, but slightly more than half of the country, from varied motives and reasons, are not.

    *Hint: Steve Sailer should write it. Your mastery of the data and instinctual understanding of the trends in modern American history since about forever would be a masterpiece of writing, scholarship, and an invaluable academic gem centuries hence, for scholars as-yet unborn for generation's-to-come attempting to decode American history as it both has and continues to unfold during our times.

    The shocking thing about historylessons/1984 is how little I heard about Wallace’s formidable insurgency in my schooling.

    Instead, it was all how Nixon was evil and capitalized on Vietnam to steal the presidency from the Good Democrats and how RFK was killed before he could lead us to Camelot II.

    Nothing about black riots, unless it was termed “unrest” and the picture showed a white college student doing the unrest. If anything was mentioned about Wallace’s run, it was as if he were the “last remnant” of a “dying class of racists” who held no power. NOTHING about the attempted assassination on him, or his paralysis as a result; I actually heard about pornographer Jerry Flynt’s paralysis/assassination attempt in school, but not Wallace’s. Because bigots hate free speech, you know.

    The re-write of 20th Century history with truth and facts is something the Alt-Right must do if it wants to change the minds and hearts of centrist Americans. The story of the 1960s and Nixon’s rise and fall are prime things that must be re-explained since the Left has lied about it so long, and the 1960s are a very deep part of the Left’s religious dogma.

  52. @anon
    Do your own research. Act like a man for once in your life.

    You Go, Girl !

  53. @whorefinder
    The best conspiracy-theory way to tie up Oswald, Sirhan, Hinckley, Ruby, etc. would be a massive sleeper cell-hypnosis-brain-wahsing project that bore fruit to create untraceable lone wacko gunmen.

    Unfortunately for all fans of The Manchurian Candidate and MKULTRA, there remains no hard evidence that any brainwashing program could produce such results. Perhaps one day the curtain will be lifted on CIA programs that actually worked to created empty-headed, babbling killers doing what they were programmed to do. You know, how the history of computing had it's history illuminated when the Brits declassified all the computer stuff they did in WW2 that was previously unknown.

    But until then, the evidence suggests very strongly that:

    -Oswald the communist, acting alone, shot Kennedy for being anti-communist (perhaps at the urging/teasing of Cuban intelligence, who refused to let Oswald defect because they recognized he was a nut).

    -Sirhan the Arab (and church-hopper) shot RFK for helping Israel.

    -Ruby shot Oswald because of the intense hatred/patriotism engendered by JFK's death. Comparable to the hatred generated against Bin Laden in the few days after 9/11----I can attest personally that, in New York, had Bin Laden been captured on 9/12 or 9/13, and had been held anywhere near NYC, thousands of New Yorkers would have rioted and lynched him, such was the mood.

    -Hinckley, obsessed with Jodie Foster, shot Reagan in a bizarre attempt to impress her.

    You left out Chapman, the patriotic music fan.

    He killed John Lennon out of fervent love for his country. He knew that the outspoken star would interfere with the neocon war plans that were to be carried out by Bush — once Hinckley got rid of Reagan.

    Wait a minute… never mind.

    • Replies: @Hrw-500
    I wonder what if Chapman had missed the shot and had hit Yoko Ono instead?
  54. @dearieme
    And then there was Ted. He managed, I suspect, to do more damage to his country than either JFK or RFK.

    What a shower they were.

    I’m half Irish Catholic and proud of my roots. My Irish ancestors first showed up in Massachusetts sometime before 1800. From the beginning they made contributions to their new homeland. One of my ancestors was a Civil War hero. I can remember learning to hate the Kennedys from my grandmother back in the 1950s. Even as a child I’d learned about their slimey backgrounds in corrupt machine politics, stock fraud, and organized crime. I loathe the whole crew. They’ve done irreparable damage to this country and continue to do so.

    • Replies: @Old Palo Altan
    Irreparable damage as well to the reputation of Irish Americans.
    Of course the pre-famine Irish were generally a few cuts above the vast majority of those who came over after 1840.
    A few? Some, likes the Carrolls of Maryland, were bona fide aristocrats. The Emmets too, or very nearly. I'll bet yours were at least the scions of big farmers, or merchants from cities like Cork, Waterford, or Galway.
    The illiterate peasants came later.
  55. @Mike Sylwester
    I have read many books about the assassination of Robert Kennedy. About a year ago, I read a book that I happened to find at an estate sale. I think this was the best book I've read on the subject, but I can't find any reviews of it on the Internet.

    The book is titled Why Robert Kennedy Was Killed: The Story of Two Victims, and it was written by Godfrey Jansen. The author was a former Indian diplomat who served in the Middle East for many years and eventually became a journalist based in Lebanon.

    After Sirhan Sirhan was identified as the assassin, Jansen immediately went to Palestine and interviewed many of Sirhan's relatives there. Jansen then traveled to Los Angeles and interviewed Sirhan's immediate family and many of his acquaintances there. His book is based on those many interviews.

    Essentially, Sirhan was a victim of the Israelis. The book tells in vivid detail how he and his family suffered. The book really changed my thinking about Sirhan and the assassination. Of course, his assassination of Robert Kennedy was not justified, but Sirhan's motive was to wreak some vengeance for his family's suffering.

    Since I no longer owned the book, I searched the Internet for some reviews of the book, and I was surprised to find practically nothing. It seems to me that the book has been suppressed. I was lucky to find it at that estate sale.

    (I did not highlight any words above. It they are still highlighted, then it was done automatically, and I could not fix it.)

    “Since I no longer owned the book, I searched the Internet for some reviews of the book, and I was surprised to find practically nothing. It seems to me that the book has been suppressed. I was lucky to find it at that estate sale.”

    There are 8 copies on amazon. It’s listed in just about every bibliography of RFK assassination books. It’s listed first among secondary sources on the Maryland State Archives site for teaching History. How do you think it was suppressed? Do you think the Elders of Zion can prevent someone from reviewing it on the internet??

    • Replies: @European-American
    > Do you think the Elders of Zion can prevent someone from reviewing it on the internet?

    That's a bit of a straw man. "Suppressed" may be too strong a word, but isn't it noteworthy that so many pass under silence Sirhan's motive? The book is out of print. You don't need to believe in wild conspiracy theories to admit that our consensus narrative is sometimes more than a bit off.

    Here's a 1993 mainstream book's mention of this strange blind spot. It also notes that out-of-print biography stands alone in taking Sirhan's stated motives seriously:


    Chapter 63 - The Explanation

    An unofficial obfuscation, or distortion of the truth, followed the murder of Robert F. Kennedy. That unofficial distortion was first perpetrated, with few exceptions, by the world's press and later by most of the biographers of Robert F. Kennedy.

    For, as it turned out, an overwhelming majority of the world's journalist, historians, and biographers writing of Robert F. Kennedy's life and death either deliberately ignored or neglected to explore the political implications of his murder, preferring to paint it as an act of madness, as the work of a "crazed lunatic," and a symptom of a "sick society".

    James Reston of The New York Times dismissed Sirhan's motive as "a wholly irrational act" with no political overtones and went on to write of "lawlessness threatening modern public order everywhere."

    The Boston Globe, in an editorial, proclaimed, "So now it develops that Sirhan Bechara Sirhan was a mad man, truly mad . . . 'I did it for my country, I love my country.' Sirhan is said to have cried out as he watched Sen. Kennedy fall. And thus he proved his madness, for this deluded young Jordanian from Jerusalem, a victim of the senseless conflict in the Middle East, is in truth a man without a country to love anymore."

    ...

    Even more serious than the world's press's unwillingness to face the truth of why Robert Kennedy was killed was the reluctance of Kennedy's biographers to face the issue.

    Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr, Jack Newfield, Jules Witcover, Willian vanden Heuvel, and Milton Gwirtzman all failed to consider the political motive for Sirhan's act. Robert Kaiser, in his R.F.K. Must Die! flatly rejected it. Was it because these biographers, all (but Kaiser) being friends of Robert Kennedy, were too close to their subject to be objective about it? Or was it because the non-Arab world had stubbornly insisted on looking upon the Arab-Israeli conflict in a wholly one-sided way: that is, the Israeli cause was all good and the Arab cause all bad? Or was it because the Palestinians themselves had made their cause so unpopular through their violent terrorist retaliations that few non-Arabs would be willing to sympathize with their plight?

    Whatever the case, there seems to have been a national blind spot in the American consciousness in regard to the struggle between the Israelis and the Palestinian Arabs. That blind spot blotted the Palestinian Arabs out of the American field of vision entirely. The American public, and especially the American press, could see clearly only the cause of the Israelis. What was, of course, desperately needed was not a pro-Arab vision, or a pro-Israel vision, but a balanced view of the struggle, one that could understand and sympathize with both sides.

    The only differing account of the RFK assassination I know of was written by a Burmese journalist and diplomat, Godfrey H. Jansen, whose Why Robert Kennedy Was Killed: The Story of Two Victims, was published in 1970 by The Third Press. Mr. Jansen's book is a carefully reasoned analysis of Sirhan Sirhan's background, personality, and motivation and is the only account of the tragedy I know of that delves into Robert Kennedy's courting of the Jewish vote in 1968 in any significant detail.

    The Kennedys: Dynasty and Disaster, by John H. Davis
    https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=ngbia3tOBQIC&pg=PA670
     

    It's as if "fake news" and "lyin' CNN" wasn't a new problem caused by Facebook and the Internet and the general decline in moral values...

    PS: One reason why the book may not have had as much play as it merited: its English-sounding author, Godfrey Jansen, was in fact a Muslim of Indian background.


    Godfrey Jansen, who took up Arab cause, dead at 78

    Godfrey Jansen, a former Indian diplomat whose passion for Lebanon and the Middle East led him to quit a promising career to become a journalist promoting Arab causes
    https://www.dailystar.com.lb//News/Lebanon-News/1998/Dec-02/20438-godfrey-jansen-who-took-up-arab-cause-dead-at-78.ashx

     


    "The Arab authors, of course, stand out because of their names, and their works tend to be taken automatically as being partisan and propagandist. Such is not the case with the Israeli or pro-Israeli writer: their works are accepted as the product of objective scholarship, which in very many cases, they are not."

    Aside from the obnoxious assumption that pro-Israel sentiment implies a bias against Islam, this argument reads most strangely in the light of the following facts: Godfrey H. Jansen is a citizen of India and a Muslim.

    Militant Islam, by Godfrey H. Jansen, reviewed by Daniel Pipes, Commentary, August 1980
    http://www.danielpipes.org/7996/militant-islam
     

    ... and his still-living wife is a converted Muslim called... Michael. Ah the Middle East is truly mysterious...
    , @Mike Sylwester

    There are 8 copies on amazon. It’s listed in just about every bibliography of RFK assassination books. It’s listed first among secondary sources on the Maryland State Archives site for teaching History. How do you think it was suppressed? Do you think the Elders of Zion can prevent someone from reviewing it on the internet??
     
    I know that the book is not illegal.

    There are no customer reviews of the book on Amazon, and I could not find any reviews of the book anywhere on the Internet.

    I used the word "suppressed" with some reluctance. I still can't think of a better word.

    Godfrey Jansen's book Why Robert Kennedy Was Killed is a superb book. Jansen was a professional diplomat and journalist. After the assassination he immediately interviewed many of Sirhan Sirhan's relatives in Palestine and California. The book is written in a judicious manner.

    Jansen writes that both Robert Kennedy and Sirhan Sirhan were victims. He does not excuse Sirhan's assassination of Kennedy.

    I have read many books about the assassinations of that period (JFK, MLK, RFK, Wallace). This book was superb, but it was "suppressed" -- or some other better word you might suggest.

    I donated the book to a library book sale, so I can refer only to my memory of it here.

    The book describes in detail the sufferings of the Sirhan family -- in particular the sufferings of Sirhan Sirhan. The family was devoutly Christian. As a boy, he saw Arabs murdered. His family was terrorized by Israelis. They had to flee their home. They lost their jobs.

    Unfortunately, I don't remember the details, and I can't find any information on the Internet.

    If you see the book anywhere, get it and read it. The book probably will change your thinking about Sirhan Sirhan.
    , @Jack D
    It's a real hot seller. Amazon Rank: #11,205,115 in Books. It's so rare that you have to pay $3.98 (plus $3.99 shipping) to buy a copy. The Zionists, using their mind control rays, have prevented anyone from writing a single Amazon review of the book.

    Or it's really a best seller with thousands of reviews and Mossad, in league with Bezos and Soros (both end with os) have deleted all the reviews and (and only the Elders of Zion could be so clever) arranged to have the book listed on Amazon but listed at 11,205,115 with no reviews to make it seem as if it was the work of an insignificant crank. This is really where you see the deft touch of the Jew - a goy might just not list the book on Amazon at all, but this is much more devious - the deft touch of the master manipulator.
  56. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “…wiping out the sitting duck Egyptian Air Force…”

    A lot of the Soviet jets of that era required very long runways to take off and land (they were optimized for supersonic flight, but not slow speed landing). The Israeli surprise attack cratered the UAR runways, trapping these jets on the ground where they could be destroyed at leisure.

    Operation Focus:

    “… June 5, 1967, the Israeli Air Force (IAF)… launched a massive airstrike that destroyed the majority of the Egyptian Air Force on the ground. By noon, the Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian Air Forces, with about 450 aircraft, were destroyed. It was also very successful in disabling 18 airfields in Egypt…”

    success was achieved by concentrating on the initial destruction of the runways

    …Nearly all of Israel’s 196 combat aircraft… were committed to the airstrike…

    …Egyptian defensive infrastructure was extremely poor… the Egyptians hindered their own defense by effectively shutting down their entire air defense system: they were worried that rebel Egyptian forces would shoot down the plane carrying Field Marshal Amer and Lt-Gen. Sidqi Mahmoud…

    …Egypt’s air force of nearly 500 combat aircraft was destroyed in the space of three hours…

    …When Syria, Jordan, and Iraq attacked Israeli targets in retaliation for the airstrike on Egypt… their attacks… were largely ineffectual…

    …By the sixth and final day (June 10) Syria had lost approximately 100 combat aircraft…

    …the Israeli Air Force, with 196 combat aircraft at its disposal had prevailed over a coalition with approximately 600 combat aircraft.”

    Six-Day War:

    “…The Egyptians were caught by surprise, and nearly the entire Egyptian air force was destroyed with few Israeli losses, giving the Israelis air superiority. Simultaneously, the Israelis launched a ground offensive into the Gaza Strip and the Sinai, which again caught the Egyptians by surprise…

    …Nasser induced Syria and Jordan to begin attacks on Israel by using the initially confused situation to claim that Egypt had defeated the Israeli air strike…

    …Arab casualties were far heavier than those of Israel: fewer than a thousand Israelis had been killed compared to over 20,000 from the Arab forces. Israel’s military success was attributed to the element of surprise, an innovative and well-executed battle plan, and the poor quality and leadership of the Arab forces…

    …The displacement of civilian populations resulting from the war would have long-term consequences, as 300,000 Palestinians fled the West Bank and about 100,000 Syrians left the Golan to become refugees. Across the Arab world, Jewish minority communities were expelled, with refugees going to Israel or Europe.”

  57. @James Richard
    Hey! What about Moshe Dayan personally giving the order to attack the USS Liberty?

    I never bought into the idea that Katherine Ross' would fall for a short Jewish nebbish for no apparent reason at all and I found it particularly irksome that the director thought that traveling between Berkeley and Santa Barbara in the shortest amount of time would take one across the Golden Gate Bridge. That Duetto Spider was definitely a bitchin' ride though.

    I was fighting in Vietnam at the time of RFK's assassination. Anti-communist projects like regime change in Vietnam were always a Kennedy family specialty until Eugene McCarthy stunned LBJ in the New Hampshire primary and that opportunistic little weasel Bobby jumped into the race. When I heard he got shot I shed no tears.

    I never bought into the idea that Katherine Ross’ would fall for a short Jewish nebbish for no apparent reason at all and I found it particularly irksome that the director thought that traveling between Berkeley and Santa Barbara in the shortest amount of time would take one across the Golden Gate Bridge.

    I never bought the idea that any guy would prefer Katherine Ross to Anne Bancroft.

    • Replies: @guest
    There was a casting problem there, in that Bancroft was only like a decade older than Ross and five years or so older than Hoffman. You have to imagine Hoffman and Ross as college-age, and that Bancroft is way older. Then Hoffman's preference makes more sense, no matter how attractive you find Mrs. Robinson.
  58. @Sgt. Joe Friday
    I am reminded of a horrible joke that goes something like this:

    "Dear John,

    " I hope you are doing well. I want you to know that Nancy and I have forgiven you and have no hard feelings about what happened.

    Sincerely,
    Ronald Reagan

    P.s. Did you know Walter Mondale is f**king Jodie foster?"

    Funny.

  59. @Karl
    iSteve,

    Respectfully request you edit the opening sentence to read,

    On May 22, 1967, Egyptian President Nasser ended the existing armistice by declaring the Straits of Tiran closed, thus blockading the Israeli port city of Eilat.


    reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_Six-Day_War

    Karl – Steve is a mensch, you do not need to preface a comment with ‘respectfully’ – he is not some middle class media loser who needs flattery. Tell him something relevant he doesn’t know, that is what makes him happy. Like, how the Algerians got tired of Europeans, so when the Algerians were able to get them to leave, well, they got them to leave. If Steve is more interested in things he will never be able to know with certainty like the details of the territorial wars of his childhood, well, who cares? Let’s all pray for peace and all that, but let’s not kid ourselves that anything less than real prayer from a real saint to a real God will make all that much of a difference overall, albeit let us try to be honest and brave in the meantime.

  60. @Buffalo Joe
    bored, Wow that is some incriminating footage, but it will never see the light of day on the MSM.

    You never know.

    Maybe “The Best Political Team on Television” that also doubles as “The Most Trusted Name in News” decides that you should “Be the first to know”?

    Oh, wait…

  61. I keep forgetting that RFK was assassinated by a Palestinian due to his support for Israel. It just doesn’t compute. (To be fair, I often forget it was a white criminal who killed MLK, and a black fanatic who killed Malcolm X. Or was it the other way around? An assassination is so singular an occurrence, it’s hard to make it fit into a general story.)

    It doesn’t help that Wikipedia talks a lot about “conspiracy theories” and says, “The interpretation that he was mostly motivated by Middle Eastern politics has been criticized as an oversimplification that ignores Sirhan’s deeper psychological problems.” Assassinations are so confusing. And the Middle East… such a confusing messy place full of crazies…

    Still, to help me remember, below is an excerpt from a story published a day after the incident. It’s a very, very familiar-sounding story. Not confusing at all, really.

    Below that is a video of an interview with Sirhan, with this eloquent passage:

    Sirhan: I’m not mentally ill, sir, but I’m not perfect either.

    Q: If you had three wishes, what would they be?

    Sirhan: … The first wish that… I wish that Senator Kennedy were still alive. … I wish that every day that I’ve been here. The second one… [long, long pause, holding back tears] … That there should be peace in the Middle East. That’s all. [hides tears]

    How a miserable refugee camp gave birth to an assassin
    By Robert Reguly
    Thursday, June 6, 1968
    Toronto Daily Star

    LOS ANGELES–In the 1956 Arab-Israeli war, the Sirhan family was uprooted from its farm near Jerusalem and tossed into the wretched Arab refugee camps of Palestine.

    The older sons became guerrillas, battling the Israelis. The toll of fighting combined with disease and by the end of the next year only six of the 12 children were alive.

    The bitterness in the mind of one of the surviving children, then 13, culminated 11 years later in the assassination of Bobby Kennedy.

    Sponsored by the First Baptist Church of Pasadena, the parents and four of the children emigrated to the United States in 1957. The two elder sons fought on and later joined the family in America.

    https://tayloronhistory.com/2015/04/01/headlines-in-torontos-newspapers-in-the-1960s/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=2m41s&v=NHgSZ_SaL5U

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Sirhan Sirhan went to the same public school in Pasadena as my dad.
  62. I actually liked Sirhan Sirhan better when they performed with Robert Palmer as “The Power Station”.

  63. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    Relevant:

    https://twitter.com/thehill/status/870801482215501825

    https://twitter.com/RichardBSpencer/status/870819111366004737

    LOL. It seems that Unz’s coding auto-strips html from links to Spencer’s tweets. Hence the cryptic fortune-cookie block quote. I guess Spencer’s White Nationalism is beyond the pale, at least from a forum-moderating perspective. Fair enough.

    On Sailer’s Twitter page, under the sidebar “You may also like * Refresh,” Twitter groups together Sailer, Spencer, hbd chick, KMac, Derb, Jared Taylor, Takimag, AmRen, Counter-Currents, Nathan Damigo, and Charles Murray amongst others. Obviously there are differences, but it seems like a sensible grouping to me. Who’s A-list, B-list, or doesn’t belong?

    • Replies: @bored identity



    ...or doesn’t belong?

     

    Damigo;

    Ex-Marine..
    Bank Robber.
    Midget.

    bored identity bets that Nathan is Guberment Asset.

    But, then again, who isn't these days...
    , @Reg Cæsar

    I guess [Richard] Spencer’s White Nationalism is beyond the pale...
     
    I prefer Robert Spencer, anyway.
  64. Alan Dershowitz in 2008: Sirhan assassination was a harbinger of terrorism to come
    http://archive.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/05/slaying_gave_us_a_first_taste_of_mideast_terror/

    btw :where did Sirhan live in Altadena (next to Pasadena) ?

  65. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    A factor to keep in mind about the Six-Day War (and others in the region) was that the Arab countries in a sense weren’t yet “formed”– British forces completed their withdrawal from the occupied Suez Canal Zone on 13 June 1956.

    Here’s an odd tid-bit that suggests that experience in the Arab airforces was probably very low; one wonders how many pilots they really had who could handle those hot airplanes.

    The most successful fighter pilot against Israel (in history) was a Bengali,
    Saiful Azam, who had combat experience in the 1965 India/Pakistan war:

    “…a Bangladeshi who served as a fighter pilot with the Pakistan Air Force…

    …While… posted as an instructor, Azam flew in the September 1965 war with India as part of PAF’s No. 17 Squadron PAF Base Sargodha, flying F-86’s

    …After returning from a successful ground attack, Azam’s group encountered Indian Folland Gnat interceptors; Azam shot down Flight Officer Mayadev of the Indian Air Force…

    …sent… as an adviser to the Royal Jordanian Air Force… When the Six-Day War broke out in 1967 he flew a Hawker Hunter of the No. 1 squadron for the Royal Jordanian Air Force. Over a two-day period, Azam was involved in attacks at two different bases…

    …On June 5, 1967, he was called to defend Jordan’s main base… from the Israeli Air Force’s Dassault Super Mystère aircraft. One of four Hunters flown by Pakistanis, Azam shot down 2 Israeli fighter and damaged another

    …On June 6, 1967… transferred to the Iraqi Air Force and was in western Iraq when four Israeli Vatour bombers escorted by two Mirage fighters attacked… One Mirage pilot, Captain Gideon Dror, shot down… Azam’s wingman, but was in turn shot down by Azam. Azam also shot down a Vatour bomber

    …Saiful Azam remains the only fighter pilot who has flown for four air forces (Bangladesh, Jordan, Iraq and Pakistan) at war…

    …he holds the record for shooting down more Israeli aircraft than any other pilot…”

    You could win bar bets…

  66. @European-American
    I keep forgetting that RFK was assassinated by a Palestinian due to his support for Israel. It just doesn't compute. (To be fair, I often forget it was a white criminal who killed MLK, and a black fanatic who killed Malcolm X. Or was it the other way around? An assassination is so singular an occurrence, it's hard to make it fit into a general story.)

    It doesn't help that Wikipedia talks a lot about "conspiracy theories" and says, "The interpretation that he was mostly motivated by Middle Eastern politics has been criticized as an oversimplification that ignores Sirhan's deeper psychological problems." Assassinations are so confusing. And the Middle East... such a confusing messy place full of crazies...

    Still, to help me remember, below is an excerpt from a story published a day after the incident. It's a very, very familiar-sounding story. Not confusing at all, really.

    Below that is a video of an interview with Sirhan, with this eloquent passage:


    Sirhan: I'm not mentally ill, sir, but I'm not perfect either.

    Q: If you had three wishes, what would they be?

    Sirhan: ... The first wish that... I wish that Senator Kennedy were still alive. ... I wish that every day that I've been here. The second one... [long, long pause, holding back tears] ... That there should be peace in the Middle East. That's all. [hides tears]
     


    How a miserable refugee camp gave birth to an assassin
    By Robert Reguly
    Thursday, June 6, 1968
    Toronto Daily Star

    LOS ANGELES--In the 1956 Arab-Israeli war, the Sirhan family was uprooted from its farm near Jerusalem and tossed into the wretched Arab refugee camps of Palestine.

    The older sons became guerrillas, battling the Israelis. The toll of fighting combined with disease and by the end of the next year only six of the 12 children were alive.

    The bitterness in the mind of one of the surviving children, then 13, culminated 11 years later in the assassination of Bobby Kennedy.

    Sponsored by the First Baptist Church of Pasadena, the parents and four of the children emigrated to the United States in 1957. The two elder sons fought on and later joined the family in America.

    https://tayloronhistory.com/2015/04/01/headlines-in-torontos-newspapers-in-the-1960s/

     

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=2m41s&v=NHgSZ_SaL5U

    Sirhan Sirhan went to the same public school in Pasadena as my dad.

    • Replies: @Feeeney
    Did the van Halen brothers go there too?
  67. Bugg says:
    @Phil
    OT https://www.outkickthecoverage.com/lebron-james-alleges-racist-graffiti-still-zero-evidence/

    Good follow up questions in the search for the real spray painter

    Where is the video? We are to believe that a wealthy celebrity who has top notch paid security in a multi million dollar house does not have CCTV of the exterior of his home, nor do any of his wealthy neighbors. Would the police not want the public to see the criminal as soon as they had a video? Gets more likely every day this is a hoax, though whether James himself is involved remains to be seen. The police are at this point fearful to even ask, which is the course every one of these hoaxes take.

  68. @Achilles

    Mike Nichols came from a center-right background. His parents were anti-Communist Jewish refugees from the Bolsheviks
     
    So how did these Russian Jews end up with a Scottish surname? Are they not proud of their own family name? Certainly these Jews cannot complain about being held down in America, so perhaps they should change it back.

    In his Taki's article Steve mentions the scenes of WASPs dressed in formal attire blocking Hoffman from the door and the crude symbology of the ending in which Hoffman defeats the WASPs by wielding a large cross, practically hitting the audience in the head with it.

    But the other scene which was striking watching the film was when Hoffman goes into the fraternity house locker room to ask the location of the wedding of his shiksa goddess and his WASP rival. You nearly expected the tall, blond actors playing the fraternity brothers to be getting dressed in their SS uniforms as the short Jewish Hoffman runs around the room trying to get information.

    The fraternity brothers make comments about Hoffman's WASP rival being a make-out king always staying one step ahead of the shotgun, the point of which would seem to be either to contrast the virtuous Jew against the unvirtuous WASP or more likely to say, see, these supposed prim and uptight WASPs are hypocrites who are just as personally sleazy as us Eastern European Jews.

    As to Sirhan Sirhan, Wikipedia brooks no delay in listing his Orthodox Christian background in only the third sentence of its entry. That this fact may surprise some today is because the old pan-Arab nationalist movement has been completely overtaken and absorbed by Islamism.

    > Wikipedia brooks no delay in listing his Orthodox Christian background

    Except most sources I see list him as a Maronite Christian (Catholic). Someone should correct Wikipedia on this.

    Something called murderpedia correctly lists his faith, but writes “unknown, hypno-programmed?” for his motive…
    http://murderpedia.org/male.S/s/sirhan-sirhan.htm

    Some commenters here would say I’m being paranoid, but I think it’s typical of the comparative neglect of the topic of Sirhan that Wikipedia has such a mistake. Who cares about that crazy Arab guy except conspiracy nuts? A very sad, tragic thing happened. That is all. Shit happens. There are crazies everywhere, don’t give them the attention they crave. But evil will not triumph. Think good thoughts!

  69. oh my 1967 remembers:

    “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band” Part 1 Soundtrack Full Album vinyl

  70. @Anonymous
    Question: Has the CIA ever had anyone on it's payroll the rest of us would consider an actual patriotic American? Instead of some leftist.

    E. Howard Hunt? The guys who hunted down Che. I don’t know what your definition of a patriotic American is. For quite a few people here American patriotism somehow requires fealty to vlad the shirtless.

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    What is it with Putin that triggers so many respectable conservatives? He's admired for the same reason a lot of people admire Benjamin Netanyahu or Lee Kuan Yew or Paul Kagame: a vigorous, masculine leader who acts in his country's national interest, not some ambiguous "global" interest.

    Which reminds me, I've read articles that claim news photos of Ronald Reagan, sitting tall in the saddle and chopping wood on his beloved, remote ranch, terrified all the doddering old Soviets.
  71. @James Richard
    Hey! What about Moshe Dayan personally giving the order to attack the USS Liberty?

    I never bought into the idea that Katherine Ross' would fall for a short Jewish nebbish for no apparent reason at all and I found it particularly irksome that the director thought that traveling between Berkeley and Santa Barbara in the shortest amount of time would take one across the Golden Gate Bridge. That Duetto Spider was definitely a bitchin' ride though.

    I was fighting in Vietnam at the time of RFK's assassination. Anti-communist projects like regime change in Vietnam were always a Kennedy family specialty until Eugene McCarthy stunned LBJ in the New Hampshire primary and that opportunistic little weasel Bobby jumped into the race. When I heard he got shot I shed no tears.

    Ben Braddock clearly isn’t meant to be Jewish.

    And I doubt you fought in Nam. But if you did, I really don’t care. Thanks for your service.

    • Replies: @James Richard
    Very poor casting then. And kiss-kiss to you too junior.
    , @Jenner Ickham Errican
    Speaking of ‘Nam, Braddock later volunteers and is unrecognizable from Hoffman’s portrayal in The Graduate.
  72. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    By the way, the '68 CA primary was technically fifty years ago today, on June 4th. RFK was killed sometime after midnight on June 4th.

    Still remains unclear as to why CA holds its primary so late in the campaign season.

    June 4, 1968 was also the date of Don Drysdale’s fifth consecutive complete game shutout, this one against the Pirates. Because I had stayed after the game to meet the Pittsburgh pitching coach, Elroy Face, I was late getting home from the game. My mom was still up, watching the election returns, and told me that Kennedy had just been shot.

    Although Sirhan Sirhan had been born into a Christian family, it’s my understanding that he had been a member of the Rosicrucians since 1966. Back then Rosicrucians used to advertise in the back of comic books and science fiction magazines.

    • Replies: @Ivy
    And Woody Allen gave the Rosicrucians a shout-out for advertising in Popular Mechanics.
    , @Anonymous

    Back then Rosicrucians used to advertise in the back of comic books and science fiction magazines.
     
    They did that well into the 80s.
    , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "June 4, 1968 was also the date of Don Drysdale’s fifth consecutive complete game shutout, this one against the Pirates."

    FIVE entire complete games in a row? Goodness! Did his arm fall off soon afterwards? Didn't anyone remember to tell Don that he simply couldn't do that kind of thing? I mean, thank goodness LA's GM wasn't Bill James, or he'd have promptly fired the pitching coach, severely warned the manager, not to ever, ever, repeat that kind of thing again with another pitcher. That's just...just...ridiculous. Five in a row, that's like, 45 innings in a month. Goodness.

    LA had in starting rotation in '68 HOFer Don Sutton, and that was about it. Koufax retired after '66 season. Dodgers simply dropped off the radar from '67-73 and after '69, when Drysdale retired, Sutton was basically on his own trying to keep the team afloat. But at least Sutton never pitched five whole complete games in a row. I can't believe that kind of thing was actually done.

    Some P's dont even have five complete games after they've pitched half their careers, let alone during a single year.
  73. On Patton :

    Americans love a winner as long as they are the winners . We are not winners anymore so who do we love and obey now ?

    I know this is far too long for most of you but perhaps some of you might take an interest . If so check out The Chieftain’s Hatch .

  74. @Steve Sailer
    Sirhan Sirhan went to the same public school in Pasadena as my dad.

    Did the van Halen brothers go there too?

  75. @Achilles

    Mike Nichols came from a center-right background. His parents were anti-Communist Jewish refugees from the Bolsheviks
     
    So how did these Russian Jews end up with a Scottish surname? Are they not proud of their own family name? Certainly these Jews cannot complain about being held down in America, so perhaps they should change it back.

    In his Taki's article Steve mentions the scenes of WASPs dressed in formal attire blocking Hoffman from the door and the crude symbology of the ending in which Hoffman defeats the WASPs by wielding a large cross, practically hitting the audience in the head with it.

    But the other scene which was striking watching the film was when Hoffman goes into the fraternity house locker room to ask the location of the wedding of his shiksa goddess and his WASP rival. You nearly expected the tall, blond actors playing the fraternity brothers to be getting dressed in their SS uniforms as the short Jewish Hoffman runs around the room trying to get information.

    The fraternity brothers make comments about Hoffman's WASP rival being a make-out king always staying one step ahead of the shotgun, the point of which would seem to be either to contrast the virtuous Jew against the unvirtuous WASP or more likely to say, see, these supposed prim and uptight WASPs are hypocrites who are just as personally sleazy as us Eastern European Jews.

    As to Sirhan Sirhan, Wikipedia brooks no delay in listing his Orthodox Christian background in only the third sentence of its entry. That this fact may surprise some today is because the old pan-Arab nationalist movement has been completely overtaken and absorbed by Islamism.

    Hoffman’s character isn’t Jewish. I know it’s hard. Nichols and Hoffman are. The character is a nebbish. But he ain’t.

    • Replies: @James Richard
    The character in the book isn't Jewish but you guys can't help yourselves. BTW, the "barbecue" scene where everyone is heaping effusive praise on Benjamin and talking crassly about business at a social event isn't particularly Waspish, or not upper class WASP at any rate.
    , @Anonymous
    As was Buck Henry, born Henry Zuckerman, who won Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay.
  76. @James Richard
    Bullshit. That area of the Levant between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River from Phoenicia to Egypt has been referred to as Palestine since ancient times.

    It had been referred to as that since the Romans put down the Bar Kochba revolt in the 2nd century, but Arabs didn’t call themselves “Palestinian” until the 1960s (they actually don’t call themselves that in Arabic, because there’s no “P” in Arabic). Prior to the ’60s, “Palestinian” had Jewish connotations in the 20th Century. E.g., The Jerusalem Post was founded as the Palestine Post, and the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra was founded as the Palestine Orchestra.

    • Replies: @James Richard
    It's been called Palestine since at least Herodotus referred to it circa 500 B.C. and there are inscriptions with it from the time of a Ramses III. Don't take literally everything they told you in Hebrew school.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_name_"Palestine"
    , @Moshe
    He knows, he knows.

    Don't five congenital anti-sems rational answers. Their response to it will Never be rational any more than a faked moonlanding nut will be.

    I know what they want and what they need and I will be happy to supply it.

    They are The Enemy Dave, not honest open-minded player. I treat them as such and so should we all - "Jews" (I hate the limitation of identify-words), people who like Jews, people who are openminded and may dialike Jews but are rational about it.

    They are a joke of course and not really worthy of fighting but they Certainly aren't worth talking to.

    Your comment was a good one and may be intellectually stimulating to honest players here but don't expect or want a rational give and take with these washed in the blood anti-sems theough the core.
  77. @Mr. Anon

    I never bought into the idea that Katherine Ross’ would fall for a short Jewish nebbish for no apparent reason at all and I found it particularly irksome that the director thought that traveling between Berkeley and Santa Barbara in the shortest amount of time would take one across the Golden Gate Bridge.
     
    I never bought the idea that any guy would prefer Katherine Ross to Anne Bancroft.

    There was a casting problem there, in that Bancroft was only like a decade older than Ross and five years or so older than Hoffman. You have to imagine Hoffman and Ross as college-age, and that Bancroft is way older. Then Hoffman’s preference makes more sense, no matter how attractive you find Mrs. Robinson.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The PTA, Mrs. Robinson,
    won't okay the way you do your thing....


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szLD-XYQL5g
  78. @FPD72
    June 4, 1968 was also the date of Don Drysdale's fifth consecutive complete game shutout, this one against the Pirates. Because I had stayed after the game to meet the Pittsburgh pitching coach, Elroy Face, I was late getting home from the game. My mom was still up, watching the election returns, and told me that Kennedy had just been shot.

    Although Sirhan Sirhan had been born into a Christian family, it's my understanding that he had been a member of the Rosicrucians since 1966. Back then Rosicrucians used to advertise in the back of comic books and science fiction magazines.

    And Woody Allen gave the Rosicrucians a shout-out for advertising in Popular Mechanics.

  79. @James Richard
    Hey! What about Moshe Dayan personally giving the order to attack the USS Liberty?

    I never bought into the idea that Katherine Ross' would fall for a short Jewish nebbish for no apparent reason at all and I found it particularly irksome that the director thought that traveling between Berkeley and Santa Barbara in the shortest amount of time would take one across the Golden Gate Bridge. That Duetto Spider was definitely a bitchin' ride though.

    I was fighting in Vietnam at the time of RFK's assassination. Anti-communist projects like regime change in Vietnam were always a Kennedy family specialty until Eugene McCarthy stunned LBJ in the New Hampshire primary and that opportunistic little weasel Bobby jumped into the race. When I heard he got shot I shed no tears.

    Ross leaves her fiancee, but we’re not left with the idea that she’s going to end up with Hoffman. Could be he just gave her an excuse to go runaway bride.

    As for the “short Jewish nebbish,” I think Hoffman once said something like, “The guy’s named Braddock, not Bratowski.” He’s not supposed to be Jewish, but he seems that way because he’s alienated, doesn’t fit in with all the WASPs, mopes around depressed-like, and it doesn’t hurt that he becomes obsessed with abnormal sex. Also, because he’s played by Dustin Hoffman and the movie was directed by Mike Nichols.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    As for the “short Jewish nebbish,” I think Hoffman once said something like, “The guy’s named Braddock, not Bratowski.” He’s not supposed to be Jewish, but he seems that way because he’s alienated, doesn’t fit in with all the WASPs, mopes around depressed-like, and it doesn’t hurt that he becomes obsessed with abnormal sex. Also, because he’s played by Dustin Hoffman and the movie was directed by Mike Nichols.
     
    If memory serves, they originally wanted Robert Redford for the part, but he simply wasn't plausible as the shy, awkward type.
    , @Father O'Hara
    What? The movie clearly implies that the girl loves Benjamin and she will run away from her horrible family and way of life to be happy with the him because WASPS are cold and the jew is warm and loving.
    I saw this movie while fighting in Vietnam.
    BTW me sister had the book which I read happily. In one scene Ben confides to someone that while hitchhiking he was picked up by an Indian(woo woo) who made a pass at him.
    "Have you ever heard of a queer Indian?!"
    The Indian embodies Ben's sinking feeling that the world is out of whack,I guess.
    For the record,I truly loathe Hoffman.
  80. @Achilles

    Mike Nichols came from a center-right background. His parents were anti-Communist Jewish refugees from the Bolsheviks
     
    So how did these Russian Jews end up with a Scottish surname? Are they not proud of their own family name? Certainly these Jews cannot complain about being held down in America, so perhaps they should change it back.

    In his Taki's article Steve mentions the scenes of WASPs dressed in formal attire blocking Hoffman from the door and the crude symbology of the ending in which Hoffman defeats the WASPs by wielding a large cross, practically hitting the audience in the head with it.

    But the other scene which was striking watching the film was when Hoffman goes into the fraternity house locker room to ask the location of the wedding of his shiksa goddess and his WASP rival. You nearly expected the tall, blond actors playing the fraternity brothers to be getting dressed in their SS uniforms as the short Jewish Hoffman runs around the room trying to get information.

    The fraternity brothers make comments about Hoffman's WASP rival being a make-out king always staying one step ahead of the shotgun, the point of which would seem to be either to contrast the virtuous Jew against the unvirtuous WASP or more likely to say, see, these supposed prim and uptight WASPs are hypocrites who are just as personally sleazy as us Eastern European Jews.

    As to Sirhan Sirhan, Wikipedia brooks no delay in listing his Orthodox Christian background in only the third sentence of its entry. That this fact may surprise some today is because the old pan-Arab nationalist movement has been completely overtaken and absorbed by Islamism.

    “So how did these Russian Jews end up with a Scottish surname”

    According to Wikipedia, Nichols was born in Germany as a Peschkowsky. The family moved to New York to get away from the Nazis, and the father changed his name to Nichols based on his patronymic, Nikolaevich. Presumably to fit in.

  81. I have to say I find it rather fitting that RFK was killed by an Arab immigrant from the Mideast when it was his very own brother who had just three years previously passed the disastrous 1965 open-doors immigration act.

  82. @FPD72
    June 4, 1968 was also the date of Don Drysdale's fifth consecutive complete game shutout, this one against the Pirates. Because I had stayed after the game to meet the Pittsburgh pitching coach, Elroy Face, I was late getting home from the game. My mom was still up, watching the election returns, and told me that Kennedy had just been shot.

    Although Sirhan Sirhan had been born into a Christian family, it's my understanding that he had been a member of the Rosicrucians since 1966. Back then Rosicrucians used to advertise in the back of comic books and science fiction magazines.

    Back then Rosicrucians used to advertise in the back of comic books and science fiction magazines.

    They did that well into the 80s.

  83. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    LOL. It seems that Unz’s coding auto-strips html from links to Spencer’s tweets. Hence the cryptic fortune-cookie block quote. I guess Spencer’s White Nationalism is beyond the pale, at least from a forum-moderating perspective. Fair enough.

    On Sailer’s Twitter page, under the sidebar “You may also like * Refresh,” Twitter groups together Sailer, Spencer, hbd chick, KMac, Derb, Jared Taylor, Takimag, AmRen, Counter-Currents, Nathan Damigo, and Charles Murray amongst others. Obviously there are differences, but it seems like a sensible grouping to me. Who’s A-list, B-list, or doesn’t belong?

    …or doesn’t belong?

    Damigo;

    Ex-Marine..
    Bank Robber.
    Midget.

    bored identity bets that Nathan is Guberment Asset.

    But, then again, who isn’t these days…

  84. @guest
    There was a casting problem there, in that Bancroft was only like a decade older than Ross and five years or so older than Hoffman. You have to imagine Hoffman and Ross as college-age, and that Bancroft is way older. Then Hoffman's preference makes more sense, no matter how attractive you find Mrs. Robinson.

    The PTA, Mrs. Robinson,
    won’t okay the way you do your thing….

  85. OT ironic motherlode.

    Macron unwittingly denounces effects of mass immigration on “our children” while ranting against Trump.

    …. one of the major issues of our time. It is already changing our daily lives but it is global. Everyone is impacted and if we do nothing our children will know a world of migrations, of wars, of shortage… a dangerous world.

    It is not the future we want for ourselves, it is not the future we want for our children, it is not the future want for our world.

    … I do think it is an actual mistake, both for the us and for our planet.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-03/emanuel-macron-offers-us-stem-graduates-second-homeland-france-if-they-help-make-our

    He thought he was speaking of climate change. But the words fit slightly better to a different topic.

    • Replies: @academic gossip
    The references to children and the call for smart white non-Moslems ("scientists, engineers, responsible citizens") to immigrate to France make this even funnier coming from Macron.

    You know the postmodern media era has arrived when Onion comedy production can't compete with the actual news.
  86. @Dave Pinsen
    It had been referred to as that since the Romans put down the Bar Kochba revolt in the 2nd century, but Arabs didn't call themselves "Palestinian" until the 1960s (they actually don't call themselves that in Arabic, because there's no "P" in Arabic). Prior to the '60s, "Palestinian" had Jewish connotations in the 20th Century. E.g., The Jerusalem Post was founded as the Palestine Post, and the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra was founded as the Palestine Orchestra.

    It’s been called Palestine since at least Herodotus referred to it circa 500 B.C. and there are inscriptions with it from the time of a Ramses III. Don’t take literally everything they told you in Hebrew school.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_name_”Palestine”

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Are Palestine and Philistine related words?
    , @IHTG
    Are you daft. He's not talking about the land.
    , @Jack D
    The Philistines that Herodotus was referring to were most likely "Sea People" - migrants from Cyprus that set up cities along the Mediterranean coast. Genetically their closest modern descendants would be Lebanese Christians. The Arabs who call themselves "Palestinians" today have little if any genetic overlap - they probably have more African blood than Philistine blood.

    http://www.hebrew-streams.org/works/hebrew/palestine.html

    There already is a Palestinian country - it's called Jordan. The British put the Hashemites of Arabia (the traditional guardians of Mecca) on the throne as a consolation prize after their loss to to the Saud clan. The British mandate of Palestine was divided and most of it became Jordan but a small coastal strip became Israel. The West Bank area became part of Jordan and no one ever considered it to be a separate country until the Israelis conquered it.
    , @The Alarmist
    It was Judea long before it was Palestine ... sorry if that rankles your weltanschauung.
  87. @academic gossip
    OT ironic motherlode.

    Macron unwittingly denounces effects of mass immigration on "our children" while ranting against Trump.


    .... one of the major issues of our time. It is already changing our daily lives but it is global. Everyone is impacted and if we do nothing our children will know a world of migrations, of wars, of shortage… a dangerous world.

    It is not the future we want for ourselves, it is not the future we want for our children, it is not the future want for our world.

    ... I do think it is an actual mistake, both for the us and for our planet.
     

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-03/emanuel-macron-offers-us-stem-graduates-second-homeland-france-if-they-help-make-our

    He thought he was speaking of climate change. But the words fit slightly better to a different topic.

    The references to children and the call for smart white non-Moslems (“scientists, engineers, responsible citizens”) to immigrate to France make this even funnier coming from Macron.

    You know the postmodern media era has arrived when Onion comedy production can’t compete with the actual news.

  88. @syonredux

    Part of the conceptual problem Americans had in dealing with RFK’s murder was that we didn’t have a convenient category yet into which to lump Sirhan, so he got dumped into the dubious-sounding Lone Wacko category. In hindsight, the Palestinian immigrant was obviously an Arab terrorist—he shot Kennedy on the first anniversary of Israel starting the Six Day War in vengeance for Kennedy pandering to Jewish voters by promising to send warplanes to Israel. But the notion of Arab terrorism didn’t emerge until later, and few Americans seemed to make the connection between Arab terrorism and Sirhan.
     
    JFK and RFK :

    JFK: Assassinated by an admitted communist.

    Media Mythology: JFK's assassination had nothing to do with communism. He was actually killed by a cabal of anti-Black Right-Wingers who thought that he was going to pull out of Vietnam.

    RFK: Assassinated by an Arab because he supported Israel.

    Media Mythology: Same as above.

    If anyone still needs proof that the Left controls discourse in the USA....

    JFK and RFK :

    JFK: Assassinated by an admitted communist.

    Media Mythology: JFK’s assassination had nothing to do with communism. He was actually killed by a cabal of anti-Black Right-Wingers who thought that he was going to pull out of Vietnam.

    RFK: Assassinated by an Arab because he supported Israel.

    Media Mythology: Same as above.

    If anyone still needs proof that the Left controls discourse in the USA….

    It seems to me — YMMV — that your supposedly obvious facts are the “Media Mythology”. The respectable MSM never bought into the conspiracy researcher community’s various and conflicting explanations and, instead, usually just disseminated the pat explanations favored by the Warren Commission and other govt. authorities and sources.

    A cursory reading of even just a few of the best “conspiracy” research books makes clear that the facts surrounding Oswald and Sirhan were complicated and capable of all sorts of conflicting interpretations. But, of course, that is just my own personal opinion.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    It seems to me — YMMV — that your supposedly obvious facts are the “Media Mythology”.
     
    By media mythology, I'm referring to stuff like Executive Action and JFK. The Liberal subconscious, as it were.

    The MSM news outlets (the conscious brain of the Left) preferred POV regarding the assassinations was apolitical. To the MSM, Oswald and Sirhan were just nutjobs.

    A cursory reading of even just a few of the best “conspiracy” research books makes clear that the facts surrounding Oswald and Sirhan were complicated and capable of all sorts of conflicting interpretations. But, of course, that is just my own personal opinion.
     
    The book on the JFK assassination that I always recommend is Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy by Vincent Bugliosi

    https://www.amazon.com/dp/B002GKGBM8/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
  89. @James Richard
    It's been called Palestine since at least Herodotus referred to it circa 500 B.C. and there are inscriptions with it from the time of a Ramses III. Don't take literally everything they told you in Hebrew school.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_name_"Palestine"

    Are Palestine and Philistine related words?

    • Replies: @guest
    "Are Palestine and Philistine related words?"

    Yes. "Palestine" ultimately derives from Hebrew--via Greek and Latin--for "Philistia," which is where the Philistines lived.
    , @James Richard
    Yes. Apparently Herodotus used the term to describe an expanded area than just the region of the Philistine tribe.
    , @Moshe
    Yes, after Bar Kosiba's revolt the Romans passed all sort of you-will-know-you-are-conquered and changed the name from Judea (which the Romans called it and minted coints "JVDEA CAPTA" after the First Revolt) to Syria Palestina - two groups that had almost entirely left history by this point (the Assyrians of today are an interesting subject for another time). They also changed Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina. All of this was an attempt to wipe out Jewish Israel from historical memory.

    It didn't quite work at first as everyone all ovee the world called Jews "Palestinians".

    Until in 1964 When Abu Amar and Shukeiri decised that it would be wise to stop calling this mixed multitude of Arabs - Arabs (which is how they themselves saw themselves) but a Nationality! called Phalustinians.

    I believe that now they ARE a nation. Regardless of what they call themselves and regardless of where their great grandparents were born.

    People are a nation when they say, and agree, that they are.

    But that's a separate, more modern point.
  90. @hhsiii
    Ben Braddock clearly isn't meant to be Jewish.

    And I doubt you fought in Nam. But if you did, I really don't care. Thanks for your service.

    Very poor casting then. And kiss-kiss to you too junior.

    • Replies: @hhsiii
    Apologies. That was a stupid and mean-spirited thing for me to write. Alcohol and anonymous internet snark.

    Also, i hadn't read Steve's article that he'd linked to in Taki that makes the clear point that in the book Braddock is a wasp, but that in the movie Hoffman's (and Nichol's) jewishness is used to highlight the character's alienation from wasp conformity. or some such. So I was talking like an idiot in more than one sense.
  91. “The Six-Day War was likely the origin of neoconservatism.”

    Before I knew much about neoconservatism: it’s roots, what it was really about, I read an essay on Saul Bellow by Hilton Kramer which confused me. Particularly the part about how Bellow’s early novels gave Kramer and his buddies youthful thrills, but somehow his potential was doused by Mr. Sammler’s Planet. (It’s now commonplace critical opinion to say his earlier, shorter novels were better, but most date the rot from Henderson the Rain King.) I don’t remember if he said why. But I think I know now, and it involves the Six Day War.

    I’m not overly familiar with Bellow’s personal politics, though I imagine he was like most neocons: former radical leftists who got disillusioned by the left and became anticommunists, social conservatives, and relative Real Talkers on race and crime. There’s a lot of that in the Dean’s December, which came out in ’82. It’s about a journalist visiting his wife’s sick relatives in a dreary Eastern Bloc country after he shot his reputation writing a series of articles on urban crime. By the time you get to Ravelstein, he has a character based on Allan Bloom talking on the phone to the Bush administration during the Gulf War. Obviously that’s well into neocon territory.

    Where did it start? Mr. Sammler’s Planet is a good candidate. Came out in 1970. Features a Jewish holocaust survivor who literally travels to watch a Six Day’s War battle and have an epiphany, I guess. He is disgusted by the younger generation (male for being shiftless and female for being indecently sexual), and is accosted by a black thug who intimidates him by pulling out his member. People underestimate how much the drift of Jewish intellectuals away from the left around this period was about their jealousy over the blacks stealing their special oppressed minority status.

    I looked up Six Day’s War + Mr. Sammler’s Planet to ensure I remembered it right, and I came across an article on a speech given by Bellow’s ungrateful son, Greg, who wrote a book called Saul Bellow’s Heart. The article literally contains a sentence that says the Six Day War “transformed him [the elder Bellow] from a socialist to a conservative.”

    So I guess that’s what Kramer meant. Bellow let them down because he drifted right. Which Kramer did as well, obviously.

    Bellow wrote a travel book called To Jerusalem and Back, about his trip to Israel in the mid-70s. That might offer more clues. I’ve never read it.

  92. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The premise here is all wrong–that American Jews started getting interested in Israel only after Israel established its bona fides in 1967. American Jews (and Jews in Britain) have always been interested in Israel. The creation of Israel was a decades long project–it just didn’t happen in 1948, Most important:

    1. Truman recognizes Israel despite Marshall and the State Department’s opposition in exchange for Jewish money and Jewish support in 1948.

    2. Dulles was and continues to be vilified for humiliating Israel (and Britain and France) in 1956 after forcing them to withdraw from the Suez in 1956.

    3. There was never any dispute or doubt that Israel was the big dog in the Middle East before 1967. The so-called six days war didn’t show anyone anything they didn’t already know.

    Rather than “discovering” Israel in 1967, Neoconservatism only emerged as an anti-Communist (and USSR) force after the Slavication of the upper echelon of Soviet society and the withdrawal of Soviet support for Israel in favor of the Arabs. Russia is still at the receiving end of intense negative propaganda stemming from that societal transformation taking pace in the Soviet Union in the 1960s.

    The more interesting analysis is how the issue of Israel and Jews became so important to the gentiles of the US. On the fringes, of course, the fundamentalist Christians always had their Israel and Jew fetish, but the mainstream . . . hardly at all. In fact, throughout the 50s and 60s WWII books and movies were routinely made which didn’t treat the Germans like cartoon characters–indeed, just about every German general of any consequence published their memoirs about the war and these were translated into English as if it was perfectly reasonable (the same could not be said for the Japanese, for whom there was a real lasting hatred) The point is that there was no real stigma attached to being objective about Jews, about Israel.

    Like the TV mini-series Roots did for Blacks, the Holocaust did for Jews in the 1970s–the whole “Holocaust Industry” blasted off from that point. The very idea of a persecuted nearly exterminated people beyond criticism or analysis penetrated American society at that point and has never ended.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Interesting comment.
  93. @Mark Green
    Sirhan was a Christian refugee from Palestine who was exacting revenge on RFK for the New York Senator's perfidiousness and his lethal hypocrisy. Sirhan's revenge was one of the first instances of Arab blowback directed at a US politician.

    That 'antiwar' RFK was willing to unconditionally stand with Israel and support the Six Day Zionist land-grab made RFK a target. And appropriately so. RFK betrayed everyone who looked up to him as a beacon of fairness, justice and compassion. Idealistic Sirhan didn't understand that carrying water for Israel was an integral part of Kennedy's job.

    RFK was a member of Israel's insider apparatus that subsidized and sanitized the Jewish state's political machine inside Washington, New York and beyond. Robert Kennedy famously supported America's retreat in Vietnam, but never dared to criticize our government's unconditional support for Israel, even when the Zionist state demanded US-manufactured WMD, F-14s, cash or diplomatic protection. Sirhan was naive. Kennedy was ambitious.

    1967 was the year that Israel conquered not only Egypt, Jordan and Syria, but Washington. too.

    Strong post.

  94. @Steve Sailer
    Are Palestine and Philistine related words?

    “Are Palestine and Philistine related words?”

    Yes. “Palestine” ultimately derives from Hebrew–via Greek and Latin–for “Philistia,” which is where the Philistines lived.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    What about Philistines and Phoenicians?
  95. @Steve Sailer
    Are Palestine and Philistine related words?

    Yes. Apparently Herodotus used the term to describe an expanded area than just the region of the Philistine tribe.

  96. @guest
    "Are Palestine and Philistine related words?"

    Yes. "Palestine" ultimately derives from Hebrew--via Greek and Latin--for "Philistia," which is where the Philistines lived.

    What about Philistines and Phoenicians?

    • Replies: @guest
    "Phoenicia" is from Greek for "purple land," I think because the Phoenicians were known among the Greeks as the source of purple dye.

    The Phoenicians as far as I know were from Tyre, which is by modern-day Lebanon and north of where the Philistines were from, which is right next to Israel.
    , @James Richard
    Phoenicia is generally considered to be Tyre in the Levant and the culture was spread out among many maritime city states around the Mediterranean. Cyprus, Sidon, Cyrene, Sardinia, Carthage etc.
    , @Y.Ilan
    The etymology is Hebrew related: Philistines = פלשתים, which comes from the verb פלש (plš) which appropriately enough means "invade" - very likely a bunch of Mycenean-related sea invaders, with no relation to the Semitic Phoenicians. Herodotus called it Palestine long after the Philistines were gone - maybe because he appreciated the Greek influence?
    , @bored identity
    What about Phuckensteins and Phonysteins ?
    , @donut
    "and Phoenicians?" Queen Dido fled from her murderous brother founded Carthage and died for love of Aeneas . Centuries later Carthage gave the world one of the greatest most brilliant and tragic figures of all time .
  97. Steve, what about a June 4th anniversary? It seems like a long time since you’ve posted about Pacific carrier battles in World War II.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    75th Anniversary of Midway.
    , @Stan Adams
    China slaughtered the students in Tiananmen Square on Sunday, June 4, 1989 - the day after the Ayatollah Khomeini breathed his last.
  98. @JimS
    Steve, what about a June 4th anniversary? It seems like a long time since you've posted about Pacific carrier battles in World War II.

    75th Anniversary of Midway.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    75th Anniversary of Midway.
     
    And the loss of Saint Paul Academy alumnus Richard E Fleming, who would have turned 100 this November.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_E._Fleming

    We still think of him as the first kamikaze, whatever the debunkers may say.
    , @syonredux
    War & Remembrance Battle of Midway Part I


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvT2vTzMn7E
    , @syonredux
    War & Remembrance Battle of Midway Part II


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0A5xvopAfx8
    , @syonredux
    War & Remembrance Battle of Midway Part III


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ladXC2aIF9M
    , @syonredux
    War & Remembrance Battle of Midway Part IV


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMbpQlBZleY
    , @syonredux
    War & Remembrance Battle of Midway Part V

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95UbTypOCBA
    , @syonredux
    Raymond Spruance: There's a man who deserves to be better known to the public.He should have made Fleet Admiral.

    Raymond Ames Spruance (July 3, 1886 – December 13, 1969) was a United States Navy admiral in World War II.
    Spruance commanded U.S. naval forces during two of the most significant naval battles that took place in the Pacific theater, the Battle of Midway and the Battle of the Philippine Sea. The Battle of Midway was the first major victory for the United States over Japan and is seen by many as the turning point of the Pacific war. The Battle of the Philippine Sea was also a significant victory for the US. The Navy's official historian said of the Battle of Midway "...Spruance's performance was superb...(he) emerged from this battle one of the greatest admirals in American naval history".[1] After the war, Spruance was appointed President of the Naval War College, and later served as American ambassador to the Philippines.
    Spruance was nicknamed "electric brain" for his calmness even in moments of supreme crisis, a reputation enhanced by his successful tactics at Midway.[2]
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_A._Spruance
    , @syonredux
    The Battle of Midway 1942 US Navy; John Ford; World War II; Technicolor

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89gRI_ROTKQ
  99. @FPD72
    June 4, 1968 was also the date of Don Drysdale's fifth consecutive complete game shutout, this one against the Pirates. Because I had stayed after the game to meet the Pittsburgh pitching coach, Elroy Face, I was late getting home from the game. My mom was still up, watching the election returns, and told me that Kennedy had just been shot.

    Although Sirhan Sirhan had been born into a Christian family, it's my understanding that he had been a member of the Rosicrucians since 1966. Back then Rosicrucians used to advertise in the back of comic books and science fiction magazines.

    “June 4, 1968 was also the date of Don Drysdale’s fifth consecutive complete game shutout, this one against the Pirates.”

    FIVE entire complete games in a row? Goodness! Did his arm fall off soon afterwards? Didn’t anyone remember to tell Don that he simply couldn’t do that kind of thing? I mean, thank goodness LA’s GM wasn’t Bill James, or he’d have promptly fired the pitching coach, severely warned the manager, not to ever, ever, repeat that kind of thing again with another pitcher. That’s just…just…ridiculous. Five in a row, that’s like, 45 innings in a month. Goodness.

    LA had in starting rotation in ’68 HOFer Don Sutton, and that was about it. Koufax retired after ’66 season. Dodgers simply dropped off the radar from ’67-73 and after ’69, when Drysdale retired, Sutton was basically on his own trying to keep the team afloat. But at least Sutton never pitched five whole complete games in a row. I can’t believe that kind of thing was actually done.

    Some P’s dont even have five complete games after they’ve pitched half their careers, let alone during a single year.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    FIVE entire complete games in a row? Goodness! Did his arm fall off soon afterwards? Didn’t anyone remember to tell Don that he simply couldn’t do that kind of thing?
     
    Don't forget, he had to swing a bat, too, every second or third inning. Which he did well.

    Did Drysdale ever pinch-hit on his days off? I think Bob Gibson did. Tom Seaver was used as a pinch-runner at times.
  100. @kaganovitch
    "Since I no longer owned the book, I searched the Internet for some reviews of the book, and I was surprised to find practically nothing. It seems to me that the book has been suppressed. I was lucky to find it at that estate sale."


    There are 8 copies on amazon. It's listed in just about every bibliography of RFK assassination books. It's listed first among secondary sources on the Maryland State Archives site for teaching History. How do you think it was suppressed? Do you think the Elders of Zion can prevent someone from reviewing it on the internet??

    > Do you think the Elders of Zion can prevent someone from reviewing it on the internet?

    That’s a bit of a straw man. “Suppressed” may be too strong a word, but isn’t it noteworthy that so many pass under silence Sirhan’s motive? The book is out of print. You don’t need to believe in wild conspiracy theories to admit that our consensus narrative is sometimes more than a bit off.

    Here’s a 1993 mainstream book’s mention of this strange blind spot. It also notes that out-of-print biography stands alone in taking Sirhan’s stated motives seriously:

    Chapter 63 – The Explanation

    An unofficial obfuscation, or distortion of the truth, followed the murder of Robert F. Kennedy. That unofficial distortion was first perpetrated, with few exceptions, by the world’s press and later by most of the biographers of Robert F. Kennedy.

    For, as it turned out, an overwhelming majority of the world’s journalist, historians, and biographers writing of Robert F. Kennedy’s life and death either deliberately ignored or neglected to explore the political implications of his murder, preferring to paint it as an act of madness, as the work of a “crazed lunatic,” and a symptom of a “sick society”.

    James Reston of The New York Times dismissed Sirhan’s motive as “a wholly irrational act” with no political overtones and went on to write of “lawlessness threatening modern public order everywhere.”

    The Boston Globe, in an editorial, proclaimed, “So now it develops that Sirhan Bechara Sirhan was a mad man, truly mad . . . ‘I did it for my country, I love my country.’ Sirhan is said to have cried out as he watched Sen. Kennedy fall. And thus he proved his madness, for this deluded young Jordanian from Jerusalem, a victim of the senseless conflict in the Middle East, is in truth a man without a country to love anymore.”

    Even more serious than the world’s press’s unwillingness to face the truth of why Robert Kennedy was killed was the reluctance of Kennedy’s biographers to face the issue.

    Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr, Jack Newfield, Jules Witcover, Willian vanden Heuvel, and Milton Gwirtzman all failed to consider the political motive for Sirhan’s act. Robert Kaiser, in his R.F.K. Must Die! flatly rejected it. Was it because these biographers, all (but Kaiser) being friends of Robert Kennedy, were too close to their subject to be objective about it? Or was it because the non-Arab world had stubbornly insisted on looking upon the Arab-Israeli conflict in a wholly one-sided way: that is, the Israeli cause was all good and the Arab cause all bad? Or was it because the Palestinians themselves had made their cause so unpopular through their violent terrorist retaliations that few non-Arabs would be willing to sympathize with their plight?

    Whatever the case, there seems to have been a national blind spot in the American consciousness in regard to the struggle between the Israelis and the Palestinian Arabs. That blind spot blotted the Palestinian Arabs out of the American field of vision entirely. The American public, and especially the American press, could see clearly only the cause of the Israelis. What was, of course, desperately needed was not a pro-Arab vision, or a pro-Israel vision, but a balanced view of the struggle, one that could understand and sympathize with both sides.

    The only differing account of the RFK assassination I know of was written by a Burmese journalist and diplomat, Godfrey H. Jansen, whose Why Robert Kennedy Was Killed: The Story of Two Victims, was published in 1970 by The Third Press. Mr. Jansen’s book is a carefully reasoned analysis of Sirhan Sirhan’s background, personality, and motivation and is the only account of the tragedy I know of that delves into Robert Kennedy’s courting of the Jewish vote in 1968 in any significant detail.

    The Kennedys: Dynasty and Disaster, by John H. Davis
    https://books.google.com.tw/books?id=ngbia3tOBQIC&pg=PA670

    It’s as if “fake news” and “lyin’ CNN” wasn’t a new problem caused by Facebook and the Internet and the general decline in moral values…

    PS: One reason why the book may not have had as much play as it merited: its English-sounding author, Godfrey Jansen, was in fact a Muslim of Indian background.

    Godfrey Jansen, who took up Arab cause, dead at 78

    Godfrey Jansen, a former Indian diplomat whose passion for Lebanon and the Middle East led him to quit a promising career to become a journalist promoting Arab causes
    https://www.dailystar.com.lb//News/Lebanon-News/1998/Dec-02/20438-godfrey-jansen-who-took-up-arab-cause-dead-at-78.ashx

    “The Arab authors, of course, stand out because of their names, and their works tend to be taken automatically as being partisan and propagandist. Such is not the case with the Israeli or pro-Israeli writer: their works are accepted as the product of objective scholarship, which in very many cases, they are not.”

    Aside from the obnoxious assumption that pro-Israel sentiment implies a bias against Islam, this argument reads most strangely in the light of the following facts: Godfrey H. Jansen is a citizen of India and a Muslim.

    Militant Islam, by Godfrey H. Jansen, reviewed by Daniel Pipes, Commentary, August 1980
    http://www.danielpipes.org/7996/militant-islam

    … and his still-living wife is a converted Muslim called… Michael. Ah the Middle East is truly mysterious…

  101. @hhsiii
    Hoffman's character isn't Jewish. I know it's hard. Nichols and Hoffman are. The character is a nebbish. But he ain't.

    The character in the book isn’t Jewish but you guys can’t help yourselves. BTW, the “barbecue” scene where everyone is heaping effusive praise on Benjamin and talking crassly about business at a social event isn’t particularly Waspish, or not upper class WASP at any rate.

    • Replies: @Kyle McKenna
    Jimmy, as you can see, even the irrelevant minions of the ruling class don't like it when you put two and two together.

    And you're right, the crass behaviour is not typical of their targets: but they want you to think it is. Hollywood Projection.
  102. @Anonymous
    The premise here is all wrong--that American Jews started getting interested in Israel only after Israel established its bona fides in 1967. American Jews (and Jews in Britain) have always been interested in Israel. The creation of Israel was a decades long project--it just didn't happen in 1948, Most important:

    1. Truman recognizes Israel despite Marshall and the State Department's opposition in exchange for Jewish money and Jewish support in 1948.

    2. Dulles was and continues to be vilified for humiliating Israel (and Britain and France) in 1956 after forcing them to withdraw from the Suez in 1956.

    3. There was never any dispute or doubt that Israel was the big dog in the Middle East before 1967. The so-called six days war didn't show anyone anything they didn't already know.

    Rather than "discovering" Israel in 1967, Neoconservatism only emerged as an anti-Communist (and USSR) force after the Slavication of the upper echelon of Soviet society and the withdrawal of Soviet support for Israel in favor of the Arabs. Russia is still at the receiving end of intense negative propaganda stemming from that societal transformation taking pace in the Soviet Union in the 1960s.

    The more interesting analysis is how the issue of Israel and Jews became so important to the gentiles of the US. On the fringes, of course, the fundamentalist Christians always had their Israel and Jew fetish, but the mainstream . . . hardly at all. In fact, throughout the 50s and 60s WWII books and movies were routinely made which didn't treat the Germans like cartoon characters--indeed, just about every German general of any consequence published their memoirs about the war and these were translated into English as if it was perfectly reasonable (the same could not be said for the Japanese, for whom there was a real lasting hatred) The point is that there was no real stigma attached to being objective about Jews, about Israel.

    Like the TV mini-series Roots did for Blacks, the Holocaust did for Jews in the 1970s--the whole "Holocaust Industry" blasted off from that point. The very idea of a persecuted nearly exterminated people beyond criticism or analysis penetrated American society at that point and has never ended.

    Interesting comment.

  103. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    LOL. It seems that Unz’s coding auto-strips html from links to Spencer’s tweets. Hence the cryptic fortune-cookie block quote. I guess Spencer’s White Nationalism is beyond the pale, at least from a forum-moderating perspective. Fair enough.

    On Sailer’s Twitter page, under the sidebar “You may also like * Refresh,” Twitter groups together Sailer, Spencer, hbd chick, KMac, Derb, Jared Taylor, Takimag, AmRen, Counter-Currents, Nathan Damigo, and Charles Murray amongst others. Obviously there are differences, but it seems like a sensible grouping to me. Who’s A-list, B-list, or doesn’t belong?

    I guess [Richard] Spencer’s White Nationalism is beyond the pale…

    I prefer Robert Spencer, anyway.

  104. @Steve Sailer
    What about Philistines and Phoenicians?

    “Phoenicia” is from Greek for “purple land,” I think because the Phoenicians were known among the Greeks as the source of purple dye.

    The Phoenicians as far as I know were from Tyre, which is by modern-day Lebanon and north of where the Philistines were from, which is right next to Israel.

  105. @Steve Sailer
    What about Philistines and Phoenicians?

    Phoenicia is generally considered to be Tyre in the Levant and the culture was spread out among many maritime city states around the Mediterranean. Cyprus, Sidon, Cyrene, Sardinia, Carthage etc.

  106. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "June 4, 1968 was also the date of Don Drysdale’s fifth consecutive complete game shutout, this one against the Pirates."

    FIVE entire complete games in a row? Goodness! Did his arm fall off soon afterwards? Didn't anyone remember to tell Don that he simply couldn't do that kind of thing? I mean, thank goodness LA's GM wasn't Bill James, or he'd have promptly fired the pitching coach, severely warned the manager, not to ever, ever, repeat that kind of thing again with another pitcher. That's just...just...ridiculous. Five in a row, that's like, 45 innings in a month. Goodness.

    LA had in starting rotation in '68 HOFer Don Sutton, and that was about it. Koufax retired after '66 season. Dodgers simply dropped off the radar from '67-73 and after '69, when Drysdale retired, Sutton was basically on his own trying to keep the team afloat. But at least Sutton never pitched five whole complete games in a row. I can't believe that kind of thing was actually done.

    Some P's dont even have five complete games after they've pitched half their careers, let alone during a single year.

    FIVE entire complete games in a row? Goodness! Did his arm fall off soon afterwards? Didn’t anyone remember to tell Don that he simply couldn’t do that kind of thing?

    Don’t forget, he had to swing a bat, too, every second or third inning. Which he did well.

    Did Drysdale ever pinch-hit on his days off? I think Bob Gibson did. Tom Seaver was used as a pinch-runner at times.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "Don’t forget, he had to swing a bat, too, every second or third inning. Which he did well."

    Frankly I'm amazed that Drysdale could ever drive a car again, after pitching five whole complete games in a row. That kind of thing just simply isn't done, and its completely unheard of in this era. Who knows how many health problems a P could develop after such a feat.

    And after all, Drysdale did retire midway thru '68. Does make you think that he simply wore himself out after those 58 2/3 consecutive innings.
    , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Found this on Wiki:

    "Among the personal belongings found in Drysdale's hotel room was a cassette tape of Robert F. Kennedy's victory speech after the 1968 California Democratic presidential primary, a speech given only moments before Senator Kennedy's assassination. In the speech, Kennedy had noted, to the cheers of the crowd, that Drysdale had pitched his sixth straight shutout that evening. Drysdale had apparently carried the tape with him wherever he went since Kennedy's murder"
  107. @Steve Sailer
    75th Anniversary of Midway.

    75th Anniversary of Midway.

    And the loss of Saint Paul Academy alumnus Richard E Fleming, who would have turned 100 this November.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_E._Fleming

    We still think of him as the first kamikaze, whatever the debunkers may say.

  108. @bored identity



    Essentially, Sirhan was a victim of the Israelis.
    The book tells in vivid detail how he and his family suffered.
    The book really changed my thinking about Sirhan and the assassination.
    Of course, his assassination of Robert Kennedy was not justified, but Sirhan’s motive was to wreak some vengeance for his family’s suffering.

     

    Gee, your piece was perfectly written... for a tiny violin and sirhanmonic orchestra.

    Now, bored identity will do some essential splainin' for you:


    Duran Duran with US Visa/Residence/Passport = Good.
    Sirhan Sirhan with US Visa/Residence/Passport = Not Good.


    M'kay?

    Duran Duran with US Visa/Residence/Passport = Good.
    Sirhan Sirhan with US Visa/Residence/Passport = Not Good.

    M’kay?

    I don’t understand.

  109. @biz
    Sirhan Sirhan was not widely identified as a Palestinian becuase that identity was just on the verge of being invented and popularized in 1969.

    “Sirhan Sirhan was not widely identified as a Palestinian becuase that identity was just on the verge of being invented and popularized in 1969.”
    Your lie makes baby Jesus cry.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument)

    • Replies: @biz
    Sigh. There was a region calles Palestine by outside powers (Ottomans, British) but the Arab inhabitants did not view themselves as Palestinians. The first inklings of a distinctive Palestinian identity was in the 1960s.
  110. @Steve Sailer
    75th Anniversary of Midway.

    War & Remembrance Battle of Midway Part I

  111. @Steve Sailer
    75th Anniversary of Midway.

    War & Remembrance Battle of Midway Part II

  112. @Steve Sailer
    75th Anniversary of Midway.

    War & Remembrance Battle of Midway Part III

  113. @Steve Sailer
    75th Anniversary of Midway.

    War & Remembrance Battle of Midway Part IV

  114. @Steve Sailer
    75th Anniversary of Midway.

    War & Remembrance Battle of Midway Part V

  115. @kaganovitch
    "Since I no longer owned the book, I searched the Internet for some reviews of the book, and I was surprised to find practically nothing. It seems to me that the book has been suppressed. I was lucky to find it at that estate sale."


    There are 8 copies on amazon. It's listed in just about every bibliography of RFK assassination books. It's listed first among secondary sources on the Maryland State Archives site for teaching History. How do you think it was suppressed? Do you think the Elders of Zion can prevent someone from reviewing it on the internet??

    There are 8 copies on amazon. It’s listed in just about every bibliography of RFK assassination books. It’s listed first among secondary sources on the Maryland State Archives site for teaching History. How do you think it was suppressed? Do you think the Elders of Zion can prevent someone from reviewing it on the internet??

    I know that the book is not illegal.

    There are no customer reviews of the book on Amazon, and I could not find any reviews of the book anywhere on the Internet.

    I used the word “suppressed” with some reluctance. I still can’t think of a better word.

    Godfrey Jansen’s book Why Robert Kennedy Was Killed is a superb book. Jansen was a professional diplomat and journalist. After the assassination he immediately interviewed many of Sirhan Sirhan’s relatives in Palestine and California. The book is written in a judicious manner.

    Jansen writes that both Robert Kennedy and Sirhan Sirhan were victims. He does not excuse Sirhan’s assassination of Kennedy.

    I have read many books about the assassinations of that period (JFK, MLK, RFK, Wallace). This book was superb, but it was “suppressed” — or some other better word you might suggest.

    I donated the book to a library book sale, so I can refer only to my memory of it here.

    The book describes in detail the sufferings of the Sirhan family — in particular the sufferings of Sirhan Sirhan. The family was devoutly Christian. As a boy, he saw Arabs murdered. His family was terrorized by Israelis. They had to flee their home. They lost their jobs.

    Unfortunately, I don’t remember the details, and I can’t find any information on the Internet.

    If you see the book anywhere, get it and read it. The book probably will change your thinking about Sirhan Sirhan.

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    I think rather than suppression, the more parsimonious explanation would be that Americans were in no mood to read sympathetic "root cause" explanations of RFK's assassination, much like Americans had very limited appetite for reading "root cause" explanations of Bin Laden's grudges against America. Jansen may well have been a skilled journalist but he was also a Muslim apologist so he should be read with some skepticism, much like one would read an account by an Israeli apologist.
    , @German_reader
    Apparently it was reviewed (negatively) in the New York Times though, on May 2 1971:
    http://www.nytimes.com/1971/05/02/archives/why-robert-kennedy-was-killed-the-story-of-two-victims-by-godfrey.html?_r=0
  116. @Steve Sailer
    75th Anniversary of Midway.

    Raymond Spruance: There’s a man who deserves to be better known to the public.He should have made Fleet Admiral.

    Raymond Ames Spruance (July 3, 1886 – December 13, 1969) was a United States Navy admiral in World War II.
    Spruance commanded U.S. naval forces during two of the most significant naval battles that took place in the Pacific theater, the Battle of Midway and the Battle of the Philippine Sea. The Battle of Midway was the first major victory for the United States over Japan and is seen by many as the turning point of the Pacific war. The Battle of the Philippine Sea was also a significant victory for the US. The Navy’s official historian said of the Battle of Midway “…Spruance’s performance was superb…(he) emerged from this battle one of the greatest admirals in American naval history”.[1] After the war, Spruance was appointed President of the Naval War College, and later served as American ambassador to the Philippines.
    Spruance was nicknamed “electric brain” for his calmness even in moments of supreme crisis, a reputation enhanced by his successful tactics at Midway.[2]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_A._Spruance

    • Agree: James Richard
    • Replies: @James Richard
    A greater admiral there never was. To take nothing away from the brave airmen, sailors, marines, and soldiers who fought and even lost their lives in the fight, his cool nerve in immediately pulling the trigger and sending his planes towards the reported enemy position even as he was still out of range was the crucial decision that won the battle.
  117. In 2004, I wrote a series of articles titled “Aristotle Onassis, the Palestinian Fatah, and Sirhan Sirhan”, which was published on Rantburg.com. The first four parts are archived and are not conveniently available, but the fifth part can be seen here (scoll down):

    http://rantburg.com/index.php?D=07/20/2004&HC=6&SO=Terror%20Networks

    That should demonstrate that I have read a lot about the RFK assassination.

    My series of articles was about the explanation that Sirhan was hypnotized to assassinate RFK. I know all about that explanation.

    Until I read Jansen’s book Why Robert Kennedy Was Killed: The Story of Two Victims, I failed to appreciate Sirhan’s motive. Hypnotism — by himself or by others — certainly affected his actions, but even without hypnotism he was filled with murderous hatred because of his family’s suffering in Palestine. His family was Christian, but it lost everything. As a boy he saw Arabs in his neighborhood murdered by Israelis.

    • Replies: @European-American
    Sirhan Sirhan is rather articulate at his trial and explains his political motivations very clearly when questioned by his attorney:

    Trial of Sirhan Bishara Sirhan, 3 Mar 1969 - 4 Mar 1969
    https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=99532#relPageId=207

    Too bad I was only able to find a difficult-to-read photocopy of the trial transcript. Still, it's enough to see that Sirhan had a rather detailed and coherent understanding of the situation both in his native country and in the United States.

    I don't know anything about the hypnotism allegations, but they sound like a lot of convenient BS that serves to ignore Sirhan Sirhan's plain-as-day motivations.

    I suppose I am guilty of a second-order conspiracy theory: there's a conspiracy to encourage people to consider ridiculous conspiracy theories, all as a distraction from the actual facts.

    re: "suppressed" I see what you mean, it's tricky to find the right word. Has the native American point of view been suppressed from US history? Or is it just that nobody important cared...

    , @Jim Christian

    I failed to appreciate Sirhan’s motive. Hypnotism — by himself or by others — certainly affected his actions, but even without hypnotism he was filled with murderous hatred because of his family’s suffering in Palestine.
     
    Fair enough, Mike. His eight-shot revolver of .22s was hypnotized, too. It magically produced 20 or 25 holes in people, walls and ceiling tiles. Was it a magic pistol? Did it come from the beans from which Jack grew his bean stalk? Sorry, just riffing off Joe Pesci. The problem with all these deals, from JFK to Gabby Giffords is, the Feds move in, blow off the local cops and grab every scrap of evidence available. In a few months, everything crafted just the way they like (and think us idiots will believe), a story comes out. I'd LOVE for local detectives and States' D.A.s to get a crack at one of these deals. Holder got a hold of the Giffords crime scene and the pistol she was shot with moved to Federal custody damned near at gunpoint from the local cops. They knew damned well that was a pistol bought at a gun show that was a fallout of his Fast and Furious program and they didn't want THAT getting out since a border cop had already been killed by another weapon by that time.

    Once the FBI is involved, bank on it:the truth is never known..
  118. @Laugh Track

    JFK and RFK :

    JFK: Assassinated by an admitted communist.

    Media Mythology: JFK’s assassination had nothing to do with communism. He was actually killed by a cabal of anti-Black Right-Wingers who thought that he was going to pull out of Vietnam.

    RFK: Assassinated by an Arab because he supported Israel.

    Media Mythology: Same as above.

    If anyone still needs proof that the Left controls discourse in the USA….
     
    It seems to me -- YMMV -- that your supposedly obvious facts are the "Media Mythology". The respectable MSM never bought into the conspiracy researcher community's various and conflicting explanations and, instead, usually just disseminated the pat explanations favored by the Warren Commission and other govt. authorities and sources.

    A cursory reading of even just a few of the best "conspiracy" research books makes clear that the facts surrounding Oswald and Sirhan were complicated and capable of all sorts of conflicting interpretations. But, of course, that is just my own personal opinion.

    It seems to me — YMMV — that your supposedly obvious facts are the “Media Mythology”.

    By media mythology, I’m referring to stuff like Executive Action and JFK. The Liberal subconscious, as it were.

    The MSM news outlets (the conscious brain of the Left) preferred POV regarding the assassinations was apolitical. To the MSM, Oswald and Sirhan were just nutjobs.

    A cursory reading of even just a few of the best “conspiracy” research books makes clear that the facts surrounding Oswald and Sirhan were complicated and capable of all sorts of conflicting interpretations. But, of course, that is just my own personal opinion.

    The book on the JFK assassination that I always recommend is Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy by Vincent Bugliosi

    • Replies: @FPD72
    You need to differentiate between news pages and the opinion section of newspapers. James Reston led the NYT opinion section in ascribing JFK's death to a "climate of hate" in the city of Dallas. This became widespread and for decades Dallas was known thusly and held corporately responsible for the death of the president. Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and Drew Pearson were other prominent sources for this myth. The left has never been able to deal with the reality that JFK was killed, not for civil rights or some other left wing cause, but because of his role as a cold warrior who sought the overthrow of the Communist regime in Cuba.
  119. @Steve Sailer
    What about Philistines and Phoenicians?

    The etymology is Hebrew related: Philistines = פלשתים, which comes from the verb פלש (plš) which appropriately enough means “invade” – very likely a bunch of Mycenean-related sea invaders, with no relation to the Semitic Phoenicians. Herodotus called it Palestine long after the Philistines were gone – maybe because he appreciated the Greek influence?

  120. @guest
    Ross leaves her fiancee, but we're not left with the idea that she's going to end up with Hoffman. Could be he just gave her an excuse to go runaway bride.

    As for the "short Jewish nebbish," I think Hoffman once said something like, "The guy's named Braddock, not Bratowski." He's not supposed to be Jewish, but he seems that way because he's alienated, doesn't fit in with all the WASPs, mopes around depressed-like, and it doesn't hurt that he becomes obsessed with abnormal sex. Also, because he's played by Dustin Hoffman and the movie was directed by Mike Nichols.

    As for the “short Jewish nebbish,” I think Hoffman once said something like, “The guy’s named Braddock, not Bratowski.” He’s not supposed to be Jewish, but he seems that way because he’s alienated, doesn’t fit in with all the WASPs, mopes around depressed-like, and it doesn’t hurt that he becomes obsessed with abnormal sex. Also, because he’s played by Dustin Hoffman and the movie was directed by Mike Nichols.

    If memory serves, they originally wanted Robert Redford for the part, but he simply wasn’t plausible as the shy, awkward type.

  121. @syonredux
    Raymond Spruance: There's a man who deserves to be better known to the public.He should have made Fleet Admiral.

    Raymond Ames Spruance (July 3, 1886 – December 13, 1969) was a United States Navy admiral in World War II.
    Spruance commanded U.S. naval forces during two of the most significant naval battles that took place in the Pacific theater, the Battle of Midway and the Battle of the Philippine Sea. The Battle of Midway was the first major victory for the United States over Japan and is seen by many as the turning point of the Pacific war. The Battle of the Philippine Sea was also a significant victory for the US. The Navy's official historian said of the Battle of Midway "...Spruance's performance was superb...(he) emerged from this battle one of the greatest admirals in American naval history".[1] After the war, Spruance was appointed President of the Naval War College, and later served as American ambassador to the Philippines.
    Spruance was nicknamed "electric brain" for his calmness even in moments of supreme crisis, a reputation enhanced by his successful tactics at Midway.[2]
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_A._Spruance

    A greater admiral there never was. To take nothing away from the brave airmen, sailors, marines, and soldiers who fought and even lost their lives in the fight, his cool nerve in immediately pulling the trigger and sending his planes towards the reported enemy position even as he was still out of range was the crucial decision that won the battle.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    I too admire Spruance, but ironically his greater decision than the early attack (which was just what his orders were anyway) was his choice not to pursue the Japanese fleet into the night, where he most likely would have run into Yamamoto's battleship trap which would have chewed his fragile carrier task force to bits turning Spruance's miraculous victory into an ignominious defeat.

    Looking back on the Battle of Midway, where the American forces had so many disadvantages and mistakes, while the Japanese had so many advantages guided by experience, it is striking how often the American faults were turned to good account by chance, timing or weather, while the Japanese advantages were neutralized by the same circumstances.

    Spruance accurately calculated and prudently took the risks that turned out to succeed, but it is hard not to see the hand of Providence or Fate, or whatever you want to call it, shaping the result.
  122. I have only had a Fith of Meyers tonight so I’m not clear but what should we really mourn about June of ’67 ? That our President turned out to be a traitor , who had no reservations about disowning the simple patriots murdered by his Jew masters? Or should I mourn the murder of the two Irish scumbags that got what they had coming ? Don’t deny it Steve you once believed in Camelot , did you not ? And yet the greatest tribute to his sordid reign was this by a limp wristed English sot .

    OH and let’s not forget their trailer park love affair in Cum a lot . The drink sodden ham in love with the plumbers idea of Cleopatra . Oh Camelot oh Camelot f**k you .

    • Replies: @James Richard

    a limp wristed English sot
     
    Richard Burton was Welsh and if he was gay it certainly didn't prevent him from banging every leading lady he ever worked with.
  123. Oh what do the simple folk do ?

  124. @Steve Sailer
    75th Anniversary of Midway.

    The Battle of Midway 1942 US Navy; John Ford; World War II; Technicolor

  125. Instead of writing that Godfrey Jansen’s book Why Robert Was Killed: The Story of Two Victims was suppressed, I thought writing that it was ignored. However, I feel that it was more than ignored.

    The book was published in 1971. At that time, our country’s intellectual class did not really want to hear about the Palestinians’ complaints. The intellectual class was very pro-Israel.

    Now in 2017, Americans are much more open-minded toward Palestinians’ complaints. We have intellectual forums like this blog here, where lots of people criticize Israel all the time.

    In 1971, a book explaining that Sirhan Sirhan assassinated Robert Kennedy because Sirhan’s family had suffered much under the Israelis would not be reviewed favorably in any mainstream journal. Furthermore, it would not be reviewed at all. Such an explanation was dismissed reflexively as uncouth and offensive.

    In 1971, I was 19 years old, and I read a lot. In general, people in the USA were not exposed to Palestinian Arab complaints about their treatment by Israelis. Information about such complaints was kind of suppressed.

    • Replies: @Kyle McKenna

    In 1971, I was 19 years old, and I read a lot. In general, people in the USA were not exposed to Palestinian Arab complaints about their treatment by Israelis. Information about such complaints was kind of suppressed.
     
    Agreed, but we did get to know them as malefactors...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawson%27s_Field_hijackings


    During the crisis, on 11 September President Nixon initiated a program to address the problem of "air piracy", including the immediate launch of a group of 100 federal agents to begin serving as armed sky marshals on U.S. flights. Nixon's statement further indicated the U.S. departments of Defense and Transportation would determine whether X-ray devices then available to the military could be moved into civilian service.
     
    What was that date again??
    , @kaganovitch
    I should add , that Jansen's book was published by Third Press, an obscure, Blackety Black Black press best known for publishing Angela Davis' work. Not the kind of publishing house that would elicit a review in mainstream papers/mags. I would guess you might find a review in leftish/third world oriented journals of the period, but those are hard to get a hold of nowadays unless you have access to mimeograph collections.Most of them have not been digitized yet. Also, Sirhan himself did much to obscure his motive with his nutty sounding notebook and his hypnosis nonsense.
  126. Here is what the simple folk did once :

    Yeah once upon a time the simple folk were as deluded as they are now at The Unz Review . As if what they think made a difference .

    So being that our lives are not our own and that despite what ever pretensions we might have we are no better than domesticated live stock , what to do what to do ? Uh well there is something , some thing that marks down every transgression and good deed as well , and we can only wait for “God’s” judgement to descend and hope that the feather settles gently on our side of the scales.

  127. @guest
    Ross leaves her fiancee, but we're not left with the idea that she's going to end up with Hoffman. Could be he just gave her an excuse to go runaway bride.

    As for the "short Jewish nebbish," I think Hoffman once said something like, "The guy's named Braddock, not Bratowski." He's not supposed to be Jewish, but he seems that way because he's alienated, doesn't fit in with all the WASPs, mopes around depressed-like, and it doesn't hurt that he becomes obsessed with abnormal sex. Also, because he's played by Dustin Hoffman and the movie was directed by Mike Nichols.

    What? The movie clearly implies that the girl loves Benjamin and she will run away from her horrible family and way of life to be happy with the him because WASPS are cold and the jew is warm and loving.
    I saw this movie while fighting in Vietnam.
    BTW me sister had the book which I read happily. In one scene Ben confides to someone that while hitchhiking he was picked up by an Indian(woo woo) who made a pass at him.
    “Have you ever heard of a queer Indian?!”
    The Indian embodies Ben’s sinking feeling that the world is out of whack,I guess.
    For the record,I truly loathe Hoffman.

    • Replies: @guest
    "What? The movie clearly implies that the girl loves Benjamin and she will run away from her horrible family and way of life to be happy with the him"

    I was thinking of the ambiguous ending, where after the thrilling church climax they sit on the bus with blank stares on their faces as "Hello, darkness, my old friend" plays. But that may be more about Benjamin than her. He ends up looking the same at the end as he did at the beginning.
  128. @hhsiii
    Hoffman's character isn't Jewish. I know it's hard. Nichols and Hoffman are. The character is a nebbish. But he ain't.

    As was Buck Henry, born Henry Zuckerman, who won Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay.

    • Replies: @Kyle McKenna
    Aww crap, not another one! Well that explains a lot. I'm so damned naïve sometimes.
  129. @Mike Sylwester
    In 2004, I wrote a series of articles titled "Aristotle Onassis, the Palestinian Fatah, and Sirhan Sirhan", which was published on Rantburg.com. The first four parts are archived and are not conveniently available, but the fifth part can be seen here (scoll down):

    http://rantburg.com/index.php?D=07/20/2004&HC=6&SO=Terror%20Networks

    That should demonstrate that I have read a lot about the RFK assassination.

    My series of articles was about the explanation that Sirhan was hypnotized to assassinate RFK. I know all about that explanation.

    Until I read Jansen's book Why Robert Kennedy Was Killed: The Story of Two Victims, I failed to appreciate Sirhan's motive. Hypnotism -- by himself or by others -- certainly affected his actions, but even without hypnotism he was filled with murderous hatred because of his family's suffering in Palestine. His family was Christian, but it lost everything. As a boy he saw Arabs in his neighborhood murdered by Israelis.

    Sirhan Sirhan is rather articulate at his trial and explains his political motivations very clearly when questioned by his attorney:

    Trial of Sirhan Bishara Sirhan, 3 Mar 1969 – 4 Mar 1969
    https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=99532#relPageId=207

    Too bad I was only able to find a difficult-to-read photocopy of the trial transcript. Still, it’s enough to see that Sirhan had a rather detailed and coherent understanding of the situation both in his native country and in the United States.

    I don’t know anything about the hypnotism allegations, but they sound like a lot of convenient BS that serves to ignore Sirhan Sirhan’s plain-as-day motivations.

    I suppose I am guilty of a second-order conspiracy theory: there’s a conspiracy to encourage people to consider ridiculous conspiracy theories, all as a distraction from the actual facts.

    re: “suppressed” I see what you mean, it’s tricky to find the right word. Has the native American point of view been suppressed from US history? Or is it just that nobody important cared…

    • Replies: @Mike Sylwester

    I don’t know anything about the hypnotism allegations, but they sound like a lot of convenient BS that serves to ignore Sirhan Sirhan’s plain-as-day motivations.
     
    Thanks for the link to the transcript of Sirhan's trial testimony. I will read it.

    Sirhan practiced self-hypnosis, and while he was in a trance he wrote in a notebook.

    The book The Assassination of Robert Kennedy: The Conspiracy and Coverup, written by William Turner and Jonn Christian, reports about a trial of a hypnotist, William Joseph Bryan, who was involved with Sirhan. That is a book that was suppressed.

    The book Nemisis by Peter Evans reports that the secret operation to hypnotize Sirhan was funded by Aristotle Onassis.

    I wrote a series of articles about the hypnotizing of Sirhan for Rantburg in 2004. Most of the articles are no longer available, because Rantburg archived them, but here are the links to

    Part 1
    http://www.rantburg.com/index.php?D=07/05/2004&HC=1&SO=Terror%20Networks

    Part 6
    http://rantburg.com/index.php?D=07/20/2004&HC=6&SO=Terror%20Networks

    You have to scroll down to find my articles.
    , @Art Deco
    Sirhan Sirhan’s plain-as-day motivations.

    Plain as day? He mortally wounds one member of Congress friendly to Israel. What was he planning to do about the other 500-odd? What did his act accomplish but kill a politician abrasive to him? And how is that not a motive derived entirely from his inner life?
  130. @James Richard
    The character in the book isn't Jewish but you guys can't help yourselves. BTW, the "barbecue" scene where everyone is heaping effusive praise on Benjamin and talking crassly about business at a social event isn't particularly Waspish, or not upper class WASP at any rate.

    Jimmy, as you can see, even the irrelevant minions of the ruling class don’t like it when you put two and two together.

    And you’re right, the crass behaviour is not typical of their targets: but they want you to think it is. Hollywood Projection.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    IIRC The Heartbreak Kid (the 1972 original), which is overt shiksa-goddess resentment, has a similar portrayal of her rich WASP family.
  131. Kyle McKenna [AKA "Mika-Non"] says:
    @Mike Sylwester
    Instead of writing that Godfrey Jansen's book Why Robert Was Killed: The Story of Two Victims was suppressed, I thought writing that it was ignored. However, I feel that it was more than ignored.

    The book was published in 1971. At that time, our country's intellectual class did not really want to hear about the Palestinians' complaints. The intellectual class was very pro-Israel.

    Now in 2017, Americans are much more open-minded toward Palestinians' complaints. We have intellectual forums like this blog here, where lots of people criticize Israel all the time.

    In 1971, a book explaining that Sirhan Sirhan assassinated Robert Kennedy because Sirhan's family had suffered much under the Israelis would not be reviewed favorably in any mainstream journal. Furthermore, it would not be reviewed at all. Such an explanation was dismissed reflexively as uncouth and offensive.

    In 1971, I was 19 years old, and I read a lot. In general, people in the USA were not exposed to Palestinian Arab complaints about their treatment by Israelis. Information about such complaints was kind of suppressed.

    In 1971, I was 19 years old, and I read a lot. In general, people in the USA were not exposed to Palestinian Arab complaints about their treatment by Israelis. Information about such complaints was kind of suppressed.

    Agreed, but we did get to know them as malefactors…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawson%27s_Field_hijackings

    During the crisis, on 11 September President Nixon initiated a program to address the problem of “air piracy”, including the immediate launch of a group of 100 federal agents to begin serving as armed sky marshals on U.S. flights. Nixon’s statement further indicated the U.S. departments of Defense and Transportation would determine whether X-ray devices then available to the military could be moved into civilian service.

    What was that date again??

    • Replies: @Mike Sylwester

    Agreed, but we did get to know them as malefactors…[link to article about hijackings of airplanes in 1970]
     
    Yes, the terrorist actions committed by Palestinians against Americans was a major reason why Americans were contemptuous of Palestinians' complaints.

    There was a vicious circle.

  132. @James Richard
    It's been called Palestine since at least Herodotus referred to it circa 500 B.C. and there are inscriptions with it from the time of a Ramses III. Don't take literally everything they told you in Hebrew school.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_name_"Palestine"

    Are you daft. He’s not talking about the land.

  133. @JimS
    Steve, what about a June 4th anniversary? It seems like a long time since you've posted about Pacific carrier battles in World War II.

    China slaughtered the students in Tiananmen Square on Sunday, June 4, 1989 – the day after the Ayatollah Khomeini breathed his last.

    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome


    Tiananmen Square

     



    Nanjing anti-African protests
    ... The Tiananmen Square ... came 4 months after the anti-African protests in Nanjing and some elements of the Nanjing protests were still evident, such as banners proclaiming "Stop Taking Advantage of Chinese Women".

     

  134. @BB753
    Ruby a patriot? Really? Sorry, I don't buy it.

    Sure, Ruby bragged of gun running to Israel in the late 40s. In fact, the official published history of a major Zionist arms smuggling operation, the Sonneborn Institute, reports its agents smuggled aircraft parts out of Texas to Israel. This was happening when a then recently discharged Army Air Corps aircraft mechanic, Jack Ruby, was re-settling in Dallas in 1947, the year prior to Israel’s birth, when Sonneborn’s activities were at a zenith. Ruby was clearly deeply involved in organising the assassination and was deeply linked to the CIA, Israel and was of course a prominent member of organised crime.

  135. @whorefinder
    The best conspiracy-theory way to tie up Oswald, Sirhan, Hinckley, Ruby, etc. would be a massive sleeper cell-hypnosis-brain-wahsing project that bore fruit to create untraceable lone wacko gunmen.

    Unfortunately for all fans of The Manchurian Candidate and MKULTRA, there remains no hard evidence that any brainwashing program could produce such results. Perhaps one day the curtain will be lifted on CIA programs that actually worked to created empty-headed, babbling killers doing what they were programmed to do. You know, how the history of computing had it's history illuminated when the Brits declassified all the computer stuff they did in WW2 that was previously unknown.

    But until then, the evidence suggests very strongly that:

    -Oswald the communist, acting alone, shot Kennedy for being anti-communist (perhaps at the urging/teasing of Cuban intelligence, who refused to let Oswald defect because they recognized he was a nut).

    -Sirhan the Arab (and church-hopper) shot RFK for helping Israel.

    -Ruby shot Oswald because of the intense hatred/patriotism engendered by JFK's death. Comparable to the hatred generated against Bin Laden in the few days after 9/11----I can attest personally that, in New York, had Bin Laden been captured on 9/12 or 9/13, and had been held anywhere near NYC, thousands of New Yorkers would have rioted and lynched him, such was the mood.

    -Hinckley, obsessed with Jodie Foster, shot Reagan in a bizarre attempt to impress her.

    Oswald had a very high level of security clearance as he worked with the U2 spy planes the CIA ran out of Japan. He would have been recruited there, it is believed the ONI had a fake defectors program and that Oswald was selected for this, the Russians were not fooled and it was not a success. Still his background as a purported defector and time in the Marines made him an excellent candidate for sheep dipping.

    Based on all the available evidence there seems to be that by spring 1963, Oswald was an FBI informant who was infiltrating Cuban exile groups and right wing subversive groups as an agent of the Defence Intelligence Agency.

    JFK’s commencement address at the American University clearly signaled his intention to wind down the cold war, he was well on the way to reelection on a detente platform.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    Everyone in the (Soviet) mission was stunned and confused, particularly when there were rumors that the murder had been Soviet-inspired... Our leaders would not have been so upset by the assassination if they had planned it and the KGB would not have taken upon itself to venture such a move without Politburo approval. More important, Khrushchev's view of Kennedy had changed. After Cuba, Moscow perceived Kennedy as the one who had accelerated improvement of relations between the two countries. Kennedy was seen as a man of strength and determination, the one thing that Kremlin truly understands and respects. In addition, Moscow firmly believed that Kennedy's assassination was a scheme by "reactionary forces" within the United States seeking to damage the new trend in relations. The Kremlin ridiculed the Warren Commission's conclusion that Oswald had acted on his own as the sole assassin. There was in fact widespread speculation among Soviet diplomats that Lyndon Johnson, along with the CIA and the Mafia, had masterminded the plot. Perhaps one of the most potent reasons why the U.S.S.R. wished Kennedy well was that Johnson was anathema to Khrushchev. Because he was a southerner, Moscow considered him a racist (the stereotype of any American politician from below the Mason Dixon line), an anti-Soviet and anti-Communist to the core. Further, since Johnson was from Texas, a center of the most reactionary forces in the United States, according to the Soviets, he was associated with the big-time capitalism of the oil industry, also known to be anti-Soviet.
    , @Art Deco
    Oswald had a very high level of security clearance as he worked with the U2 spy planes the CIA ran out of Japan. He would have been recruited there, it is believed the ONI had a fake defectors program and that Oswald was selected for this, the Russians were not fooled and it was not a success. Still his background as a purported defector and time in the Marines made him an excellent candidate for sheep dipping.

    I often wonder what the point of origin of these idiot memes is. My suspicion is that they start out as submissions to trade book publishers who include spy fiction on their lists, and someone somewhere gets hold of these and fancies they were treatments for works of history or current affairs.

    The real Lee Harvey Oswald was quite hopeless and failed at everything he attempted between 1952 and his death. Very adept at getting fired from his job and surprisingly adept at getting a handsome women to marry him, bear his children, and put up with his personality problems (until such time as she realized he was useless and that there were other people in this world who would work with her and look after her).

  136. @syonredux

    It seems to me — YMMV — that your supposedly obvious facts are the “Media Mythology”.
     
    By media mythology, I'm referring to stuff like Executive Action and JFK. The Liberal subconscious, as it were.

    The MSM news outlets (the conscious brain of the Left) preferred POV regarding the assassinations was apolitical. To the MSM, Oswald and Sirhan were just nutjobs.

    A cursory reading of even just a few of the best “conspiracy” research books makes clear that the facts surrounding Oswald and Sirhan were complicated and capable of all sorts of conflicting interpretations. But, of course, that is just my own personal opinion.
     
    The book on the JFK assassination that I always recommend is Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy by Vincent Bugliosi

    https://www.amazon.com/dp/B002GKGBM8/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

    You need to differentiate between news pages and the opinion section of newspapers. James Reston led the NYT opinion section in ascribing JFK’s death to a “climate of hate” in the city of Dallas. This became widespread and for decades Dallas was known thusly and held corporately responsible for the death of the president. Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and Drew Pearson were other prominent sources for this myth. The left has never been able to deal with the reality that JFK was killed, not for civil rights or some other left wing cause, but because of his role as a cold warrior who sought the overthrow of the Communist regime in Cuba.

  137. @Mike Sylwester

    There are 8 copies on amazon. It’s listed in just about every bibliography of RFK assassination books. It’s listed first among secondary sources on the Maryland State Archives site for teaching History. How do you think it was suppressed? Do you think the Elders of Zion can prevent someone from reviewing it on the internet??
     
    I know that the book is not illegal.

    There are no customer reviews of the book on Amazon, and I could not find any reviews of the book anywhere on the Internet.

    I used the word "suppressed" with some reluctance. I still can't think of a better word.

    Godfrey Jansen's book Why Robert Kennedy Was Killed is a superb book. Jansen was a professional diplomat and journalist. After the assassination he immediately interviewed many of Sirhan Sirhan's relatives in Palestine and California. The book is written in a judicious manner.

    Jansen writes that both Robert Kennedy and Sirhan Sirhan were victims. He does not excuse Sirhan's assassination of Kennedy.

    I have read many books about the assassinations of that period (JFK, MLK, RFK, Wallace). This book was superb, but it was "suppressed" -- or some other better word you might suggest.

    I donated the book to a library book sale, so I can refer only to my memory of it here.

    The book describes in detail the sufferings of the Sirhan family -- in particular the sufferings of Sirhan Sirhan. The family was devoutly Christian. As a boy, he saw Arabs murdered. His family was terrorized by Israelis. They had to flee their home. They lost their jobs.

    Unfortunately, I don't remember the details, and I can't find any information on the Internet.

    If you see the book anywhere, get it and read it. The book probably will change your thinking about Sirhan Sirhan.

    I think rather than suppression, the more parsimonious explanation would be that Americans were in no mood to read sympathetic “root cause” explanations of RFK’s assassination, much like Americans had very limited appetite for reading “root cause” explanations of Bin Laden’s grudges against America. Jansen may well have been a skilled journalist but he was also a Muslim apologist so he should be read with some skepticism, much like one would read an account by an Israeli apologist.

    • Agree: European-American
    • Replies: @European-American
    We are in no mood and are not interested in "root cause" nonsense about various primitive peoples we may have pushed around or whatever. But, surprise! they are quite moody and interested in us. And they live among us now. Oopsie...
    , @Mike Sylwester

    I think rather than suppression, the more parsimonious explanation would be that Americans were in no mood to read sympathetic “root cause” explanations of RFK’s assassination ... Jansen may well have been a skilled journalist but he was also a Muslim apologist so he should be read with some skepticism, much like one would read an account by an Israeli apologist.
     
    I agree with you that "Americans were in no mood to read sympathetic 'root cause' explanations of RFK's assassination." That is well put.

    If you ever get a chance to read Jansen's book, I expect that you will find it to be informative, careful and judicious.

    I don't know whether Jansen was a "Muslim apologist" in his other writings, but in this book he wrote sympathetically about the Sirhan family, which was devoutly Christian.

    ======

    Instead of using the word suppressed, perhaps I should have used the word marginalized, which is half-way to ignored.

    When Jansen published his book in 1971, a book could be marginalized by the country's intellectual and medial elites much more easily than today. Those elites did more than simply ignore such a book. They marginalized such a book. They took some actions to make sure that nobody ever even heard about it.

    Now in 2017, we have the Internet and blogs, and it's much easier to spread information about contrary opinions. Back in 1971, people who wanted to spread contrary ideas had to create newsletters, sell subscriptions to them, and mail the newsletters periodically.

    That's how I.F. Stone and other contrarians had to get their ideas out in 1971. Now someone like Steve Sailer can create a blog, which is much more efficient.

    Back in 1971, Jansen could publish his book, but he couldn't get it reviewed anywhere. He probably couldn't get any bookstores to sell it. The only way to buy his book was to special-order it. Some people did so, and that's why there are some used copies around.

    , @guest
    As superficial as is the common understanding of Bin Laden, people know more about him than that he's some crazy guy who did it just because, which is about all they know of Sirhan Sirhan. They know, for instance, Bin Laden was a radical Muslim Jihadist from Saudi Arabia who led a terrorist group called Al Queda out of Afghanistan, where he previously fought the Soviets. They know he objected to Western armies occupying Muslim soil, and that he bombed the U.S.S. Cole for the same reason. Maybe they think they know he was "jealous of our freedom," too.

    People know that, or at least some of it. All they know about Sirhan is his name, if that, and the fact that he shot Bobby.
  138. “Part of the conceptual problem Americans had in dealing with RFK’s murder was that we didn’t have a convenient category yet into which to lump Sirhan”

    This is the root of most modern conspiracy theorizing. Or perhaps more accurately, that conspiracy theorizers don’t have a desirable category in which to understand the subject.

    The obvious explanation that communist Lee Harvey Oswald shot anti-communist JFK is not a desirable explanation to the West’s left-wing press, so it was the shooting that launched a thousand conspiracy theories, each invoking Occam’s Butterknife to show that the CIA/FBI/mafia/Cubans/grassy knoll benefited from the President’s death in some esoteric way.

    That Israel-toady RFK was shot by anti-Israel Palestinian Sirhan Sirhan is (or ought to be) obvious in retrospect, but was obscure at the time, and the RFK assassination had to be woven into the pre-existing body of JFK conspiracy theories.

    That Islam = violence and Saudi millionaire Osama bin Laden had been sponsoring violence against America for years should be obvious to any sentient observer, but whether due to willful ignorance, reflexive anti-Western hatred, or a guileful desire to protect the Saudis, 9/11 has launched another decade and a half of conspiracy theorizing, each one more butterknife-y than the last.

    Yet these realities remain obscure while the fake-realities, which all more or less boil down to blame-the-white-guy, are ever and again wafted aloft on a stale wind of leftist theorizing.

  139. @Mike Sylwester
    Instead of writing that Godfrey Jansen's book Why Robert Was Killed: The Story of Two Victims was suppressed, I thought writing that it was ignored. However, I feel that it was more than ignored.

    The book was published in 1971. At that time, our country's intellectual class did not really want to hear about the Palestinians' complaints. The intellectual class was very pro-Israel.

    Now in 2017, Americans are much more open-minded toward Palestinians' complaints. We have intellectual forums like this blog here, where lots of people criticize Israel all the time.

    In 1971, a book explaining that Sirhan Sirhan assassinated Robert Kennedy because Sirhan's family had suffered much under the Israelis would not be reviewed favorably in any mainstream journal. Furthermore, it would not be reviewed at all. Such an explanation was dismissed reflexively as uncouth and offensive.

    In 1971, I was 19 years old, and I read a lot. In general, people in the USA were not exposed to Palestinian Arab complaints about their treatment by Israelis. Information about such complaints was kind of suppressed.

    I should add , that Jansen’s book was published by Third Press, an obscure, Blackety Black Black press best known for publishing Angela Davis’ work. Not the kind of publishing house that would elicit a review in mainstream papers/mags. I would guess you might find a review in leftish/third world oriented journals of the period, but those are hard to get a hold of nowadays unless you have access to mimeograph collections.Most of them have not been digitized yet. Also, Sirhan himself did much to obscure his motive with his nutty sounding notebook and his hypnosis nonsense.

    • Replies: @Mike Sylwester

    Sirhan himself did much to obscure his motive with his nutty sounding notebook and his hypnosis nonsense.
     
    Sirhan was a poorly educated, emotionally disturbed immigrant who was controlled by our court system. In his trial, he was not allowed to base his legal defense on an argument that he killed Robert Kennedy in order to wreak vengeance for his family suffering under the Israelis.

    His lawyers defended him with arguments about his mental state. That was an appropriate legal defense.

    His weird activities during the months before the assassination were perhaps self-medication for his emotional problems. He was filled with anger, and so he experimented with meditation, self-hypnosis, journal-writing and so forth.

    It seems that Sirhan fell under the control of a hypnotist named William Joseph Bryan. A few years after the assassination, there was a libel trial that provided quite good evidence that Sirhan and Bryan were involved with each other. This trial was the core of the book The Assassination of Robert Kennedy, written by William Turner and Jonn Christian.

    That was a book that really was suppressed. After only a few books were sold, the publisher had to pulp all the books in its warehouse. Many years passed before the book could be sold again.

  140. @Sam Haysom
    E. Howard Hunt? The guys who hunted down Che. I don't know what your definition of a patriotic American is. For quite a few people here American patriotism somehow requires fealty to vlad the shirtless.

    What is it with Putin that triggers so many respectable conservatives? He’s admired for the same reason a lot of people admire Benjamin Netanyahu or Lee Kuan Yew or Paul Kagame: a vigorous, masculine leader who acts in his country’s national interest, not some ambiguous “global” interest.

    Which reminds me, I’ve read articles that claim news photos of Ronald Reagan, sitting tall in the saddle and chopping wood on his beloved, remote ranch, terrified all the doddering old Soviets.

    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    Lesley Stahl, longtime CBS White House correspondent, wrote in her book that reporters were forbidden to photograph Reagan at his ranch. They used special telescopic lenses to shoot pictures of him riding on his horse in the hours after the Soviets shot down a Korean airliner. Good liberals everywhere decried the president's "laziness" and "indifference" in the midst of an international crisis.

    Reagan also was lambasted for testing a microphone by joking that he had outlawed Russia and that "we start bombing in five minutes."
  141. @George
    Just in case any of the Zuckerbergs are reading this article I think a link to an amazingly similar situation in ancient Rome. No Roman equivalent to Ted though.

    The Gracchus brothers, Tiberius and Gaius, were Romans who both served as tribunes in the late 2nd century BC. They attempted to pass land reform legislation that would redistribute the major aristocratic landholdings among the urban poor and veterans, in addition to other reform measures. After achieving some early success, both were assassinated by enemies of these reforms.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gracchi

    Teddy White made the Gracci/Kennedy-Camelot comparison in The Making of the President:1968. John was isolated in his death until the death of his brother Robert in 1968. Upon Robert’s death the Kennedys REALLY became the Kennedys. They were now the Gracci.

    I suspect the real Gracci were a more noble lot. But at that paygrade, there is corruption in every heart I suppose.

  142. @Jason Sylvester
    "But the notion of Arab terrorism didn’t emerge until later, and few Americans seemed to make the connection between Arab terrorism and Sirhan."

    I know I didn't, except in the most vague sense that Sirhan was a foreigner of some sort with a pet wrong he was eager to avenge until your Taki column that made the link explicit. This gets left out of The Narrative in the same way that the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was a devout Marxist (or, as "devout" as his shabby intellect had the ability to muster), ex-defector to the Soviet Union, and, at the time of Kennedy's assassination, proud "Secretary" and sole member of the New Orleans chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.

    Instead, we hear non-stop any time the subject comes up about Dallas being the epicenter of an "atmosphere of Right-wing hate" - Magic Right-wing Hate Air made Lee Oswald the convinced communist shoot a liberal Democratic President! Potent stuff, that Hate Air.

    In any event, it is indeed worthy of note how the decade between the actual - as opposed to the numerical - start and end of what we collectively think of as "the 1960s," those years that commenced around 1 pm Central Standard Time on November 22, 1963 and ended at noon on August 9, 1974, radicalized practically everybody.

    Much attention is paid to the Leftist agitation that provoked these crises of American confidence and stability during the Sixties, with the liberal media egging them on while many Blacks took their cues from pampered white college liberals and celebrities and began burning down cities in the background as their own less nuanced versions of "heightening the contradictions" and "making the political personal" made inner cities everywhere no-go war zones even as the welfare checks and other freebies ramped up to a level never seen before in an organized human effort to pay people to nothing other than breathe and breed at their leisure.

    And such attention should be paid, given the cultural, societal, and actual, in many cases, physical destruction the American Left's ideological insanities cost us during those boiling, roiling times. But I find it more interesting in many cases what the reaction was among what Richard Nixon, via Pat Buchanan's pen, called "the Silent Majority": they radicalized, too, in response. Just in a different, healthier, more sane, and better direction.

    One anecdote: I have asked my parents a lot about those years (I was born in 1969), and in 1964 my Mom, the daughter of a Payne County (Oklahoma) Democratic Party volunteer vice-chairwoman, voted for Lyndon Baines Johnson for president; her husband, my Dad, a junior NCO in the United States Air Force, voted for Barry Goldwater, to his wife's dismay.

    By 1968 - after four years of chaos on college campuses and cities going up in flames and just the general disdain toward regular Americans like my parents that liberal elites suddenly felt free by circumstances to exude and spew - my mother had moved to the Right of my father: she attended a George Wallace rally in Oklahoma City while she was pregnant with me, and enthusiastically voted for him in November, 1968; my Dad stuck with Nixon. Why did she vote for Wallace over Nixon in '68, I once asked her? "He was too liberal," she said, "by then, I was done with liberals."

    Of course, people like my Mom - the children of bred-in-the-bone Depression Era FDR & Harry Truman Democrats - gave Wallace his impressive 13.5% of the vote in '68, Nixon his landslide in '72 and Reagan his own versions of same in 1980 and '84, and for good reasons: the Democrats didn't just leave those people, but snarled at them as moral inferiors as they ushered them out the door.

    But I've always thought a good, conscientious historian or chronicler of our modern and recent times could do justice with a book examining what got someone like my Mom from "All the Way with LBJ!" in 1964 to Richard Nixon, of all people, being "too liberal" for her by 1968.*

    That is a very short turnaround time and radicalization of political views for what were fundamentally basic, solid, decent, hard-working people, in a compressed frame of time: "by then, I was done with liberals."

    Our times continue to show why any intellectually honest person should be done with them, but slightly more than half of the country, from varied motives and reasons, are not.

    *Hint: Steve Sailer should write it. Your mastery of the data and instinctual understanding of the trends in modern American history since about forever would be a masterpiece of writing, scholarship, and an invaluable academic gem centuries hence, for scholars as-yet unborn for generation's-to-come attempting to decode American history as it both has and continues to unfold during our times.

    *Hint: Steve Sailer should write it.

    No offense to Steve, but liberal as the prick was, Teddy White wrote the series Making of the President 1956-1980 and it was a pretty accurate portrayal of the beginnings of rot on our campuses the war and the public discourse in general. Read that series from 1956 on up to 1972 or 1976 and you’ll have a pretty accurate background on that particularly destructive period.

    Robert Caro’s series of The Years of Lyndon Johnson gives an extremely opposite view of things 1950 or so, when Johnson turned up in Congress on up to the period 1964-1968. The chronicle of events between White’s and Caro’s accounts are in parallel. But the contrast in views on the personalities involved are in striking difference. I don’t know how folks comment and write serious history on the period without reading and crediting both authors. These, to me, are the preeminent sources of the historical record. Good reads,all, Jason.

    I still have my Mom’s collection of Teddy White’s “Making of the President” in hardback, all of them. Also have Death of a President from William Manchester, which while a major record at the time has been shown to be a puff-piece, all authorized by the Kennedy Family, a grandiose depiction of the tragedy, every aspect pro-Kennedy. Still worth reading, however.

  143. @Steve Sailer
    What about Philistines and Phoenicians?

    What about Phuckensteins and Phonysteins ?

  144. @Paul Walker - Most beautiful man ever...
    "Sirhan Sirhan was not widely identified as a Palestinian becuase that identity was just on the verge of being invented and popularized in 1969."
    Your lie makes baby Jesus cry.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument)

    Sigh. There was a region calles Palestine by outside powers (Ottomans, British) but the Arab inhabitants did not view themselves as Palestinians. The first inklings of a distinctive Palestinian identity was in the 1960s.

  145. @Mike Sylwester
    In 2004, I wrote a series of articles titled "Aristotle Onassis, the Palestinian Fatah, and Sirhan Sirhan", which was published on Rantburg.com. The first four parts are archived and are not conveniently available, but the fifth part can be seen here (scoll down):

    http://rantburg.com/index.php?D=07/20/2004&HC=6&SO=Terror%20Networks

    That should demonstrate that I have read a lot about the RFK assassination.

    My series of articles was about the explanation that Sirhan was hypnotized to assassinate RFK. I know all about that explanation.

    Until I read Jansen's book Why Robert Kennedy Was Killed: The Story of Two Victims, I failed to appreciate Sirhan's motive. Hypnotism -- by himself or by others -- certainly affected his actions, but even without hypnotism he was filled with murderous hatred because of his family's suffering in Palestine. His family was Christian, but it lost everything. As a boy he saw Arabs in his neighborhood murdered by Israelis.

    I failed to appreciate Sirhan’s motive. Hypnotism — by himself or by others — certainly affected his actions, but even without hypnotism he was filled with murderous hatred because of his family’s suffering in Palestine.

    Fair enough, Mike. His eight-shot revolver of .22s was hypnotized, too. It magically produced 20 or 25 holes in people, walls and ceiling tiles. Was it a magic pistol? Did it come from the beans from which Jack grew his bean stalk? Sorry, just riffing off Joe Pesci. The problem with all these deals, from JFK to Gabby Giffords is, the Feds move in, blow off the local cops and grab every scrap of evidence available. In a few months, everything crafted just the way they like (and think us idiots will believe), a story comes out. I’d LOVE for local detectives and States’ D.A.s to get a crack at one of these deals. Holder got a hold of the Giffords crime scene and the pistol she was shot with moved to Federal custody damned near at gunpoint from the local cops. They knew damned well that was a pistol bought at a gun show that was a fallout of his Fast and Furious program and they didn’t want THAT getting out since a border cop had already been killed by another weapon by that time.

    Once the FBI is involved, bank on it:the truth is never known..

  146. Anyone see the Mad Magazine cartoon spoof of The Graduate when Benjamin Braddock says to his parents ” How come I’m Jewish but you’re not ? “. LOLZZZZZZ

  147. @Karl
    iSteve,

    Respectfully request you edit the opening sentence to read,

    On May 22, 1967, Egyptian President Nasser ended the existing armistice by declaring the Straits of Tiran closed, thus blockading the Israeli port city of Eilat.


    reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_Six-Day_War

    So nice of you to admit that Israel’s current blockades of Gaza is an act of war and the residents are fully justified in their attacks upon Israel.

    • Replies: @Karl
    > 149 Chris Mallory So nice of you to admit that Israel’s current blockades of Gaza is an act of war


    There most certainly is a war. We aren't going to allow our cities to be rocketed. You can say anything you want..... we'll CONTINUE to shoot anyone who tries it.

    Do you have a problem with that?
  148. “Hinckley, obsessed with Jodie Foster, shot Reagan in a bizarre attempt to impress her.”…

    Actually, that was kind of cute 🙂
    Love, JF.

  149. @Kevin C.

    The Jews have been grafted into WASP culture and taken it over, but they are doing nothing really new.
     
    Indeed, it's what "WASP culture" has become that's the problem. An insane (non-theistic) religion, a post-Christian offshoot descendant of New England Puritanism that ditched God and Jesus (except in the "Buddy Christ" form of Moralistic Therapeutic Deism) as insufficiently egalitarian, "equality" having become the key measure of holiness. And with the same fanaticism as their puritan ancestors, seek to "convert the heather" with full fervor, with formerly-Christian virtues, unseated from their contexts and constraints and retranslated to a non-spiritual, utopian context (immanentizing the eschaton), now running amok (see C.S. Lewis on the tyrannies of "virtue" unrestrained).

    And because, as scholars like Winnifred Sullivan have pointed out, America's "religious freedom" was only workable by adopting a very narrow, Protestant definition of "religion", wherein essentially "religion ends at the church door", and "non-theistic religion" is denied as a concept (anthropologists and comparative religious scholars notwithstanding), thereby allowing the first religion to shed explicit theology, the "antigens" where by our First Amendment "immune system" against theocracy recognizes a religion at such, was able to seize the centers of power and become the unofficial Official Religion.

    At best, the Jews — the ones who pose problems, anyway — are conversos to this unofficial Official Religion — the descendant of the State Church of Massachusetts, with HYP as its seminaries, now ruling America and trying to make disciples of all nations — with all the fervor of the converted, and with the over-representation at the upper ranks that we see whenever Jews join any institution, but, as one writer frequently puts it, they are the cape, not the matador.

    they are the cape, not the matador

    Very well put. This puts anti-Semites in the position of the enraged bull, who is constantly charging for the cape while the matador deftly steps aside and stabs him in the back.

  150. @Mark Green
    Sirhan was a Christian refugee from Palestine who was exacting revenge on RFK for the New York Senator's perfidiousness and his lethal hypocrisy. Sirhan's revenge was one of the first instances of Arab blowback directed at a US politician.

    That 'antiwar' RFK was willing to unconditionally stand with Israel and support the Six Day Zionist land-grab made RFK a target. And appropriately so. RFK betrayed everyone who looked up to him as a beacon of fairness, justice and compassion. Idealistic Sirhan didn't understand that carrying water for Israel was an integral part of Kennedy's job.

    RFK was a member of Israel's insider apparatus that subsidized and sanitized the Jewish state's political machine inside Washington, New York and beyond. Robert Kennedy famously supported America's retreat in Vietnam, but never dared to criticize our government's unconditional support for Israel, even when the Zionist state demanded US-manufactured WMD, F-14s, cash or diplomatic protection. Sirhan was naive. Kennedy was ambitious.

    1967 was the year that Israel conquered not only Egypt, Jordan and Syria, but Washington. too.

    RFK a target. And appropriately so.

    So you are saying that it is appropriate to assassinate politicians that you disagree with?

  151. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    Relevant:

    https://twitter.com/thehill/status/870801482215501825

    https://twitter.com/RichardBSpencer/status/870819111366004737

    I assume these are 2 different Richards.

    Mentioning the USS Liberty is useful because anyone who does outs himself as an anti-Semite. There is nothing to be gained by rehashing this incident otherwise. Casualties from “friendly fire” are unfortunately very common in the fog of war. Just the other day the London cops shot a bystander in the head in the course of killing the terrorists. They should not have needed 50 shots to kill 3 terrrorists but once the adrenaline starts pumping people don’t think clearly. It’s very easy to be an armchair general.

    • Replies: @anonymous

    It’s very easy to be an armchair general.
     
    As a monday morning quarterback, I resent that.
    , @James Richard
    The repeated attacks by air and sea on the USS Liberty were intentionally ordered by Moshe Dayan because he feared that the ship was gathering evidence of the buildup to his nefarious surprise attack on Syria. LBJ intentionally intervened and silenced his own Secretary of State and the US Navy officers who were on the scene. These are well established facts and as usual you are obviously pimping for Israel.

    https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/02/infamy-at-sea-israels-attack-on-the-uss-liberty-50-years-later/
    , @Robert Hume
    I
    , @Joe Stalin
    "Judge Cristol, with 38 years' naval service, mourns the mens' deaths and injuries, and his book honors their courage. But like the Israeli government, the judge is dubious of the nay sayers. They rely on "conjecture, hearsay and plain wishful thinking," flawed or traumatized memories, and "various conspiracy theories," he says.5

    No Bigots

    "Such characterizations, along with the linking of Liberty veterans with Arab extremists and racist groups, sit poorly with the ship's crew. Indeed, the Internet Web site of the Liberty Veterans' Association (LVA) makes clear that all bigots' support is unwelcome.6 The suggestion of prejudice especially upsets Jewish survivors, such as the senior engineering officer, George Golden, who received the Silver Star for directing heroic efforts to keep the ship afloat. And James Ennes Jr., the LVA historian and spokesman accused in Judge Cristol's book of taking "an irrationally harsh line against Israel," refers to such assertions as "just silly."7

    "Ennes, a retired Navy lieutenant commander, was officer of the deck before being badly wounded early in the attack. He devoted 13 years' research toward his own book, Assault on the Liberty. Some half-dozen major—and many minor—disagreements mark the dispute's two main schools: Judge Cristol's "mistaken identity" and Ennes's, the crew's, and several U.S. intelligence professionals' "deliberate attack."

    Friendless Fire?
    By David C. Walsh
    Naval Institute Proceedings, June 2003

    -----

    Former NSA Officials Agree

    David C. Walsh

    The jamming of unique U.S. frequencies during the Liberty incident seems to establish deliberate intent. And in exclusive interviews with this author, several former high-level National Security Agency (NSA) officials agree.

    On 14 February 2003, the "godfather" of the NSA's Auxiliary General Technical Research program, Oliver Kirby, noted that the Liberty was "my baby." Within weeks of the calamity, Kirby, deputy director for operations/production, read U.S. signals intelligence (SigInt)-generated transcripts and "staff reports" at NSA's Fort Meade, Maryland, headquarters. They were of Israeli pilots' conversations, recorded during the attack. The intercepts made it "absolutely certain" they knew it was a U.S. ship, he said. Kirby's is the first public disclosure by a top-level NSA senior of deliberate intent based on personal analyses of SigInt material.

    In an interview on 24 February 2003, retired Air Force Major General John Morrison, the agency's then-second-in-command (and Kirby's successor), said he had been informed at the time of Kirby's findings and endorsed them. Former NSA Director retired Army Lieutenant General William Odom said on 3 March 2003 said that, on the strength of such data, the attack's deliberateness "just wasn't a disputed issue" within the agency. On 5 March 2003, retired Navy Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, NSA director from 1977-1981, said he "flatly rejected" the Cristol/Israeli thesis. "It is just exceedingly difficult to believe that [the Liberty] was not correctly identified." He said this was based on his talks with NSA seniors at the time having direct knowledge. All four were unaware of any agency official at that time or later who dissented from the "deliberate" conclusion.
  152. @Opinionator
    They have the same feelings about Al- Andalus. Any land conquered by Muslims is for all eternity, and the rest just hasn’t been conquered yet.


    Citation needed.

    Citation needed.

    You need to up your deflecting game.

  153. @Jack D
    I assume these are 2 different Richards.

    Mentioning the USS Liberty is useful because anyone who does outs himself as an anti-Semite. There is nothing to be gained by rehashing this incident otherwise. Casualties from "friendly fire" are unfortunately very common in the fog of war. Just the other day the London cops shot a bystander in the head in the course of killing the terrorists. They should not have needed 50 shots to kill 3 terrrorists but once the adrenaline starts pumping people don't think clearly. It's very easy to be an armchair general.

    It’s very easy to be an armchair general.

    As a monday morning quarterback, I resent that.

  154. @James Richard
    It's been called Palestine since at least Herodotus referred to it circa 500 B.C. and there are inscriptions with it from the time of a Ramses III. Don't take literally everything they told you in Hebrew school.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_name_"Palestine"

    The Philistines that Herodotus was referring to were most likely “Sea People” – migrants from Cyprus that set up cities along the Mediterranean coast. Genetically their closest modern descendants would be Lebanese Christians. The Arabs who call themselves “Palestinians” today have little if any genetic overlap – they probably have more African blood than Philistine blood.

    http://www.hebrew-streams.org/works/hebrew/palestine.html

    There already is a Palestinian country – it’s called Jordan. The British put the Hashemites of Arabia (the traditional guardians of Mecca) on the throne as a consolation prize after their loss to to the Saud clan. The British mandate of Palestine was divided and most of it became Jordan but a small coastal strip became Israel. The West Bank area became part of Jordan and no one ever considered it to be a separate country until the Israelis conquered it.

    • LOL: James Richard
    • Replies: @James Richard
    A Canaanite is a Canaanite is a Canaanite. :-)

    http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/science/1.681385

  155. @whorefinder
    The best conspiracy-theory way to tie up Oswald, Sirhan, Hinckley, Ruby, etc. would be a massive sleeper cell-hypnosis-brain-wahsing project that bore fruit to create untraceable lone wacko gunmen.

    Unfortunately for all fans of The Manchurian Candidate and MKULTRA, there remains no hard evidence that any brainwashing program could produce such results. Perhaps one day the curtain will be lifted on CIA programs that actually worked to created empty-headed, babbling killers doing what they were programmed to do. You know, how the history of computing had it's history illuminated when the Brits declassified all the computer stuff they did in WW2 that was previously unknown.

    But until then, the evidence suggests very strongly that:

    -Oswald the communist, acting alone, shot Kennedy for being anti-communist (perhaps at the urging/teasing of Cuban intelligence, who refused to let Oswald defect because they recognized he was a nut).

    -Sirhan the Arab (and church-hopper) shot RFK for helping Israel.

    -Ruby shot Oswald because of the intense hatred/patriotism engendered by JFK's death. Comparable to the hatred generated against Bin Laden in the few days after 9/11----I can attest personally that, in New York, had Bin Laden been captured on 9/12 or 9/13, and had been held anywhere near NYC, thousands of New Yorkers would have rioted and lynched him, such was the mood.

    -Hinckley, obsessed with Jodie Foster, shot Reagan in a bizarre attempt to impress her.

    Where does Valerie Solanas fit into this kabal of vipers or are you conveniently ignoring her?

    • Replies: @whorefinder

    Where does Valerie Solanas fit into this kabal of vipers or are you conveniently ignoring her?
     
    Clearly brainwashed by MKULTRA to murder a young George Will, but her programming got him confused with Warhol. The rabbit hole goes deep, I tell ya!
  156. @Jack D
    I assume these are 2 different Richards.

    Mentioning the USS Liberty is useful because anyone who does outs himself as an anti-Semite. There is nothing to be gained by rehashing this incident otherwise. Casualties from "friendly fire" are unfortunately very common in the fog of war. Just the other day the London cops shot a bystander in the head in the course of killing the terrorists. They should not have needed 50 shots to kill 3 terrrorists but once the adrenaline starts pumping people don't think clearly. It's very easy to be an armchair general.

    The repeated attacks by air and sea on the USS Liberty were intentionally ordered by Moshe Dayan because he feared that the ship was gathering evidence of the buildup to his nefarious surprise attack on Syria. LBJ intentionally intervened and silenced his own Secretary of State and the US Navy officers who were on the scene. These are well established facts and as usual you are obviously pimping for Israel.

    https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/02/infamy-at-sea-israels-attack-on-the-uss-liberty-50-years-later/

    • Replies: @Jack D
    I think "well established facts" doesn't mean what you think it means.

    The official (and originally TOP SECRET) US inquiry concluded that the attack was a mistake due to Israeli confusion about the ship's identity.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20121030155345/http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/uss_liberty/attack_sigint.pdf

    Now it's possible that the official report was a lie due to a conspiracy involving the CIA, LBJ, the Elders of Zion, the space aliens from Area 51, etc. Or else not. But either way, I would call that less than "established facts".

    But, even assuming arguendo that it's all true, then so what? This happened 50 year ago. LBJ is dead, Moshe Dayan is dead. No one (AFAIK) disputes that the Japanese attack on the USS Arizona was other than an intentional and perfidious attack but the Japanese are our best buddies nowadays and have been since shortly after the war was over.
  157. @Jack D
    The Philistines that Herodotus was referring to were most likely "Sea People" - migrants from Cyprus that set up cities along the Mediterranean coast. Genetically their closest modern descendants would be Lebanese Christians. The Arabs who call themselves "Palestinians" today have little if any genetic overlap - they probably have more African blood than Philistine blood.

    http://www.hebrew-streams.org/works/hebrew/palestine.html

    There already is a Palestinian country - it's called Jordan. The British put the Hashemites of Arabia (the traditional guardians of Mecca) on the throne as a consolation prize after their loss to to the Saud clan. The British mandate of Palestine was divided and most of it became Jordan but a small coastal strip became Israel. The West Bank area became part of Jordan and no one ever considered it to be a separate country until the Israelis conquered it.

    A Canaanite is a Canaanite is a Canaanite. 🙂

    http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/science/1.681385

  158. @James Richard
    A greater admiral there never was. To take nothing away from the brave airmen, sailors, marines, and soldiers who fought and even lost their lives in the fight, his cool nerve in immediately pulling the trigger and sending his planes towards the reported enemy position even as he was still out of range was the crucial decision that won the battle.

    I too admire Spruance, but ironically his greater decision than the early attack (which was just what his orders were anyway) was his choice not to pursue the Japanese fleet into the night, where he most likely would have run into Yamamoto’s battleship trap which would have chewed his fragile carrier task force to bits turning Spruance’s miraculous victory into an ignominious defeat.

    Looking back on the Battle of Midway, where the American forces had so many disadvantages and mistakes, while the Japanese had so many advantages guided by experience, it is striking how often the American faults were turned to good account by chance, timing or weather, while the Japanese advantages were neutralized by the same circumstances.

    Spruance accurately calculated and prudently took the risks that turned out to succeed, but it is hard not to see the hand of Providence or Fate, or whatever you want to call it, shaping the result.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    Another striking aspect of the Battle of Midway is how lethal--to their own aircrews--naval air sorties were. Even the "successful" (i.e., did a lot of damage to the enemy) missions often resulted in the loss of most of the attacking planes and crew. Unsuccessful attacks were simply annihilated.

    Do you think that anywhere in the West today, you could find enough volunteers for even the relatively modest number of aircrews at Midway, given the semi-suicidal nature of the work?

    I rather doubt it. Yet the advantages we inherited are built on that kind of sacrifice.

    Islam, on the other hand, seems to have no shortage of suicide-ready (even suicide-enthusiastic) soldiers. Don't count on their sacrifices underpinning any great advance in human civilization, though.
    , @LondonBob
    You Yanks had cracked the Jap code, Midway was a success due to superior US intelligence rather than the hand of Providence or Fate. Analysis continues to ignore the often decisive effect of superior intelligence in deciding battles.

    https://warontherocks.com/2016/06/the-battle-of-midway-the-complete-intelligence-story/
    , @Whoever

    Looking back on the Battle of Midway, where the American forces had so many disadvantages and mistakes, while the Japanese had so many advantages guided by experience, it is striking how often the American faults were turned to good account by chance, timing or weather, while the Japanese advantages were neutralized by the same circumstances.
     
    Guided by experience? The Japanese? What experience? The Battle of the Coral Sea knocked the Japanese 5th Carrier Division (Shoukaku, Zuikaku) out of action and cost them their highly trained air group personnel, wiped out by US Navy aviators just the month before. The first carrier-to-carrier air battle in history and they were driven back, sustaining air crew losses that they never replaced because they didn't have the solid aviator training program the US Navy had developed pre-war.
    The Japanese also hadn't developed the efficient operation of flight deck crews that the US Navy had, as epitomized by the wearing of colored jerseys to distinguish functions. The Japanese also had not developed the deck-park system to refuel and re-arm aircraft quickly, as the US Navy had through a series of experiments in the 1920s. Japanese doctrine required aircraft to be moved to the hanger deck for servicing, then brought back on deck for launching. This proved to be a big part of their undoing at Midway.
    By contrast, as early as May, 1928, during Fleet Problem VIII, the Langley launched 35 aircraft in seven minutes -- one aircraft every 12 seconds -- thanks to these techniques. A dozen years later, the Japanese were not even close to matching that efficiency.
    Also, as a result of US Navy efficiencies, our aircraft carriers could carry more aircraft than comparable Japanese carriers. The standard Japanese carrier air group consisted of 63 planes while the US Navy carrier air group consisted of 72 planes.
    Another superiority of the US Navy carrier force: As a result of a series of carrier-to-carrier duels during fleet problems, it had been determined that the role of carrier aviation in naval battles was to find enemy carriers and disable their flight decks. The first to do this won the overall battle. So the US Navy developed the scout bomber and the doctrine to use it. Each CAG contained 18 scout bombers, their role to locate enemy carriers and disable their flight decks by dive-bombing.
    The Japanese, by contrast, did not bother to develop a strategy to deal with enemy carriers and never practiced carrier-to-carrier air battles. They did not believe reconnaissance was a suitable role for carrier aircraft, that job being assigned to float planes launched from cruisers. Their carriers' job was to attack enemy battleships, primarily with torpedo bombers.
    The US Navy had made the aircraft carrier the center of fleet operations by 1940 and determined that speed and evasiveness were it's chief protection, so it was uncoupled from slow battleship formations and each carrier group was to operate separately, so that if one was found by the enemy, that would not lead to the discovery of our other carriers.
    The Japanese, by contrast, had decided that concentration of carrier air power to achieve air superiority over the battle zone required close operation of carriers. They were also aware of the vulnerable position this put their carriers in -- should one be found, all would be found. But they believed that arranging their carriers in a close box formation would provide advantages in a massing of air groups for offensive operations, while the carriers would be protected by a much larger combat air patrol consisting of fighters from all the carrier operating in cooperation.
    As the fighting around Midway played out, it showed that the Japanese Navy was wrong in what it believed about carrier air warfare, and the US Navy was right.
    Yes, luck played a part in the battle, as it does always. Everyone know about the good fortune of Enterprise's scout bombers spotting the Japanese destroyer Arashi, which led them to discover the Japanese fleet. But a very similar thing happened to the Japanese during their attack on the British Navy's Repulse and Prince of Wales six months earlier. The main force of 26 Kanoya Ku G4M torpedo bombers had been unable to locate the British ships, which were only moderately damaged by earlier attacks, until they spotted a Walrus seaplane launched by Repulse, which was making a beeline for Singapore. They backtracked it to the ships and destroyed them.
    But luck favors the prepared and skilled, and at Midway, the US Navy not only had the luck, it was also prepared and skilled, and in the scout bomber, had the right equipment.
    The US Navy won Midway because it had been practicing for it for 15 years. The Japanese did not practice for such a battle, had the wrong strategy and tactics and equipment for it, and also had bad luck.
    , @Whoever

    Looking back on the Battle of Midway, where the American forces had so many disadvantages and mistakes, while the Japanese had so many advantages guided by experience, it is striking how often the American faults were turned to good account by chance, timing or weather, while the Japanese advantages were neutralized by the same circumstances.
     
    Guided by experience? The Japanese?
    The Battle of the Coral Sea knocked the Japanese 5th Carrier Division (Shoukaku, Zuikaku) out of action and cost them their highly trained air group personnel, wiped out by US Navy aviators just the month before. The first carrier-to-carrier air battle in history and they were driven back, sustaining air crew losses that they never replaced because they didn't have the solid aviator training program the US Navy had developed pre-war.
    The Japanese also hadn't developed the efficient operation of flight deck crews that the US Navy had, as epitomized by the wearing of colored jerseys to distinguish functions. The Japanese also had not developed the deck-park system to refuel and re-arm aircraft quickly, as the US Navy had through a series of experiments in the 1920s. Japanese doctrine required aircraft to be moved to the hanger deck for servicing, then brought back on deck for launching. This proved to be a big part of their undoing at Midway.
    By contrast, as early as May, 1928, during Fleet Problem VIII, the Langley launched 35 aircraft in seven minutes -- one aircraft every 12 seconds -- thanks to these techniques. A dozen years later, the Japanese were not even close to matching that efficiency.
    Also, as a result of US Navy efficiencies, our aircraft carriers could carry more aircraft than comparable Japanese carriers. The standard Japanese carrier air group consisted of 63 planes while the US Navy carrier air group consisted of 72 planes.
    Another superiority of the US Navy carrier force: As a result of a series of carrier-to-carrier duels during fleet problems, it had been determined that the role of carrier aviation in naval battles was to find enemy carriers and disable their flight decks. The first to do this won the overall battle. So the US Navy developed the scout bomber and the doctrine to use it. Each CAG contained 18 scout bombers, their role to locate enemy carriers and disable their flight decks by dive-bombing.
    The Japanese, by contrast, did not bother to develop a strategy to deal with enemy carriers and never practiced carrier-to-carrier air battles. They did not believe reconnaissance was a suitable role for carrier aircraft, that job being assigned to float planes launched from cruisers. Their carriers' job was to attack enemy battleships, primarily with torpedo bombers.
    The US Navy had made the aircraft carrier the center of fleet operations by 1940 and determined that speed and evasiveness were it's chief protection, so it was uncoupled from slow battleship formations and each carrier group was to operate separately, so that if one was found by the enemy, that would not lead to the discovery of our other carriers.
    The Japanese, by contrast, had decided that concentration of carrier air power to achieve air superiority over the battle zone required close operation of carriers. They were also aware of the vulnerable position this put their carriers in -- should one be found, all would be found. But they believed that arranging their carriers in a close box formation would provide advantages in a massing of air groups for offensive operations, while the carriers would be protected by a much larger combat air patrol consisting of fighters from all the carrier operating in cooperation.
    As the fighting around Midway played out, it showed that the Japanese Navy was wrong in what it believed about carrier air warfare, and the US Navy was right.
    Yes, luck played a part in the battle, as it does always. Everyone know about the good fortune of Enterprise's scout bombers spotting the Japanese destroyer Arashi, which led them to discover the Japanese fleet. But a very similar thing happened to the Japanese during their attack on the British Navy's Repulse and Prince of Wales six months earlier. The main force of 26 Kanoya Ku G4M torpedo bombers had been unable to locate the British ships, which were only moderately damaged by earlier attacks, until they spotted a Walrus seaplane launched by Repulse, which was making a beeline for Singapore. They backtracked it to the ships and destroyed them.
    But luck favors the prepared and skilled, and at Midway, the US Navy not only had the luck, it was also prepared and skilled, and in the scout bomber, had the right equipment.
    The US Navy won Midway because it had been practicing for it for 15 years. The Japanese did not practice for such a battle, had the wrong strategy and tactics and equipment for it, and also had bad luck.
  159. @anonymouslee
    Noam Chomsky often points out America or even American Jews hadn't given a crap about Israel until 1967

    "Furthermore, I think it’s changed because of what’s happened since 1967. In 1967 Israel won a dramatic military victory, demonstrated its military power, in fact, smashed up the entire Arab world, and that won great respect. A lot of Americans, especially privileged Americans, love violence and want to be on the side of the guy with the gun, and here was a powerful, violent state that smashed up its enemies and demonstrated that it was the dominant military power in the Middle East, put those Third World upstarts in their place. This was particularly dramatic because that was 1967, a time when the United States was having only minimal success in carrying out its invasion of by then all of Indochina, and it’s well worth remembering that elite opinion, including liberal opinion, overwhelmingly supported the war in Vietnam and was quite disturbed by the incapacity of the United States to win it, at least at the level they wanted. Israel came along and showed them how to do it, and that had a symbolic effect. Since then it has been presenting itself, with some justice, as the Sparta of the Middle East, a militarily advanced, technologically compe- tent, powerful society. That’s the kind of thing we like. It also became a strategic asset of the United States; one of the reasons why the United States maintains the military confrontation is to assure that it’s a dependable, reliable ally that will do what we want, like, say, support genocide in Guatemala or whatever, and that also increases the respect for Israel and with it tends to diminish anti-Semitism. I suppose that’s a factor.

    CHOMSKY: The American liberal community since 1967 has been mobilized at an almost fanatic level in support of an expansionist Israel, and they have been consistently opposed to any political settlement. They have been in favor of the aggrandizement of Israeli power. They have used their position of quite considerable influence in the media in the political system to defeat and overcome any challenge to the system of military confrontation using all the standard techniques of vilification, defamation, closing off control over expression, etc. and it’s certainly had an effect. I don’t know if it was a decisive effect, but it had some noticeable effect on bringing about U.S. government support for the persistent military confrontation and U.S. government opposition to political settlement. For Israel that’s destructive. In fact, Israeli doves constantly deplore it. They constantly refer to it as Stalinism. They refer to the Stalinist character of the support for Israel on the part of what they call the “Jewish community,” but that’s because they don’t understand enough about the United States. It’s not just the Jewish community, which is what they see; it’s basically the intellectual community at large.

    QUESTION: Edward Said, for example, has pointed out that there is much more pluralism in terms of the discussion, the debate, in Israel itself than inside the United States.

    CHOMSKY: There’s no question about that. For example, the editor of the Labor Party journal, the main newspaper of the Labor Party, has asked me to write regular columns. I won’t do it because I’m concerned with things here, but that’s totally inconceivable in the United States, you can’t even imagine it, you can’t even imagine an occasional op-ed. That’s quite typical. Positions that I maintain, which are essentially in terms of the international consensus, they’re not a majority position in Israel, but they’re part of the political spectrum, they’re respectable positions. Here it’s considered outlandish"

    Every so often you wonder whether Chomsky could really make a career out of just saying over and over again things that are obviously not true to armies of cretins and then someone comes to remind that, yes, he can.

    Blah, blah, blah, support genocide in Guatemala or whatever, blah, blah

    Wut? Or whatever? The Guatemalan civil war has a lot of atrocities, though nothing outlandish by 20th century standards and most of them were committed by anti-Communists. Nothing even remotely resembling ‘genocide’ either in thought or deed. Chomsky thinks is people try to stop communists destroying their country that is genocide, but when Commies go nutso in Cambodia and fill caves with skulls he spends a whole decade trying to discredit anyone reporting it. Really sick.

    For Israel that’s destructive. In fact, Israeli doves constantly deplore it. They constantly refer to it as Stalinism. They refer to the Stalinist character of the support for Israel on the part of what they call the “Jewish community,” but that’s because they don’t understand enough about the United States.

    The only people who think like this are Lefty university professors in Tel Aviv. No-one else thinks ‘gosh, I hate it when those Americans support us too much’. It sure sounds like Chumpsky has no experience talking to anyone who is not a university professor in Tel Aviv.

    There’s no question about that. For example, the editor of the Labor Party journal, the main newspaper of the Labor Party, has asked me to write regular columns. I won’t do it because I’m concerned with things here, but that’s totally inconceivable in the United States, you can’t even imagine it, you can’t even imagine an occasional op-ed.

    Waah, waah, waah. No-one gets to hear Chomsky talk, except everyone ALL THE F**KING TIME.

    What a jerk.

    • Replies: @guest
    "Nothing even remotely resembling 'genocide' in thought or deed"

    What definition of "genocide" are you using? Because there's the popular one, which has it as the deliberate mass murder of a group based on ethnic, national, religious, and other criteria. But then there's the original one, which was coined to cover all manner of wrongs (or supposed wrongs), so long as they were against a minority population. Or I should say approved minorities. Which means in practice an approved group. I'm sure Chomsky wouldn't hold back from calling a minority genociders if they attacked a majority population, so long as the majority were the good guys.

    It extends all the way down to mental harm, as in "Those Nazis make me nervous." To Chomsky it would be genocide if the victims were commies and they suffered anything whatsoever.

  160. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Hadn’t seen “The Graduate” in years so I revisited it c/o YouTube. The movie abounds in irony on several levels–particularly the cross scene at the end. Wonder if Nichols was ever asked whether he intended to convey any subliminal message. Also ironic is the casting of Anne Bancroft as of all theings a WASP seductress. Annie was an Italo-American born in “da Bronx” and in real life was married to an “echt” Jew–Mel Brooks–whose “The Producers” came out a year before “The Graduate.”

    • Replies: @Jack D

    Also ironic is the casting of Anne Bancroft as of all theings [sp] a WASP seductress
     
    As Olivier used to say, that's why its called "acting".

    Ironically (this time really) he was referring to Hoffman, the "method" actor par excellence. The story goes that in Marathon Man, there was a scene in which Hoffman's character had supposedly not slept in several days. Hoffman achieved his haggard look by... not sleeping for 3 days. Olivier suggested an alternative to him. “My dear boy,” suggested Olivier, “why don’t you just try acting?
  161. “… to lose one Kennedy may be regarded as a tragedy, but to lose two looks like a conspiracy.”

    To paraphrase the old lawyer joke, you’d call it a good start. If Teddy had been taken out before July 1969, Mary Jo Kopechne might still be alive. Who knows what the US would look like today if he had been taken out before 1965. In any case, it would be fair to say the Kennedy Brothers had issues that cost this country dearly.

  162. I grew up with security guards outside synagogue every Saturday. On festivals there were police too. I never really thought about it, but for my bar mitzvah we invited a lot of non-Jewish family friends and they told us how weird it was to have security guards outside a house of worship. I guess they don’t think that now.

    After the Sabra and Shatila massacre, security was bumped up in British synagogues. My mother remarked to someone that the community was feeling at risk. She responded (or so my mother tells me), that ‘of course you have to expect that, unfortunately’. My mother replied that since the massacre was carried out by a Christian militia with no direct Israeli participation then it would make as much sense for some angry chap to attack a church. Her friend found the very thought incomprehensible. I guess she doesn’t now.

    It’s almost like spending decades rewarding angry Middle Easterners for terrorism incentivises them to do it more, but liberals and dolt rightists know that can’t possibly be true.

    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    It’s almost like spending decades rewarding angry Middle Easterners for terrorism incentivises them to do it more, but liberals and dolt rightists know that can’t possibly be true.
     
    The root cause is Arab funding for fire-breathing imams. If we really wanted to stop terrorism, we'd issue an ultimatum to the Gulf Arabs to end this funding, followed by air and missile attacks against their military installations upon the next round of terror attacks in the West. Instead, we poke away at the symptoms, while avoiding the root causes.
  163. @Steve Sailer
    What about Philistines and Phoenicians?

    “and Phoenicians?” Queen Dido fled from her murderous brother founded Carthage and died for love of Aeneas . Centuries later Carthage gave the world one of the greatest most brilliant and tragic figures of all time .

  164. @James Richard
    It's been called Palestine since at least Herodotus referred to it circa 500 B.C. and there are inscriptions with it from the time of a Ramses III. Don't take literally everything they told you in Hebrew school.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_name_"Palestine"

    It was Judea long before it was Palestine … sorry if that rankles your weltanschauung.

    • Replies: @James Richard
    One mountainous area from the hills to the Jordan River occupied and ruled for a very short time c. 900 B.C. by one of the local Canaanite tribes was Judea but the name the Egyptians gave the coastal plain during a punitive expedition against the Philistines during the 20th Dynasty is now spelled "Palestine" and that name has stuck for the entire southern Levant through dozens of colonizations, tribal wars, and regime changes for the last 3200 years.

    While pacifying the general area Ramesses III built an Egyptian temple in the Judean hills at Karnak. He described the local inhabitants as illiterate but fierce bandits who dealt in silver and preyed on everyone. I guess some things never change.
  165. @Almost Missouri
    I too admire Spruance, but ironically his greater decision than the early attack (which was just what his orders were anyway) was his choice not to pursue the Japanese fleet into the night, where he most likely would have run into Yamamoto's battleship trap which would have chewed his fragile carrier task force to bits turning Spruance's miraculous victory into an ignominious defeat.

    Looking back on the Battle of Midway, where the American forces had so many disadvantages and mistakes, while the Japanese had so many advantages guided by experience, it is striking how often the American faults were turned to good account by chance, timing or weather, while the Japanese advantages were neutralized by the same circumstances.

    Spruance accurately calculated and prudently took the risks that turned out to succeed, but it is hard not to see the hand of Providence or Fate, or whatever you want to call it, shaping the result.

    Another striking aspect of the Battle of Midway is how lethal–to their own aircrews–naval air sorties were. Even the “successful” (i.e., did a lot of damage to the enemy) missions often resulted in the loss of most of the attacking planes and crew. Unsuccessful attacks were simply annihilated.

    Do you think that anywhere in the West today, you could find enough volunteers for even the relatively modest number of aircrews at Midway, given the semi-suicidal nature of the work?

    I rather doubt it. Yet the advantages we inherited are built on that kind of sacrifice.

    Islam, on the other hand, seems to have no shortage of suicide-ready (even suicide-enthusiastic) soldiers. Don’t count on their sacrifices underpinning any great advance in human civilization, though.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    If America's survival was at stake I think that even today there would be no shortage of brave American boys willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. Even in Iraq and Afghanistan where the stakes were much lower ( you might even say non-existent) there have been many brave men willing to march into danger.
    , @Johann Ricke

    Islam, on the other hand, seems to have no shortage of suicide-ready (even suicide-enthusiastic) soldiers.
     
    Not really. A few dozen terrorists in the West aren't exactly a surplus. I think we get the impression that they're determined and everywhere because we've been the target of some of their attacks. In reality, the Syrian opposition is on its last legs because of a couple of hundred thousand casualties (at most). The Vietnamese Communists lost 1.2m dead before Congress cried uncle. North Vietnam's population then was about the same as Syria's population today.

    The real issue is Islam's tendency to deliberately target Western civilians outside of the field of battle. At some point, we may start returning the favor, much as Axis air attacks on Allied cities led to repayment in kind, with interest.
  166. @anonymous
    Where does Valerie Solanas fit into this kabal of vipers or are you conveniently ignoring her?

    Where does Valerie Solanas fit into this kabal of vipers or are you conveniently ignoring her?

    Clearly brainwashed by MKULTRA to murder a young George Will, but her programming got him confused with Warhol. The rabbit hole goes deep, I tell ya!

  167. @LondonBob
    Oswald had a very high level of security clearance as he worked with the U2 spy planes the CIA ran out of Japan. He would have been recruited there, it is believed the ONI had a fake defectors program and that Oswald was selected for this, the Russians were not fooled and it was not a success. Still his background as a purported defector and time in the Marines made him an excellent candidate for sheep dipping.

    Based on all the available evidence there seems to be that by spring 1963, Oswald was an FBI informant who was infiltrating Cuban exile groups and right wing subversive groups as an agent of the Defence Intelligence Agency.

    JFK's commencement address at the American University clearly signaled his intention to wind down the cold war, he was well on the way to reelection on a detente platform.

    Everyone in the (Soviet) mission was stunned and confused, particularly when there were rumors that the murder had been Soviet-inspired… Our leaders would not have been so upset by the assassination if they had planned it and the KGB would not have taken upon itself to venture such a move without Politburo approval. More important, Khrushchev’s view of Kennedy had changed. After Cuba, Moscow perceived Kennedy as the one who had accelerated improvement of relations between the two countries. Kennedy was seen as a man of strength and determination, the one thing that Kremlin truly understands and respects. In addition, Moscow firmly believed that Kennedy’s assassination was a scheme by “reactionary forces” within the United States seeking to damage the new trend in relations. The Kremlin ridiculed the Warren Commission’s conclusion that Oswald had acted on his own as the sole assassin. There was in fact widespread speculation among Soviet diplomats that Lyndon Johnson, along with the CIA and the Mafia, had masterminded the plot. Perhaps one of the most potent reasons why the U.S.S.R. wished Kennedy well was that Johnson was anathema to Khrushchev. Because he was a southerner, Moscow considered him a racist (the stereotype of any American politician from below the Mason Dixon line), an anti-Soviet and anti-Communist to the core. Further, since Johnson was from Texas, a center of the most reactionary forces in the United States, according to the Soviets, he was associated with the big-time capitalism of the oil industry, also known to be anti-Soviet.

    • Replies: @whorefinder
    Everything you've written is hilarious, but these were truly knee-slappers:


    The Kremlin ridiculed the Warren Commission’s conclusion that Oswald had acted on his own as the sole assassin. There was in fact widespread speculation among Soviet diplomats that Lyndon Johnson, along with the CIA and the Mafia, had masterminded the plot.
     
    lol. The Krelmin ridiculed the Oswald theory from a purely political point of view: they didn't want a communist and Soviet-defector being blamed for the crime, because it made them look bad. And then they realized that if they spread disinformation and encouraged conspiracy theories it would sow distrust in the U.S. government amongst citizens.

    In reality, the Soviets knew Oswald was an unstable loon, which is why when he defected they kept him nice and isolated in a boring job far away from the centers of power.

    JFK’s commencement address at the American University clearly signaled his intention to wind down the cold war, he was well on the way to reelection on a detente platform.
     
    I always love this hippie-commie lie of history: JFK was going to end the cold war! By being nice! Because the only thing causing the cold war was American belligerence! The Soviets were the good peaceniks!

    It's times like this I realize the Left is destined to lose, if only because they believe such bold-faced nonsense.
  168. @Almost Missouri
    I too admire Spruance, but ironically his greater decision than the early attack (which was just what his orders were anyway) was his choice not to pursue the Japanese fleet into the night, where he most likely would have run into Yamamoto's battleship trap which would have chewed his fragile carrier task force to bits turning Spruance's miraculous victory into an ignominious defeat.

    Looking back on the Battle of Midway, where the American forces had so many disadvantages and mistakes, while the Japanese had so many advantages guided by experience, it is striking how often the American faults were turned to good account by chance, timing or weather, while the Japanese advantages were neutralized by the same circumstances.

    Spruance accurately calculated and prudently took the risks that turned out to succeed, but it is hard not to see the hand of Providence or Fate, or whatever you want to call it, shaping the result.

    You Yanks had cracked the Jap code, Midway was a success due to superior US intelligence rather than the hand of Providence or Fate. Analysis continues to ignore the often decisive effect of superior intelligence in deciding battles.

    https://warontherocks.com/2016/06/the-battle-of-midway-the-complete-intelligence-story/

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    It was only because we (partially) cracked the code that the battle took place at all. The US knew the target, the approximate date and the order of battle, but no tactical level intelligence. Based on this partial picture, the US risked an uneven battle using its damaged and weakly screened carriers against the much larger and heavily reinforced Japanese fleet, which also had better aircraft and more experienced crews. It was a huge risk--calculated, but still huge. Had anything gone wrong such that the US surface fleet came into contact with the more heavily gunned and armored Japanese, the US fleet would have been obliterated.

    In fact the Japanese were scheduled to have retired the broken code already before the battle, but they hung onto it a few extra days, enabling the US intel to glean the the above mentioned details. This is one of those little accidents I mentioned.



    Other little accidents and coincidences:

    • Though the American Midway-based aircraft were unsuccessful at damaging the incoming Japanese task force, a stricken US B-26 nearly destroyed Nagumo's bridge in its terminal dive. It was probably an accident, but the near-death experience changed Nagumo's priorities toward neutralizing Midway, which wasn't really important, and away from finding and attacking the American fleet, which was important.

    • The Japanese scout plane that happened to be the one whose vector would intercept the US fleet also happened to suffer launch delays. Even when it finally did make the crucial intercept, its incomplete radio message was delayed again reaching Admiral Nagumo. These delays gave the US a crucial first strike advantage--decisive in naval air warfare. Even worse for the Japanese, the compound delays caused the scout's message to arrive at exactly the moment when Nagumo could least make use of it: his remaining planes were configured for the wrong targets with munitions and fuel exposed, and his flight decks had to accommodate the planes returning from attacking Midway which were nearly out of fuel. So the powerful Japanese air wing was both paralyzed and vulnerable at exactly the moment it needed to be neither.

    • In any attack, but a naval attack in the open sea in particular, it is much better to saturate the enemy's defenses by striking with all available units at once, which prevents individual attackers from facing undivided defenses and being picked off successively. The Japanese could and did do this, launching their air missions in just a few minutes and proceeding as a unit to the target. The less experienced, less disciplined Americans had fewer flight decks, so it took them about ten times as long to get their air mission aloft. Since they were launching at extreme range, the earlier departures couldn't wait for the later departures to join formation, so various tranches of planes made their own way to the target in semi-random gaggles. Some navigated correctly, some didn't. The torpedo bombers arrived first and were immediately pounced on by the Japanese fighters and wiped out. Ironically, this poor American organization blindsided the Japanese, who didn't expect or notice the late arriving dive bombers coming from high altitude. The Japanese carriers' decks awash in fuel, ordinance and semi-refitted planes, they were tinder boxes for even the small weapons of the American scout bombers. All the above mentioned circumstances combined to make the next few minutes an epic disaster for the Japanese, as a few hundred pounds of bombs suddenly demolished half the Japanese carrier fleet and inverted the balance of power in the entire Pacific.

    The outnumbered, outgunned and under experienced Americans could not expect to arrange such a stunning upset except by planning and execution so meticulous as to be beyond even the more skilled and disciplined Japanese. Yet Fate conspired to arrange just these circumstances for them, that they could never in a hundred attempts have arranged for themselves.
  169. @donut
    I have only had a Fith of Meyers tonight so I'm not clear but what should we really mourn about June of '67 ? That our President turned out to be a traitor , who had no reservations about disowning the simple patriots murdered by his Jew masters? Or should I mourn the murder of the two Irish scumbags that got what they had coming ? Don't deny it Steve you once believed in Camelot , did you not ? And yet the greatest tribute to his sordid reign was this by a limp wristed English sot .

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8h7E5rtnFH4

    OH and let's not forget their trailer park love affair in Cum a lot . The drink sodden ham in love with the plumbers idea of Cleopatra . Oh Camelot oh Camelot f**k you .

    a limp wristed English sot

    Richard Burton was Welsh and if he was gay it certainly didn’t prevent him from banging every leading lady he ever worked with.

    • Replies: @donut
    Exactly .
  170. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    (Inscrutoroku Japamoto )
    Over the last couple of years, I’ve been developing the theory that the US Navy’s AGTR and AGER ships had another, still more secret mission — a real-time communications link for the Polaris ballistic missile submarines. Layered cover stories was a feature of the Navy’s special projects office.

    The problem with ecplaining the Libery has always been motive. What could possibly be worth the risk for Israel? Having a ballistic missile submarine off of Gaza would give the U.S. an effective veto of any Israeli nuclear weapons activity out of Dimona. An airburst depressed trajectory shot would give no notice, but the overpressure would be enough to swat down a missile, or tip it over. So i think the threat of this veto — on the cusp of the invasion of Golan, would have been enough.

    In my theory, the Liberty attack, plus the Pueblo incident the next year, showed the Navy that their comms system was unsatisfactory. The first TACAMO squadrons were established in 1968. The Navy proposed a hardened ELF transmitter that year, too. A huge ELF transmitter was put in to the ground in U.P. Michigan, but it’s since been decomissioned.

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    Defense Electronics, October 1981, has an article by James Ennes titled: "Israeli Attack on U.S. Ship Reveals Failure of C3." There used to be a human transcribed version on his old website, but I suspect copyright issues led to it's demise. I forget what book I read it in, but it is their most popular reprint.
  171. @whorefinder
    The best conspiracy-theory way to tie up Oswald, Sirhan, Hinckley, Ruby, etc. would be a massive sleeper cell-hypnosis-brain-wahsing project that bore fruit to create untraceable lone wacko gunmen.

    Unfortunately for all fans of The Manchurian Candidate and MKULTRA, there remains no hard evidence that any brainwashing program could produce such results. Perhaps one day the curtain will be lifted on CIA programs that actually worked to created empty-headed, babbling killers doing what they were programmed to do. You know, how the history of computing had it's history illuminated when the Brits declassified all the computer stuff they did in WW2 that was previously unknown.

    But until then, the evidence suggests very strongly that:

    -Oswald the communist, acting alone, shot Kennedy for being anti-communist (perhaps at the urging/teasing of Cuban intelligence, who refused to let Oswald defect because they recognized he was a nut).

    -Sirhan the Arab (and church-hopper) shot RFK for helping Israel.

    -Ruby shot Oswald because of the intense hatred/patriotism engendered by JFK's death. Comparable to the hatred generated against Bin Laden in the few days after 9/11----I can attest personally that, in New York, had Bin Laden been captured on 9/12 or 9/13, and had been held anywhere near NYC, thousands of New Yorkers would have rioted and lynched him, such was the mood.

    -Hinckley, obsessed with Jodie Foster, shot Reagan in a bizarre attempt to impress her.

    Newsweek was, 30 years after the fact, able to locate and interview people in Oswald’s social circle. One after another said he was in a low-grade fury at Gov. Connolly. It was known and reported in the press in 1963 that he had written Gov. Connolly when the man was Secretary of the Navy attempting to have his dishonorable discharge from the Marine Corps expunged. Oswald’s widow has said in other venues that her husband had no issues with Pres. Kennedy to which he gave voice.

    As for Jack Ruby, he was well known to be highly impetuous, willing and able to mix it up, and not immune to sentimentality. He’d left his dog in the car while doing his errands.

  172. @LondonBob
    Oswald had a very high level of security clearance as he worked with the U2 spy planes the CIA ran out of Japan. He would have been recruited there, it is believed the ONI had a fake defectors program and that Oswald was selected for this, the Russians were not fooled and it was not a success. Still his background as a purported defector and time in the Marines made him an excellent candidate for sheep dipping.

    Based on all the available evidence there seems to be that by spring 1963, Oswald was an FBI informant who was infiltrating Cuban exile groups and right wing subversive groups as an agent of the Defence Intelligence Agency.

    JFK's commencement address at the American University clearly signaled his intention to wind down the cold war, he was well on the way to reelection on a detente platform.

    Oswald had a very high level of security clearance as he worked with the U2 spy planes the CIA ran out of Japan. He would have been recruited there, it is believed the ONI had a fake defectors program and that Oswald was selected for this, the Russians were not fooled and it was not a success. Still his background as a purported defector and time in the Marines made him an excellent candidate for sheep dipping.

    I often wonder what the point of origin of these idiot memes is. My suspicion is that they start out as submissions to trade book publishers who include spy fiction on their lists, and someone somewhere gets hold of these and fancies they were treatments for works of history or current affairs.

    The real Lee Harvey Oswald was quite hopeless and failed at everything he attempted between 1952 and his death. Very adept at getting fired from his job and surprisingly adept at getting a handsome women to marry him, bear his children, and put up with his personality problems (until such time as she realized he was useless and that there were other people in this world who would work with her and look after her).

    • Replies: @whorefinder

    I often wonder what the point of origin of these idiot memes is. My suspicion is that they start out as submissions to trade book publishers who include spy fiction on their lists, and someone somewhere gets hold of these and fancies they were treatments for works of history or current affairs.
     
    The KGB's policy was to encourage and underwrite JFK conspiracy theories to draw the heat off them and sow distrust in the U.S. government. And most American leftists were loathe to take responsibility for Oswald's murder, and still are today; note how in 2013, on the 50th anniversary, the New York Times wrote an article that blamed JFK's murder, not on Oswald, but on the "right wing climate of hate" in Dallas: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/20/us/a-changed-dallas-grapples-with-its-darkest-day.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&pagewanted=all

    Leftists are lying cancers on humanity.
    , @LondonBob
    What is interesting is how similar the backgrounds of Gilberto Policarpo Lopez (Tampa) and Tom Vallee (Chicago) are to Oswald's. Tom Vallee was set up as the patsy for the original hit planned for Chicago on 2 November. Secret Service Agent Bolden drew attention to the striking physical similarities between ex Marines Vallee and Oswald. Lopez worked for Fair Play for Cuba Committee and had purportedly visited Mexico City.
  173. @kaganovitch
    I think rather than suppression, the more parsimonious explanation would be that Americans were in no mood to read sympathetic "root cause" explanations of RFK's assassination, much like Americans had very limited appetite for reading "root cause" explanations of Bin Laden's grudges against America. Jansen may well have been a skilled journalist but he was also a Muslim apologist so he should be read with some skepticism, much like one would read an account by an Israeli apologist.

    We are in no mood and are not interested in “root cause” nonsense about various primitive peoples we may have pushed around or whatever. But, surprise! they are quite moody and interested in us. And they live among us now. Oopsie…

  174. @Mike Sylwester
    I have read many books about the assassination of Robert Kennedy. About a year ago, I read a book that I happened to find at an estate sale. I think this was the best book I've read on the subject, but I can't find any reviews of it on the Internet.

    The book is titled Why Robert Kennedy Was Killed: The Story of Two Victims, and it was written by Godfrey Jansen. The author was a former Indian diplomat who served in the Middle East for many years and eventually became a journalist based in Lebanon.

    After Sirhan Sirhan was identified as the assassin, Jansen immediately went to Palestine and interviewed many of Sirhan's relatives there. Jansen then traveled to Los Angeles and interviewed Sirhan's immediate family and many of his acquaintances there. His book is based on those many interviews.

    Essentially, Sirhan was a victim of the Israelis. The book tells in vivid detail how he and his family suffered. The book really changed my thinking about Sirhan and the assassination. Of course, his assassination of Robert Kennedy was not justified, but Sirhan's motive was to wreak some vengeance for his family's suffering.

    Since I no longer owned the book, I searched the Internet for some reviews of the book, and I was surprised to find practically nothing. It seems to me that the book has been suppressed. I was lucky to find it at that estate sale.

    (I did not highlight any words above. It they are still highlighted, then it was done automatically, and I could not fix it.)

    Essentially, Sirhan was a victim of the Israelis.

    No, Sirhan was a victim of his father. “The Israelis” are an attractive target for people who despise the Jews.

    • Replies: @Mike Sylwester

    Sirhan was a victim of his father. “The Israelis” are an attractive target for people who despise the Jews.
     
    Jansen's book tells the Sirhan family's history in detail. The problems involving the father are told there.

    The book tells also what the family experienced as the Israelis occupied their neighborhood and took over the local government.

    In that situation, there was much injustice all around. People were murdered. People lost their homes and occupations. Families broke up. Children were emotionally traumatized.

    This part of Sirhan's life should be understood by people who want to understand the RFK assassination.

    Of course, Sirhan committed a horrendous crime. He was guilty, and he has been punished justly. However, his murderous rage was based on his family's history.
  175. @European-American
    Sirhan Sirhan is rather articulate at his trial and explains his political motivations very clearly when questioned by his attorney:

    Trial of Sirhan Bishara Sirhan, 3 Mar 1969 - 4 Mar 1969
    https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=99532#relPageId=207

    Too bad I was only able to find a difficult-to-read photocopy of the trial transcript. Still, it's enough to see that Sirhan had a rather detailed and coherent understanding of the situation both in his native country and in the United States.

    I don't know anything about the hypnotism allegations, but they sound like a lot of convenient BS that serves to ignore Sirhan Sirhan's plain-as-day motivations.

    I suppose I am guilty of a second-order conspiracy theory: there's a conspiracy to encourage people to consider ridiculous conspiracy theories, all as a distraction from the actual facts.

    re: "suppressed" I see what you mean, it's tricky to find the right word. Has the native American point of view been suppressed from US history? Or is it just that nobody important cared...

    I don’t know anything about the hypnotism allegations, but they sound like a lot of convenient BS that serves to ignore Sirhan Sirhan’s plain-as-day motivations.

    Thanks for the link to the transcript of Sirhan’s trial testimony. I will read it.

    Sirhan practiced self-hypnosis, and while he was in a trance he wrote in a notebook.

    The book The Assassination of Robert Kennedy: The Conspiracy and Coverup, written by William Turner and Jonn Christian, reports about a trial of a hypnotist, William Joseph Bryan, who was involved with Sirhan. That is a book that was suppressed.

    The book Nemisis by Peter Evans reports that the secret operation to hypnotize Sirhan was funded by Aristotle Onassis.

    I wrote a series of articles about the hypnotizing of Sirhan for Rantburg in 2004. Most of the articles are no longer available, because Rantburg archived them, but here are the links to

    Part 1
    http://www.rantburg.com/index.php?D=07/05/2004&HC=1&SO=Terror%20Networks

    Part 6
    http://rantburg.com/index.php?D=07/20/2004&HC=6&SO=Terror%20Networks

    You have to scroll down to find my articles.

  176. @James Richard
    Hey! What about Moshe Dayan personally giving the order to attack the USS Liberty?

    I never bought into the idea that Katherine Ross' would fall for a short Jewish nebbish for no apparent reason at all and I found it particularly irksome that the director thought that traveling between Berkeley and Santa Barbara in the shortest amount of time would take one across the Golden Gate Bridge. That Duetto Spider was definitely a bitchin' ride though.

    I was fighting in Vietnam at the time of RFK's assassination. Anti-communist projects like regime change in Vietnam were always a Kennedy family specialty until Eugene McCarthy stunned LBJ in the New Hampshire primary and that opportunistic little weasel Bobby jumped into the race. When I heard he got shot I shed no tears.

    Hey! What about Moshe Dayan personally giving the order to attack the USS Liberty?

    What about it? It’s a fiction.

  177. @James Richard
    The repeated attacks by air and sea on the USS Liberty were intentionally ordered by Moshe Dayan because he feared that the ship was gathering evidence of the buildup to his nefarious surprise attack on Syria. LBJ intentionally intervened and silenced his own Secretary of State and the US Navy officers who were on the scene. These are well established facts and as usual you are obviously pimping for Israel.

    https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/02/infamy-at-sea-israels-attack-on-the-uss-liberty-50-years-later/

    I think “well established facts” doesn’t mean what you think it means.

    The official (and originally TOP SECRET) US inquiry concluded that the attack was a mistake due to Israeli confusion about the ship’s identity.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20121030155345/http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/uss_liberty/attack_sigint.pdf

    Now it’s possible that the official report was a lie due to a conspiracy involving the CIA, LBJ, the Elders of Zion, the space aliens from Area 51, etc. Or else not. But either way, I would call that less than “established facts”.

    But, even assuming arguendo that it’s all true, then so what? This happened 50 year ago. LBJ is dead, Moshe Dayan is dead. No one (AFAIK) disputes that the Japanese attack on the USS Arizona was other than an intentional and perfidious attack but the Japanese are our best buddies nowadays and have been since shortly after the war was over.

    • Replies: @James Richard
    Hey Jack, have you considered making Aliyah?
  178. @Kyle McKenna

    In 1971, I was 19 years old, and I read a lot. In general, people in the USA were not exposed to Palestinian Arab complaints about their treatment by Israelis. Information about such complaints was kind of suppressed.
     
    Agreed, but we did get to know them as malefactors...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawson%27s_Field_hijackings


    During the crisis, on 11 September President Nixon initiated a program to address the problem of "air piracy", including the immediate launch of a group of 100 federal agents to begin serving as armed sky marshals on U.S. flights. Nixon's statement further indicated the U.S. departments of Defense and Transportation would determine whether X-ray devices then available to the military could be moved into civilian service.
     
    What was that date again??

    Agreed, but we did get to know them as malefactors…[link to article about hijackings of airplanes in 1970]

    Yes, the terrorist actions committed by Palestinians against Americans was a major reason why Americans were contemptuous of Palestinians’ complaints.

    There was a vicious circle.

  179. @anonymous
    Hadn't seen "The Graduate" in years so I revisited it c/o YouTube. The movie abounds in irony on several levels--particularly the cross scene at the end. Wonder if Nichols was ever asked whether he intended to convey any subliminal message. Also ironic is the casting of Anne Bancroft as of all theings a WASP seductress. Annie was an Italo-American born in "da Bronx" and in real life was married to an "echt" Jew--Mel Brooks--whose "The Producers" came out a year before "The Graduate."

    Also ironic is the casting of Anne Bancroft as of all theings [sp] a WASP seductress

    As Olivier used to say, that’s why its called “acting”.

    Ironically (this time really) he was referring to Hoffman, the “method” actor par excellence. The story goes that in Marathon Man, there was a scene in which Hoffman’s character had supposedly not slept in several days. Hoffman achieved his haggard look by… not sleeping for 3 days. Olivier suggested an alternative to him. “My dear boy,” suggested Olivier, “why don’t you just try acting?

  180. @James Richard
    Bullshit. That area of the Levant between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River from Phoenicia to Egypt has been referred to as Palestine since ancient times.

    Bullshit. That area of the Levant between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River from Phoenicia to Egypt has been referred to as Palestine since ancient times.

    No, it has not. Britain in 1920 assembled three Ottoman sub-prefectures and applied to the resultant territory a Roman-Byzantine place name that hadn’t been used in about 1,300 years. The territory in question was composed of desert with a transhumant population (not distinct from the Transjordan or the Sinai) and a swatch of town and country not distinct from the rest of Syria. In one part, vernacular Arabic of the Eastern Bedawi sort was spoken and in another dialects on the Levantine spectrum were spoken.

  181. @Jack D
    I assume these are 2 different Richards.

    Mentioning the USS Liberty is useful because anyone who does outs himself as an anti-Semite. There is nothing to be gained by rehashing this incident otherwise. Casualties from "friendly fire" are unfortunately very common in the fog of war. Just the other day the London cops shot a bystander in the head in the course of killing the terrorists. They should not have needed 50 shots to kill 3 terrrorists but once the adrenaline starts pumping people don't think clearly. It's very easy to be an armchair general.

    I

  182. @kaganovitch
    "Since I no longer owned the book, I searched the Internet for some reviews of the book, and I was surprised to find practically nothing. It seems to me that the book has been suppressed. I was lucky to find it at that estate sale."


    There are 8 copies on amazon. It's listed in just about every bibliography of RFK assassination books. It's listed first among secondary sources on the Maryland State Archives site for teaching History. How do you think it was suppressed? Do you think the Elders of Zion can prevent someone from reviewing it on the internet??

    It’s a real hot seller. Amazon Rank: #11,205,115 in Books. It’s so rare that you have to pay $3.98 (plus $3.99 shipping) to buy a copy. The Zionists, using their mind control rays, have prevented anyone from writing a single Amazon review of the book.

    Or it’s really a best seller with thousands of reviews and Mossad, in league with Bezos and Soros (both end with os) have deleted all the reviews and (and only the Elders of Zion could be so clever) arranged to have the book listed on Amazon but listed at 11,205,115 with no reviews to make it seem as if it was the work of an insignificant crank. This is really where you see the deft touch of the Jew – a goy might just not list the book on Amazon at all, but this is much more devious – the deft touch of the master manipulator.

  183. @kaganovitch
    I think rather than suppression, the more parsimonious explanation would be that Americans were in no mood to read sympathetic "root cause" explanations of RFK's assassination, much like Americans had very limited appetite for reading "root cause" explanations of Bin Laden's grudges against America. Jansen may well have been a skilled journalist but he was also a Muslim apologist so he should be read with some skepticism, much like one would read an account by an Israeli apologist.

    I think rather than suppression, the more parsimonious explanation would be that Americans were in no mood to read sympathetic “root cause” explanations of RFK’s assassination … Jansen may well have been a skilled journalist but he was also a Muslim apologist so he should be read with some skepticism, much like one would read an account by an Israeli apologist.

    I agree with you that “Americans were in no mood to read sympathetic ‘root cause’ explanations of RFK’s assassination.” That is well put.

    If you ever get a chance to read Jansen’s book, I expect that you will find it to be informative, careful and judicious.

    I don’t know whether Jansen was a “Muslim apologist” in his other writings, but in this book he wrote sympathetically about the Sirhan family, which was devoutly Christian.

    ======

    Instead of using the word suppressed, perhaps I should have used the word marginalized, which is half-way to ignored.

    When Jansen published his book in 1971, a book could be marginalized by the country’s intellectual and medial elites much more easily than today. Those elites did more than simply ignore such a book. They marginalized such a book. They took some actions to make sure that nobody ever even heard about it.

    Now in 2017, we have the Internet and blogs, and it’s much easier to spread information about contrary opinions. Back in 1971, people who wanted to spread contrary ideas had to create newsletters, sell subscriptions to them, and mail the newsletters periodically.

    That’s how I.F. Stone and other contrarians had to get their ideas out in 1971. Now someone like Steve Sailer can create a blog, which is much more efficient.

    Back in 1971, Jansen could publish his book, but he couldn’t get it reviewed anywhere. He probably couldn’t get any bookstores to sell it. The only way to buy his book was to special-order it. Some people did so, and that’s why there are some used copies around.

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    I see WORLDCAT has 296 holdings in US libraries, so it must have gotten around quite a bit. That's a lot more than I would have thought considering the imprint. Anyway now I'm curious, so I ordered it from I.L.L.
  184. @Jack D
    I assume these are 2 different Richards.

    Mentioning the USS Liberty is useful because anyone who does outs himself as an anti-Semite. There is nothing to be gained by rehashing this incident otherwise. Casualties from "friendly fire" are unfortunately very common in the fog of war. Just the other day the London cops shot a bystander in the head in the course of killing the terrorists. They should not have needed 50 shots to kill 3 terrrorists but once the adrenaline starts pumping people don't think clearly. It's very easy to be an armchair general.

    “Judge Cristol, with 38 years’ naval service, mourns the mens’ deaths and injuries, and his book honors their courage. But like the Israeli government, the judge is dubious of the nay sayers. They rely on “conjecture, hearsay and plain wishful thinking,” flawed or traumatized memories, and “various conspiracy theories,” he says.5

    No Bigots

    “Such characterizations, along with the linking of Liberty veterans with Arab extremists and racist groups, sit poorly with the ship’s crew. Indeed, the Internet Web site of the Liberty Veterans’ Association (LVA) makes clear that all bigots’ support is unwelcome.6 The suggestion of prejudice especially upsets Jewish survivors, such as the senior engineering officer, George Golden, who received the Silver Star for directing heroic efforts to keep the ship afloat. And James Ennes Jr., the LVA historian and spokesman accused in Judge Cristol’s book of taking “an irrationally harsh line against Israel,” refers to such assertions as “just silly.”7

    “Ennes, a retired Navy lieutenant commander, was officer of the deck before being badly wounded early in the attack. He devoted 13 years’ research toward his own book, Assault on the Liberty. Some half-dozen major—and many minor—disagreements mark the dispute’s two main schools: Judge Cristol’s “mistaken identity” and Ennes’s, the crew’s, and several U.S. intelligence professionals’ “deliberate attack.”

    Friendless Fire?
    By David C. Walsh
    Naval Institute Proceedings, June 2003

    —–

    Former NSA Officials Agree

    David C. Walsh

    The jamming of unique U.S. frequencies during the Liberty incident seems to establish deliberate intent. And in exclusive interviews with this author, several former high-level National Security Agency (NSA) officials agree.

    On 14 February 2003, the “godfather” of the NSA’s Auxiliary General Technical Research program, Oliver Kirby, noted that the Liberty was “my baby.” Within weeks of the calamity, Kirby, deputy director for operations/production, read U.S. signals intelligence (SigInt)-generated transcripts and “staff reports” at NSA’s Fort Meade, Maryland, headquarters. They were of Israeli pilots’ conversations, recorded during the attack. The intercepts made it “absolutely certain” they knew it was a U.S. ship, he said. Kirby’s is the first public disclosure by a top-level NSA senior of deliberate intent based on personal analyses of SigInt material.

    In an interview on 24 February 2003, retired Air Force Major General John Morrison, the agency’s then-second-in-command (and Kirby’s successor), said he had been informed at the time of Kirby’s findings and endorsed them. Former NSA Director retired Army Lieutenant General William Odom said on 3 March 2003 said that, on the strength of such data, the attack’s deliberateness “just wasn’t a disputed issue” within the agency. On 5 March 2003, retired Navy Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, NSA director from 1977-1981, said he “flatly rejected” the Cristol/Israeli thesis. “It is just exceedingly difficult to believe that [the Liberty] was not correctly identified.” He said this was based on his talks with NSA seniors at the time having direct knowledge. All four were unaware of any agency official at that time or later who dissented from the “deliberate” conclusion.

    • Agree: James Richard
  185. @The Alarmist
    It was Judea long before it was Palestine ... sorry if that rankles your weltanschauung.

    One mountainous area from the hills to the Jordan River occupied and ruled for a very short time c. 900 B.C. by one of the local Canaanite tribes was Judea but the name the Egyptians gave the coastal plain during a punitive expedition against the Philistines during the 20th Dynasty is now spelled “Palestine” and that name has stuck for the entire southern Levant through dozens of colonizations, tribal wars, and regime changes for the last 3200 years.

    While pacifying the general area Ramesses III built an Egyptian temple in the Judean hills at Karnak. He described the local inhabitants as illiterate but fierce bandits who dealt in silver and preyed on everyone. I guess some things never change.

    • LOL: Dave Pinsen
    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    If the assertion is that the Palestinians descend from the Philistines, then they are pretty much heirs only to the Gaza Strip. Judea pre-dates Palestine in any case, as does the Kingdom of Israel, and both of those kingdoms covered a lot more of the area now considered at issue. It would most likely be fair to say the Palestinians have no valid claim to Jerusalem at all other than being Muslim.
    , @Art Deco
    One mountainous area from the hills to the Jordan River occupied and ruled for a very short time c. 900 B.C.

    Occupied pretty continuously by at least a remnant since about 1100 bc. As for 'ruling', the short time in question lasted 500 years.
  186. @Almost Missouri
    Another striking aspect of the Battle of Midway is how lethal--to their own aircrews--naval air sorties were. Even the "successful" (i.e., did a lot of damage to the enemy) missions often resulted in the loss of most of the attacking planes and crew. Unsuccessful attacks were simply annihilated.

    Do you think that anywhere in the West today, you could find enough volunteers for even the relatively modest number of aircrews at Midway, given the semi-suicidal nature of the work?

    I rather doubt it. Yet the advantages we inherited are built on that kind of sacrifice.

    Islam, on the other hand, seems to have no shortage of suicide-ready (even suicide-enthusiastic) soldiers. Don't count on their sacrifices underpinning any great advance in human civilization, though.

    If America’s survival was at stake I think that even today there would be no shortage of brave American boys willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. Even in Iraq and Afghanistan where the stakes were much lower ( you might even say non-existent) there have been many brave men willing to march into danger.

    • Replies: @guest
    America's survival was not at stake in WWII, either. Admittedly, people were confused into thinking it was.
  187. The Six Day War was likely the origin of neoconservatism. For example, in Norman Podhoretz’s second volume of memoirs, covering the 1960s, there is no mention of Israel for the first few hundred pages, and then Israel becomes an obsessive topic for Podhoretz after the Six Days War. As George S. Patton said, Americans love a winner

    The Public Interest was founded in 1965.

    Israel won the war of independence in 1948-49 and Egypt performed wretchedly on the battlefield during the Suez crisis. See Pierre Leuillette’s St. Michael and the Dragon for an account of Egyptian military prowess.

    See George Nash’s account of what he called right-wing liberalism, penned in 1976. See also Joseph Epstein’s account of his political odyssey, penned around 1984. Discussions of Israel or the Six-Day War do not figure in either. The Coalition for a Democratic Majority, the Committee on the Present Danger, and the Committee for the Free World all had a much more extensive set of issues with which they were concerned. You can run down the list of people prominent in those circles and you’d be hard put to find someone whose writings concerned primarily Israel (much less the Six-Day War). Irving Kristol, Nathan Glazer, Ben Wattenberg, Midge Decter, Joseph Epstein, Hilton Kramer etc. The public intellectuals from that era (outside of those writing for Midstream and other explicitly Jewish organs) with the most laser-like focus on Israel were Martin Peretz and Leon Wieseltier. Peretz kept his distance from the Kristol-Podhoretz circle and Wieseltier despised them and said so in print in the most unmistakable terms.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    Apropos of your last sentence, I forget whether it was Peretz or Wieseltier who said in support of the Six Day War (while simultaneously opposing the Vietnam War) "Politics stops at the deli door."
  188. @kaganovitch
    I should add , that Jansen's book was published by Third Press, an obscure, Blackety Black Black press best known for publishing Angela Davis' work. Not the kind of publishing house that would elicit a review in mainstream papers/mags. I would guess you might find a review in leftish/third world oriented journals of the period, but those are hard to get a hold of nowadays unless you have access to mimeograph collections.Most of them have not been digitized yet. Also, Sirhan himself did much to obscure his motive with his nutty sounding notebook and his hypnosis nonsense.

    Sirhan himself did much to obscure his motive with his nutty sounding notebook and his hypnosis nonsense.

    Sirhan was a poorly educated, emotionally disturbed immigrant who was controlled by our court system. In his trial, he was not allowed to base his legal defense on an argument that he killed Robert Kennedy in order to wreak vengeance for his family suffering under the Israelis.

    His lawyers defended him with arguments about his mental state. That was an appropriate legal defense.

    His weird activities during the months before the assassination were perhaps self-medication for his emotional problems. He was filled with anger, and so he experimented with meditation, self-hypnosis, journal-writing and so forth.

    It seems that Sirhan fell under the control of a hypnotist named William Joseph Bryan. A few years after the assassination, there was a libel trial that provided quite good evidence that Sirhan and Bryan were involved with each other. This trial was the core of the book The Assassination of Robert Kennedy, written by William Turner and Jonn Christian.

    That was a book that really was suppressed. After only a few books were sold, the publisher had to pulp all the books in its warehouse. Many years passed before the book could be sold again.

  189. @Mike Sylwester

    There are 8 copies on amazon. It’s listed in just about every bibliography of RFK assassination books. It’s listed first among secondary sources on the Maryland State Archives site for teaching History. How do you think it was suppressed? Do you think the Elders of Zion can prevent someone from reviewing it on the internet??
     
    I know that the book is not illegal.

    There are no customer reviews of the book on Amazon, and I could not find any reviews of the book anywhere on the Internet.

    I used the word "suppressed" with some reluctance. I still can't think of a better word.

    Godfrey Jansen's book Why Robert Kennedy Was Killed is a superb book. Jansen was a professional diplomat and journalist. After the assassination he immediately interviewed many of Sirhan Sirhan's relatives in Palestine and California. The book is written in a judicious manner.

    Jansen writes that both Robert Kennedy and Sirhan Sirhan were victims. He does not excuse Sirhan's assassination of Kennedy.

    I have read many books about the assassinations of that period (JFK, MLK, RFK, Wallace). This book was superb, but it was "suppressed" -- or some other better word you might suggest.

    I donated the book to a library book sale, so I can refer only to my memory of it here.

    The book describes in detail the sufferings of the Sirhan family -- in particular the sufferings of Sirhan Sirhan. The family was devoutly Christian. As a boy, he saw Arabs murdered. His family was terrorized by Israelis. They had to flee their home. They lost their jobs.

    Unfortunately, I don't remember the details, and I can't find any information on the Internet.

    If you see the book anywhere, get it and read it. The book probably will change your thinking about Sirhan Sirhan.

    Apparently it was reviewed (negatively) in the New York Times though, on May 2 1971:
    http://www.nytimes.com/1971/05/02/archives/why-robert-kennedy-was-killed-the-story-of-two-victims-by-godfrey.html?_r=0

    • Replies: @Mike Sylwester

    Apparently it was reviewed (negatively) in the New York Times though, on May 2 1971:

     

    Thanks for the link to the review, which I read.

    I don't agree with the review, but I was happy to read it.
  190. @Art Deco
    Essentially, Sirhan was a victim of the Israelis.

    No, Sirhan was a victim of his father. "The Israelis" are an attractive target for people who despise the Jews.

    Sirhan was a victim of his father. “The Israelis” are an attractive target for people who despise the Jews.

    Jansen’s book tells the Sirhan family’s history in detail. The problems involving the father are told there.

    The book tells also what the family experienced as the Israelis occupied their neighborhood and took over the local government.

    In that situation, there was much injustice all around. People were murdered. People lost their homes and occupations. Families broke up. Children were emotionally traumatized.

    This part of Sirhan’s life should be understood by people who want to understand the RFK assassination.

    Of course, Sirhan committed a horrendous crime. He was guilty, and he has been punished justly. However, his murderous rage was based on his family’s history.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Of course, Sirhan committed a horrendous crime. He was guilty, and he has been punished justly. However, his murderous rage was based on his family’s history.

    And, yet, his mother, his father, his sister, and two of his brothers all died in bed. (He has a surviving brother living a quiet life in southern California; another brother had all kinds of trouble adjusting to American life and returned to the West Bank ca. 1972). Edward Said's family was dispossessed by Gamal Abdel Nasser's government. He spent the rest of his life agitating contra Israel. There's a difference between a reason and a pre-text.

    The corps of Puerto Rican nationalists who attempted to kill Pres. Truman in 1950 and the other corps who shot up the House of Representatives in 1954 seem to have given over their life to politics. Dan White, who killed the Mayor of San Francisco in 1978, seems to have had some sort of one-off explosion of rage. Pretty much every other aspirant assassin has manifested either disorientation or a demonstrated inability to handle adult life, or both. Run down the list: Giuseppe Zangara, Lee Harvey Oswald, James Earl Ray, Sirhan Sirhan, Arthur Bremmer, Lynnette Fromme, Sara Jane Moore, Larry Layton et al, John Hinckley, and Jared Loughner. That's a cavalcade of kooks and misfits.
  191. @Father O'Hara
    What? The movie clearly implies that the girl loves Benjamin and she will run away from her horrible family and way of life to be happy with the him because WASPS are cold and the jew is warm and loving.
    I saw this movie while fighting in Vietnam.
    BTW me sister had the book which I read happily. In one scene Ben confides to someone that while hitchhiking he was picked up by an Indian(woo woo) who made a pass at him.
    "Have you ever heard of a queer Indian?!"
    The Indian embodies Ben's sinking feeling that the world is out of whack,I guess.
    For the record,I truly loathe Hoffman.

    “What? The movie clearly implies that the girl loves Benjamin and she will run away from her horrible family and way of life to be happy with the him”

    I was thinking of the ambiguous ending, where after the thrilling church climax they sit on the bus with blank stares on their faces as “Hello, darkness, my old friend” plays. But that may be more about Benjamin than her. He ends up looking the same at the end as he did at the beginning.

  192. @kaganovitch
    I think rather than suppression, the more parsimonious explanation would be that Americans were in no mood to read sympathetic "root cause" explanations of RFK's assassination, much like Americans had very limited appetite for reading "root cause" explanations of Bin Laden's grudges against America. Jansen may well have been a skilled journalist but he was also a Muslim apologist so he should be read with some skepticism, much like one would read an account by an Israeli apologist.

    As superficial as is the common understanding of Bin Laden, people know more about him than that he’s some crazy guy who did it just because, which is about all they know of Sirhan Sirhan. They know, for instance, Bin Laden was a radical Muslim Jihadist from Saudi Arabia who led a terrorist group called Al Queda out of Afghanistan, where he previously fought the Soviets. They know he objected to Western armies occupying Muslim soil, and that he bombed the U.S.S. Cole for the same reason. Maybe they think they know he was “jealous of our freedom,” too.

    People know that, or at least some of it. All they know about Sirhan is his name, if that, and the fact that he shot Bobby.

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    A fair point, but on the other hand 9/11 was a much bigger deal than RFK's assassination, no?
  193. @Mike Sylwester

    I think rather than suppression, the more parsimonious explanation would be that Americans were in no mood to read sympathetic “root cause” explanations of RFK’s assassination ... Jansen may well have been a skilled journalist but he was also a Muslim apologist so he should be read with some skepticism, much like one would read an account by an Israeli apologist.
     
    I agree with you that "Americans were in no mood to read sympathetic 'root cause' explanations of RFK's assassination." That is well put.

    If you ever get a chance to read Jansen's book, I expect that you will find it to be informative, careful and judicious.

    I don't know whether Jansen was a "Muslim apologist" in his other writings, but in this book he wrote sympathetically about the Sirhan family, which was devoutly Christian.

    ======

    Instead of using the word suppressed, perhaps I should have used the word marginalized, which is half-way to ignored.

    When Jansen published his book in 1971, a book could be marginalized by the country's intellectual and medial elites much more easily than today. Those elites did more than simply ignore such a book. They marginalized such a book. They took some actions to make sure that nobody ever even heard about it.

    Now in 2017, we have the Internet and blogs, and it's much easier to spread information about contrary opinions. Back in 1971, people who wanted to spread contrary ideas had to create newsletters, sell subscriptions to them, and mail the newsletters periodically.

    That's how I.F. Stone and other contrarians had to get their ideas out in 1971. Now someone like Steve Sailer can create a blog, which is much more efficient.

    Back in 1971, Jansen could publish his book, but he couldn't get it reviewed anywhere. He probably couldn't get any bookstores to sell it. The only way to buy his book was to special-order it. Some people did so, and that's why there are some used copies around.

    I see WORLDCAT has 296 holdings in US libraries, so it must have gotten around quite a bit. That’s a lot more than I would have thought considering the imprint. Anyway now I’m curious, so I ordered it from I.L.L.

  194. @James Richard
    Very poor casting then. And kiss-kiss to you too junior.

    Apologies. That was a stupid and mean-spirited thing for me to write. Alcohol and anonymous internet snark.

    Also, i hadn’t read Steve’s article that he’d linked to in Taki that makes the clear point that in the book Braddock is a wasp, but that in the movie Hoffman’s (and Nichol’s) jewishness is used to highlight the character’s alienation from wasp conformity. or some such. So I was talking like an idiot in more than one sense.

  195. @Jack D
    If America's survival was at stake I think that even today there would be no shortage of brave American boys willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. Even in Iraq and Afghanistan where the stakes were much lower ( you might even say non-existent) there have been many brave men willing to march into danger.

    America’s survival was not at stake in WWII, either. Admittedly, people were confused into thinking it was.

    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    America’s survival was not at stake in WWII, either. Admittedly, people were confused into thinking it was.
     
    I seriously doubt all that many, whatever the political rhetoric. The thought was that Japanese scum had just murdered thousands of Americans and that it was time for some payback against the Japs and anyone who chose to stand with this act of perfidy (i.e. the Germans). Of course, the Japanese invasion of the Aleutians in mid-1942 did get some pulses racing. (Note that a Germany that managed to unify Europe would be in a position to threaten the continental US. Shades of the EU).
  196. @James Richard
    One mountainous area from the hills to the Jordan River occupied and ruled for a very short time c. 900 B.C. by one of the local Canaanite tribes was Judea but the name the Egyptians gave the coastal plain during a punitive expedition against the Philistines during the 20th Dynasty is now spelled "Palestine" and that name has stuck for the entire southern Levant through dozens of colonizations, tribal wars, and regime changes for the last 3200 years.

    While pacifying the general area Ramesses III built an Egyptian temple in the Judean hills at Karnak. He described the local inhabitants as illiterate but fierce bandits who dealt in silver and preyed on everyone. I guess some things never change.

    If the assertion is that the Palestinians descend from the Philistines, then they are pretty much heirs only to the Gaza Strip. Judea pre-dates Palestine in any case, as does the Kingdom of Israel, and both of those kingdoms covered a lot more of the area now considered at issue. It would most likely be fair to say the Palestinians have no valid claim to Jerusalem at all other than being Muslim.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    If the assertion is that the Jews descend from the ancient Israelites, then they are pretty much heirs only to a slice of Palestine, a section of the West Bank.
    , @James Richard
    Are you even reading the wealth of scholarly information provided in this thread? I see nowhere any claims that the Philistines were Semitic. If not go back and do so before you spout off again especially the Haaretz article on DNA analysis.. Ashkenazi Jews are closely related to their Semitic Palestinian Arab cousins who were the indigenous population that didn't run away to Europe and elsewhere when the Romans destroyed your Temple. You are currently ethnically cleansing your own kin! LOL

    http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/science/1.681385
    , @Hippopotamusdrome
    Since the names Palestine and Israel elicits such strong feelings, maybe we can compromise and choose a neutral name that is less charged. I propose "Canaan".
  197. @Almost Missouri
    Another striking aspect of the Battle of Midway is how lethal--to their own aircrews--naval air sorties were. Even the "successful" (i.e., did a lot of damage to the enemy) missions often resulted in the loss of most of the attacking planes and crew. Unsuccessful attacks were simply annihilated.

    Do you think that anywhere in the West today, you could find enough volunteers for even the relatively modest number of aircrews at Midway, given the semi-suicidal nature of the work?

    I rather doubt it. Yet the advantages we inherited are built on that kind of sacrifice.

    Islam, on the other hand, seems to have no shortage of suicide-ready (even suicide-enthusiastic) soldiers. Don't count on their sacrifices underpinning any great advance in human civilization, though.

    Islam, on the other hand, seems to have no shortage of suicide-ready (even suicide-enthusiastic) soldiers.

    Not really. A few dozen terrorists in the West aren’t exactly a surplus. I think we get the impression that they’re determined and everywhere because we’ve been the target of some of their attacks. In reality, the Syrian opposition is on its last legs because of a couple of hundred thousand casualties (at most). The Vietnamese Communists lost 1.2m dead before Congress cried uncle. North Vietnam’s population then was about the same as Syria’s population today.

    The real issue is Islam’s tendency to deliberately target Western civilians outside of the field of battle. At some point, we may start returning the favor, much as Axis air attacks on Allied cities led to repayment in kind, with interest.

    • Replies: @guest
    We already do that. Shock and awe, the drone war, etc.

    We don't kill as many as possible, admittedly. And it's not systematic, deliberate terrorism, as with "strategic bombing."
    , @Almost Missouri

    "The real issue is Islam’s tendency to deliberately target Western civilians outside of the field of battle."
     
    I agree, but unfortunately, Islam doesn't. To Islam, the "field of battle" is the entire Dar al-Harb ("House of War", i.e., the entire non-Muslim world), so Islam does not see this as an automatic moral problem, as you and I do.

    Lest we shake our heads in condescending dismay, let us remember that the US and Britain decided that German and Japanese civilians were legitimate "strategic bombing" targets in WWII. So we are not total strangers to Islamic logic here.
  198. @Gabriel M
    I grew up with security guards outside synagogue every Saturday. On festivals there were police too. I never really thought about it, but for my bar mitzvah we invited a lot of non-Jewish family friends and they told us how weird it was to have security guards outside a house of worship. I guess they don't think that now.

    After the Sabra and Shatila massacre, security was bumped up in British synagogues. My mother remarked to someone that the community was feeling at risk. She responded (or so my mother tells me), that 'of course you have to expect that, unfortunately'. My mother replied that since the massacre was carried out by a Christian militia with no direct Israeli participation then it would make as much sense for some angry chap to attack a church. Her friend found the very thought incomprehensible. I guess she doesn't now.

    It's almost like spending decades rewarding angry Middle Easterners for terrorism incentivises them to do it more, but liberals and dolt rightists know that can't possibly be true.

    It’s almost like spending decades rewarding angry Middle Easterners for terrorism incentivises them to do it more, but liberals and dolt rightists know that can’t possibly be true.

    The root cause is Arab funding for fire-breathing imams. If we really wanted to stop terrorism, we’d issue an ultimatum to the Gulf Arabs to end this funding, followed by air and missile attacks against their military installations upon the next round of terror attacks in the West. Instead, we poke away at the symptoms, while avoiding the root causes.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri

    "The root cause is Arab funding for fire-breathing imams. If we really wanted to stop terrorism, we’d issue an ultimatum to the Gulf Arabs to end this funding"
     
    This is a good point and one that bears repeating. There is something of a choke point on Islamic terrorism: the jihadist imams and their subsidized mosques. The financial and ideological support for those imams and mosques comes largely from the Gulf Arabs, especially from Saudi Arabia. I say "from" because it is not official government policy of these states. The support comes mainly from wealthy Arabs outside the government. Some may be true believers, but others cynically want the jihadis to do their dirty work and displace the local government so they can become the government/royals instead. The local governments do have elements of a police state that could suppress the imams and financial supporters more if they tried. The two problems with this are 1) the more police states suppress, the more resentments build up locally against the government, worsening the original problem, and 2) in a globalized world, the jihadi bacillus has long since escaped the Arabian petri dish and now festers on many foreign shores, each of which will have to up their own police state game to crush it. And of course, the West is hypocritically demanding crushing of jihadism, which is part and parcel of originalist Islam, while simultaneously demanding liberalization of Arab societies, which those societies correctly perceive as an attack on their fundamental Muslim character.

    So in short, it is not unlike the hypocrisy of the left within the West: freedom of speech except for speech we disagree with, liberty (and libertinism) of action except for actions we dislike, etc.

    How to square this circle?

    The answer may have been provided by incisive political analyst P. J. O'Rourke:

    "Whatever it is that the government does, sensible Americans would prefer that the government does it to somebody else. This is the idea behind foreign policy."
     
  199. @The Alarmist
    If the assertion is that the Palestinians descend from the Philistines, then they are pretty much heirs only to the Gaza Strip. Judea pre-dates Palestine in any case, as does the Kingdom of Israel, and both of those kingdoms covered a lot more of the area now considered at issue. It would most likely be fair to say the Palestinians have no valid claim to Jerusalem at all other than being Muslim.

    If the assertion is that the Jews descend from the ancient Israelites, then they are pretty much heirs only to a slice of Palestine, a section of the West Bank.

  200. @hhsiii
    Ben Braddock clearly isn't meant to be Jewish.

    And I doubt you fought in Nam. But if you did, I really don't care. Thanks for your service.

    Speaking of ‘Nam, Braddock later volunteers and is unrecognizable from Hoffman’s portrayal in The Graduate.

  201. @guest
    As superficial as is the common understanding of Bin Laden, people know more about him than that he's some crazy guy who did it just because, which is about all they know of Sirhan Sirhan. They know, for instance, Bin Laden was a radical Muslim Jihadist from Saudi Arabia who led a terrorist group called Al Queda out of Afghanistan, where he previously fought the Soviets. They know he objected to Western armies occupying Muslim soil, and that he bombed the U.S.S. Cole for the same reason. Maybe they think they know he was "jealous of our freedom," too.

    People know that, or at least some of it. All they know about Sirhan is his name, if that, and the fact that he shot Bobby.

    A fair point, but on the other hand 9/11 was a much bigger deal than RFK’s assassination, no?

    • Replies: @guest
    "on the other hand 9/11 was a much bigger deal the RKF's assassination, no?"

    An immeasurably bigger deal, yes. Than again, people know more about trivialities like the Brown-Simpson-Goldman murder.
  202. @LondonBob
    Everyone in the (Soviet) mission was stunned and confused, particularly when there were rumors that the murder had been Soviet-inspired... Our leaders would not have been so upset by the assassination if they had planned it and the KGB would not have taken upon itself to venture such a move without Politburo approval. More important, Khrushchev's view of Kennedy had changed. After Cuba, Moscow perceived Kennedy as the one who had accelerated improvement of relations between the two countries. Kennedy was seen as a man of strength and determination, the one thing that Kremlin truly understands and respects. In addition, Moscow firmly believed that Kennedy's assassination was a scheme by "reactionary forces" within the United States seeking to damage the new trend in relations. The Kremlin ridiculed the Warren Commission's conclusion that Oswald had acted on his own as the sole assassin. There was in fact widespread speculation among Soviet diplomats that Lyndon Johnson, along with the CIA and the Mafia, had masterminded the plot. Perhaps one of the most potent reasons why the U.S.S.R. wished Kennedy well was that Johnson was anathema to Khrushchev. Because he was a southerner, Moscow considered him a racist (the stereotype of any American politician from below the Mason Dixon line), an anti-Soviet and anti-Communist to the core. Further, since Johnson was from Texas, a center of the most reactionary forces in the United States, according to the Soviets, he was associated with the big-time capitalism of the oil industry, also known to be anti-Soviet.

    Everything you’ve written is hilarious, but these were truly knee-slappers:

    The Kremlin ridiculed the Warren Commission’s conclusion that Oswald had acted on his own as the sole assassin. There was in fact widespread speculation among Soviet diplomats that Lyndon Johnson, along with the CIA and the Mafia, had masterminded the plot.

    lol. The Krelmin ridiculed the Oswald theory from a purely political point of view: they didn’t want a communist and Soviet-defector being blamed for the crime, because it made them look bad. And then they realized that if they spread disinformation and encouraged conspiracy theories it would sow distrust in the U.S. government amongst citizens.

    In reality, the Soviets knew Oswald was an unstable loon, which is why when he defected they kept him nice and isolated in a boring job far away from the centers of power.

    JFK’s commencement address at the American University clearly signaled his intention to wind down the cold war, he was well on the way to reelection on a detente platform.

    I always love this hippie-commie lie of history: JFK was going to end the cold war! By being nice! Because the only thing causing the cold war was American belligerence! The Soviets were the good peaceniks!

    It’s times like this I realize the Left is destined to lose, if only because they believe such bold-faced nonsense.

    • Agree: syonredux
  203. @Art Deco
    Oswald had a very high level of security clearance as he worked with the U2 spy planes the CIA ran out of Japan. He would have been recruited there, it is believed the ONI had a fake defectors program and that Oswald was selected for this, the Russians were not fooled and it was not a success. Still his background as a purported defector and time in the Marines made him an excellent candidate for sheep dipping.

    I often wonder what the point of origin of these idiot memes is. My suspicion is that they start out as submissions to trade book publishers who include spy fiction on their lists, and someone somewhere gets hold of these and fancies they were treatments for works of history or current affairs.

    The real Lee Harvey Oswald was quite hopeless and failed at everything he attempted between 1952 and his death. Very adept at getting fired from his job and surprisingly adept at getting a handsome women to marry him, bear his children, and put up with his personality problems (until such time as she realized he was useless and that there were other people in this world who would work with her and look after her).

    I often wonder what the point of origin of these idiot memes is. My suspicion is that they start out as submissions to trade book publishers who include spy fiction on their lists, and someone somewhere gets hold of these and fancies they were treatments for works of history or current affairs.

    The KGB’s policy was to encourage and underwrite JFK conspiracy theories to draw the heat off them and sow distrust in the U.S. government. And most American leftists were loathe to take responsibility for Oswald’s murder, and still are today; note how in 2013, on the 50th anniversary, the New York Times wrote an article that blamed JFK’s murder, not on Oswald, but on the “right wing climate of hate” in Dallas: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/20/us/a-changed-dallas-grapples-with-its-darkest-day.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&pagewanted=all

    Leftists are lying cancers on humanity.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    At age 16 I watched Ruby take out Oswald live on the television. Even then, for me it was an "aha" moment. Now, 53 years later, it still is. Not for one minute did I ever believe that Oswald's death was coincidental and I still don't. As to who masterminded the whole shebang I have no clue. To paraphrase the immortal words of the philosopher Wittgenstein "I pass in silence."
  204. @guest
    America's survival was not at stake in WWII, either. Admittedly, people were confused into thinking it was.

    America’s survival was not at stake in WWII, either. Admittedly, people were confused into thinking it was.

    I seriously doubt all that many, whatever the political rhetoric. The thought was that Japanese scum had just murdered thousands of Americans and that it was time for some payback against the Japs and anyone who chose to stand with this act of perfidy (i.e. the Germans). Of course, the Japanese invasion of the Aleutians in mid-1942 did get some pulses racing. (Note that a Germany that managed to unify Europe would be in a position to threaten the continental US. Shades of the EU).

    • Replies: @James Richard
    The Japs attacked us because Roosevelt cut off their access to Indonesian oil through an economic boycott joined by England, Holland, Australia, British India & Burma, Malaya and Siam. This culminated in the freezing of all Japanese non-Axis foreign bank assets on July 26th, 1941.
  205. @Mike Sylwester

    Sirhan was a victim of his father. “The Israelis” are an attractive target for people who despise the Jews.
     
    Jansen's book tells the Sirhan family's history in detail. The problems involving the father are told there.

    The book tells also what the family experienced as the Israelis occupied their neighborhood and took over the local government.

    In that situation, there was much injustice all around. People were murdered. People lost their homes and occupations. Families broke up. Children were emotionally traumatized.

    This part of Sirhan's life should be understood by people who want to understand the RFK assassination.

    Of course, Sirhan committed a horrendous crime. He was guilty, and he has been punished justly. However, his murderous rage was based on his family's history.

    Of course, Sirhan committed a horrendous crime. He was guilty, and he has been punished justly. However, his murderous rage was based on his family’s history.

    And, yet, his mother, his father, his sister, and two of his brothers all died in bed. (He has a surviving brother living a quiet life in southern California; another brother had all kinds of trouble adjusting to American life and returned to the West Bank ca. 1972). Edward Said’s family was dispossessed by Gamal Abdel Nasser’s government. He spent the rest of his life agitating contra Israel. There’s a difference between a reason and a pre-text.

    The corps of Puerto Rican nationalists who attempted to kill Pres. Truman in 1950 and the other corps who shot up the House of Representatives in 1954 seem to have given over their life to politics. Dan White, who killed the Mayor of San Francisco in 1978, seems to have had some sort of one-off explosion of rage. Pretty much every other aspirant assassin has manifested either disorientation or a demonstrated inability to handle adult life, or both. Run down the list: Giuseppe Zangara, Lee Harvey Oswald, James Earl Ray, Sirhan Sirhan, Arthur Bremmer, Lynnette Fromme, Sara Jane Moore, Larry Layton et al, John Hinckley, and Jared Loughner. That’s a cavalcade of kooks and misfits.

  206. @Jus' Sayin'...
    I'm half Irish Catholic and proud of my roots. My Irish ancestors first showed up in Massachusetts sometime before 1800. From the beginning they made contributions to their new homeland. One of my ancestors was a Civil War hero. I can remember learning to hate the Kennedys from my grandmother back in the 1950s. Even as a child I'd learned about their slimey backgrounds in corrupt machine politics, stock fraud, and organized crime. I loathe the whole crew. They've done irreparable damage to this country and continue to do so.

    Irreparable damage as well to the reputation of Irish Americans.
    Of course the pre-famine Irish were generally a few cuts above the vast majority of those who came over after 1840.
    A few? Some, likes the Carrolls of Maryland, were bona fide aristocrats. The Emmets too, or very nearly. I’ll bet yours were at least the scions of big farmers, or merchants from cities like Cork, Waterford, or Galway.
    The illiterate peasants came later.

  207. @Gabriel M
    Every so often you wonder whether Chomsky could really make a career out of just saying over and over again things that are obviously not true to armies of cretins and then someone comes to remind that, yes, he can.

    Blah, blah, blah, support genocide in Guatemala or whatever, blah, blah
     
    Wut? Or whatever? The Guatemalan civil war has a lot of atrocities, though nothing outlandish by 20th century standards and most of them were committed by anti-Communists. Nothing even remotely resembling 'genocide' either in thought or deed. Chomsky thinks is people try to stop communists destroying their country that is genocide, but when Commies go nutso in Cambodia and fill caves with skulls he spends a whole decade trying to discredit anyone reporting it. Really sick.

    For Israel that’s destructive. In fact, Israeli doves constantly deplore it. They constantly refer to it as Stalinism. They refer to the Stalinist character of the support for Israel on the part of what they call the “Jewish community,” but that’s because they don’t understand enough about the United States.
     
    The only people who think like this are Lefty university professors in Tel Aviv. No-one else thinks 'gosh, I hate it when those Americans support us too much'. It sure sounds like Chumpsky has no experience talking to anyone who is not a university professor in Tel Aviv.

    There’s no question about that. For example, the editor of the Labor Party journal, the main newspaper of the Labor Party, has asked me to write regular columns. I won’t do it because I’m concerned with things here, but that’s totally inconceivable in the United States, you can’t even imagine it, you can’t even imagine an occasional op-ed.
     
    Waah, waah, waah. No-one gets to hear Chomsky talk, except everyone ALL THE F**KING TIME.

    What a jerk.

    “Nothing even remotely resembling ‘genocide’ in thought or deed”

    What definition of “genocide” are you using? Because there’s the popular one, which has it as the deliberate mass murder of a group based on ethnic, national, religious, and other criteria. But then there’s the original one, which was coined to cover all manner of wrongs (or supposed wrongs), so long as they were against a minority population. Or I should say approved minorities. Which means in practice an approved group. I’m sure Chomsky wouldn’t hold back from calling a minority genociders if they attacked a majority population, so long as the majority were the good guys.

    It extends all the way down to mental harm, as in “Those Nazis make me nervous.” To Chomsky it would be genocide if the victims were commies and they suffered anything whatsoever.

  208. @Johann Ricke

    Islam, on the other hand, seems to have no shortage of suicide-ready (even suicide-enthusiastic) soldiers.
     
    Not really. A few dozen terrorists in the West aren't exactly a surplus. I think we get the impression that they're determined and everywhere because we've been the target of some of their attacks. In reality, the Syrian opposition is on its last legs because of a couple of hundred thousand casualties (at most). The Vietnamese Communists lost 1.2m dead before Congress cried uncle. North Vietnam's population then was about the same as Syria's population today.

    The real issue is Islam's tendency to deliberately target Western civilians outside of the field of battle. At some point, we may start returning the favor, much as Axis air attacks on Allied cities led to repayment in kind, with interest.

    We already do that. Shock and awe, the drone war, etc.

    We don’t kill as many as possible, admittedly. And it’s not systematic, deliberate terrorism, as with “strategic bombing.”

  209. @kaganovitch
    A fair point, but on the other hand 9/11 was a much bigger deal than RFK's assassination, no?

    “on the other hand 9/11 was a much bigger deal the RKF’s assassination, no?”

    An immeasurably bigger deal, yes. Than again, people know more about trivialities like the Brown-Simpson-Goldman murder.

  210. @anonymouslee
    Noam Chomsky often points out America or even American Jews hadn't given a crap about Israel until 1967

    "Furthermore, I think it’s changed because of what’s happened since 1967. In 1967 Israel won a dramatic military victory, demonstrated its military power, in fact, smashed up the entire Arab world, and that won great respect. A lot of Americans, especially privileged Americans, love violence and want to be on the side of the guy with the gun, and here was a powerful, violent state that smashed up its enemies and demonstrated that it was the dominant military power in the Middle East, put those Third World upstarts in their place. This was particularly dramatic because that was 1967, a time when the United States was having only minimal success in carrying out its invasion of by then all of Indochina, and it’s well worth remembering that elite opinion, including liberal opinion, overwhelmingly supported the war in Vietnam and was quite disturbed by the incapacity of the United States to win it, at least at the level they wanted. Israel came along and showed them how to do it, and that had a symbolic effect. Since then it has been presenting itself, with some justice, as the Sparta of the Middle East, a militarily advanced, technologically compe- tent, powerful society. That’s the kind of thing we like. It also became a strategic asset of the United States; one of the reasons why the United States maintains the military confrontation is to assure that it’s a dependable, reliable ally that will do what we want, like, say, support genocide in Guatemala or whatever, and that also increases the respect for Israel and with it tends to diminish anti-Semitism. I suppose that’s a factor.

    CHOMSKY: The American liberal community since 1967 has been mobilized at an almost fanatic level in support of an expansionist Israel, and they have been consistently opposed to any political settlement. They have been in favor of the aggrandizement of Israeli power. They have used their position of quite considerable influence in the media in the political system to defeat and overcome any challenge to the system of military confrontation using all the standard techniques of vilification, defamation, closing off control over expression, etc. and it’s certainly had an effect. I don’t know if it was a decisive effect, but it had some noticeable effect on bringing about U.S. government support for the persistent military confrontation and U.S. government opposition to political settlement. For Israel that’s destructive. In fact, Israeli doves constantly deplore it. They constantly refer to it as Stalinism. They refer to the Stalinist character of the support for Israel on the part of what they call the “Jewish community,” but that’s because they don’t understand enough about the United States. It’s not just the Jewish community, which is what they see; it’s basically the intellectual community at large.

    QUESTION: Edward Said, for example, has pointed out that there is much more pluralism in terms of the discussion, the debate, in Israel itself than inside the United States.

    CHOMSKY: There’s no question about that. For example, the editor of the Labor Party journal, the main newspaper of the Labor Party, has asked me to write regular columns. I won’t do it because I’m concerned with things here, but that’s totally inconceivable in the United States, you can’t even imagine it, you can’t even imagine an occasional op-ed. That’s quite typical. Positions that I maintain, which are essentially in terms of the international consensus, they’re not a majority position in Israel, but they’re part of the political spectrum, they’re respectable positions. Here it’s considered outlandish"

    Chomsky has achieved great success by being wrong about almost everything.

  211. @The Alarmist
    If the assertion is that the Palestinians descend from the Philistines, then they are pretty much heirs only to the Gaza Strip. Judea pre-dates Palestine in any case, as does the Kingdom of Israel, and both of those kingdoms covered a lot more of the area now considered at issue. It would most likely be fair to say the Palestinians have no valid claim to Jerusalem at all other than being Muslim.

    Are you even reading the wealth of scholarly information provided in this thread? I see nowhere any claims that the Philistines were Semitic. If not go back and do so before you spout off again especially the Haaretz article on DNA analysis.. Ashkenazi Jews are closely related to their Semitic Palestinian Arab cousins who were the indigenous population that didn’t run away to Europe and elsewhere when the Romans destroyed your Temple. You are currently ethnically cleansing your own kin! LOL

    http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/science/1.681385

  212. @Johann Ricke

    America’s survival was not at stake in WWII, either. Admittedly, people were confused into thinking it was.
     
    I seriously doubt all that many, whatever the political rhetoric. The thought was that Japanese scum had just murdered thousands of Americans and that it was time for some payback against the Japs and anyone who chose to stand with this act of perfidy (i.e. the Germans). Of course, the Japanese invasion of the Aleutians in mid-1942 did get some pulses racing. (Note that a Germany that managed to unify Europe would be in a position to threaten the continental US. Shades of the EU).

    The Japs attacked us because Roosevelt cut off their access to Indonesian oil through an economic boycott joined by England, Holland, Australia, British India & Burma, Malaya and Siam. This culminated in the freezing of all Japanese non-Axis foreign bank assets on July 26th, 1941.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    The Japs attacked us because Roosevelt cut off their access to Indonesian oil through an economic boycott joined by England, Holland, Australia, British India & Burma, Malaya and Siam. This culminated in the freezing of all Japanese non-Axis foreign bank assets on July 26th, 1941.
     
    Stupid move on the part of the Japanese; they should have only attacked European possessions and left the USA alone. Ah, well, I suppose that the urge to commit seppuku can't be denied....
  213. @Jack D
    I think "well established facts" doesn't mean what you think it means.

    The official (and originally TOP SECRET) US inquiry concluded that the attack was a mistake due to Israeli confusion about the ship's identity.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20121030155345/http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/uss_liberty/attack_sigint.pdf

    Now it's possible that the official report was a lie due to a conspiracy involving the CIA, LBJ, the Elders of Zion, the space aliens from Area 51, etc. Or else not. But either way, I would call that less than "established facts".

    But, even assuming arguendo that it's all true, then so what? This happened 50 year ago. LBJ is dead, Moshe Dayan is dead. No one (AFAIK) disputes that the Japanese attack on the USS Arizona was other than an intentional and perfidious attack but the Japanese are our best buddies nowadays and have been since shortly after the war was over.

    Hey Jack, have you considered making Aliyah?

  214. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @whorefinder

    I often wonder what the point of origin of these idiot memes is. My suspicion is that they start out as submissions to trade book publishers who include spy fiction on their lists, and someone somewhere gets hold of these and fancies they were treatments for works of history or current affairs.
     
    The KGB's policy was to encourage and underwrite JFK conspiracy theories to draw the heat off them and sow distrust in the U.S. government. And most American leftists were loathe to take responsibility for Oswald's murder, and still are today; note how in 2013, on the 50th anniversary, the New York Times wrote an article that blamed JFK's murder, not on Oswald, but on the "right wing climate of hate" in Dallas: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/20/us/a-changed-dallas-grapples-with-its-darkest-day.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&pagewanted=all

    Leftists are lying cancers on humanity.

    At age 16 I watched Ruby take out Oswald live on the television. Even then, for me it was an “aha” moment. Now, 53 years later, it still is. Not for one minute did I ever believe that Oswald’s death was coincidental and I still don’t. As to who masterminded the whole shebang I have no clue. To paraphrase the immortal words of the philosopher Wittgenstein “I pass in silence.”

    • Replies: @syonredux

    At age 16 I watched Ruby take out Oswald live on the television. Even then, for me it was an “aha” moment. Now, 53 years later, it still is.
     
    For me, it's further proof that Oswald acted alone.....

    Deep State Conspiracy Meeting. All the heavy hitters (Military, Mafia, Right-Wing Oil men, anti-Black racists, the New Orleans Gay community) :

    LBJ: OK, it's all set. We'll kill Kennedy and get this Oswald guy to take the rap.

    New Orleans Gay Community Representative: But how will we keep him from talking?

    CIA : We got it covered. He'll be killed leaving the Dallas jail by a guy named Jack Ruby. Dead man tell no tales.

    Racist: Great. Now how are we going to eliminate Ruby?

    CIA: D'oh!
    , @guest
    "Not for one minute did I believe ever believe that Oswald's death was coincidental"

    What do you mean by coincidence in this context? That the guy who shot the president just so happened to die before he could go to trial? But they had him in custody for a while, long enough for beans to spill. The investigation didn't stop just because Oswald died. I highly doubt more information would've been uncovered had he lived.

    I can see why a sensational event like a presidential assassin being shot on live tv would cause alarms to go off in your head. And in retrospect, it makes conspiracy theories more plausible, at least to excitable people. Because they like extreme happenings. But fact is that conspiracy theorizing didn't take off for a while. Ruby shooting Oswald wasn't enough for the vast majority of people.

    I've never been clear on what Oswald's death was supposed to import. That he was shut up? Why not kill him on the scene, then, when he resisted arrest? Or were the cops not in on it? Or were only some of them in on it? Why didn't Ruby shoot Oswald when he was at the station earlier? Why did Ruby slip in such a very narrow window during the transfer? It's not like he was hanging out around there for hours. He was down the street at the Western Union moments before.

    Most importantly, Ruby did it in a such a way that he definitely gets caught. Doesn't that present you with exactly the same problem? Who shuts up your shut-uperer? This plan leads to infinite regress. Kill the guy who killed the guy who killed the guy who killed the guy who...

    Ruby lived for a while in jail. Plenty of time to admit he was a patsy. Isn't that kind of a big hole? Add to that how unreliable was Ruby. No hit squad in their right mind would pick such a person. They wouldn't pick Oswald, either, but at least in Oswald's case you can imagine he had nothing to do with it and was purely set up. You can't fake Ruby having actually shot Oswald, unless they pulled the old switcheroo.

  215. @Reg Cæsar

    FIVE entire complete games in a row? Goodness! Did his arm fall off soon afterwards? Didn’t anyone remember to tell Don that he simply couldn’t do that kind of thing?
     
    Don't forget, he had to swing a bat, too, every second or third inning. Which he did well.

    Did Drysdale ever pinch-hit on his days off? I think Bob Gibson did. Tom Seaver was used as a pinch-runner at times.

    “Don’t forget, he had to swing a bat, too, every second or third inning. Which he did well.”

    Frankly I’m amazed that Drysdale could ever drive a car again, after pitching five whole complete games in a row. That kind of thing just simply isn’t done, and its completely unheard of in this era. Who knows how many health problems a P could develop after such a feat.

    And after all, Drysdale did retire midway thru ’68. Does make you think that he simply wore himself out after those 58 2/3 consecutive innings.

  216. @Art Deco
    The Six Day War was likely the origin of neoconservatism. For example, in Norman Podhoretz’s second volume of memoirs, covering the 1960s, there is no mention of Israel for the first few hundred pages, and then Israel becomes an obsessive topic for Podhoretz after the Six Days War. As George S. Patton said, Americans love a winner


    The Public Interest was founded in 1965.

    Israel won the war of independence in 1948-49 and Egypt performed wretchedly on the battlefield during the Suez crisis. See Pierre Leuillette's St. Michael and the Dragon for an account of Egyptian military prowess.



    See George Nash's account of what he called right-wing liberalism, penned in 1976. See also Joseph Epstein's account of his political odyssey, penned around 1984. Discussions of Israel or the Six-Day War do not figure in either. The Coalition for a Democratic Majority, the Committee on the Present Danger, and the Committee for the Free World all had a much more extensive set of issues with which they were concerned. You can run down the list of people prominent in those circles and you'd be hard put to find someone whose writings concerned primarily Israel (much less the Six-Day War). Irving Kristol, Nathan Glazer, Ben Wattenberg, Midge Decter, Joseph Epstein, Hilton Kramer etc. The public intellectuals from that era (outside of those writing for Midstream and other explicitly Jewish organs) with the most laser-like focus on Israel were Martin Peretz and Leon Wieseltier. Peretz kept his distance from the Kristol-Podhoretz circle and Wieseltier despised them and said so in print in the most unmistakable terms.

    Apropos of your last sentence, I forget whether it was Peretz or Wieseltier who said in support of the Six Day War (while simultaneously opposing the Vietnam War) “Politics stops at the deli door.”

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    That does not sound like either one of them. In 1967, Wieseltier was a 15 year old yeshiva student in Brooklyn. Peretz was a 28 year old lecturer at Harvard and not known outside a modest circle of people in Boston.
  217. @James Richard
    The Japs attacked us because Roosevelt cut off their access to Indonesian oil through an economic boycott joined by England, Holland, Australia, British India & Burma, Malaya and Siam. This culminated in the freezing of all Japanese non-Axis foreign bank assets on July 26th, 1941.

    The Japs attacked us because Roosevelt cut off their access to Indonesian oil through an economic boycott joined by England, Holland, Australia, British India & Burma, Malaya and Siam. This culminated in the freezing of all Japanese non-Axis foreign bank assets on July 26th, 1941.

    Stupid move on the part of the Japanese; they should have only attacked European possessions and left the USA alone. Ah, well, I suppose that the urge to commit seppuku can’t be denied….

    • Replies: @James Richard
    It would have been next to impossible to take the Dutch East Indies with the Aussies there in New Guinea and the mother country in Malaya and Singapore and with us occupying the Philippines.
    , @guest
    We had ideas in our heads about sticking our fleet way out there and--oops--running into the Japs. "Interposition." Like a couple of surly drunks bumping into eachother at a bar.

    Japan: Hey, watch where you're going, buddy.

    U.S.: No, you watch where *you're* going.

    Japan: Get outta my face!

    U.S.: Thems fightin' words!

    The idea was not for our East Asian empire to collapse and for our fleet to be destroyed in harbor, I don't think. But we didn't do a lot to stop them. Including, you know, passing on the information that war was coming 14 hours before Pearl Harbor after we read a decoded diplomatic message.

    --------------------------

    Not taking out the Philippines etc. at the same time that Japan attacked French, British, and Dutch possessions would've been foolhardy. What if we decide to go to war without them touching us? We had done it before, and we would do it again.

    You launch your giant, supersneak surprise attack and cross your fingers that the buddies of your enemies are gonna sit on their hands and watch? No, they didn't want to risk Yanks in their backyard. Better to take out their ability to strike back. For a time.

  218. @Reg Cæsar

    FIVE entire complete games in a row? Goodness! Did his arm fall off soon afterwards? Didn’t anyone remember to tell Don that he simply couldn’t do that kind of thing?
     
    Don't forget, he had to swing a bat, too, every second or third inning. Which he did well.

    Did Drysdale ever pinch-hit on his days off? I think Bob Gibson did. Tom Seaver was used as a pinch-runner at times.

    Found this on Wiki:

    “Among the personal belongings found in Drysdale’s hotel room was a cassette tape of Robert F. Kennedy’s victory speech after the 1968 California Democratic presidential primary, a speech given only moments before Senator Kennedy’s assassination. In the speech, Kennedy had noted, to the cheers of the crowd, that Drysdale had pitched his sixth straight shutout that evening. Drysdale had apparently carried the tape with him wherever he went since Kennedy’s murder”

  219. @anonymous
    At age 16 I watched Ruby take out Oswald live on the television. Even then, for me it was an "aha" moment. Now, 53 years later, it still is. Not for one minute did I ever believe that Oswald's death was coincidental and I still don't. As to who masterminded the whole shebang I have no clue. To paraphrase the immortal words of the philosopher Wittgenstein "I pass in silence."

    At age 16 I watched Ruby take out Oswald live on the television. Even then, for me it was an “aha” moment. Now, 53 years later, it still is.

    For me, it’s further proof that Oswald acted alone…..

    Deep State Conspiracy Meeting. All the heavy hitters (Military, Mafia, Right-Wing Oil men, anti-Black racists, the New Orleans Gay community) :

    LBJ: OK, it’s all set. We’ll kill Kennedy and get this Oswald guy to take the rap.

    New Orleans Gay Community Representative: But how will we keep him from talking?

    CIA : We got it covered. He’ll be killed leaving the Dallas jail by a guy named Jack Ruby. Dead man tell no tales.

    Racist: Great. Now how are we going to eliminate Ruby?

    CIA: D’oh!

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    “For me, it’s further proof that Oswald acted alone…..”

    My dear fellow, it sounds as if you’ve finally come to your senses.

    Next step is to admit that Katherine Hepburn isn’t all that from a classic beauty standard.
  220. @The Alarmist
    If the assertion is that the Palestinians descend from the Philistines, then they are pretty much heirs only to the Gaza Strip. Judea pre-dates Palestine in any case, as does the Kingdom of Israel, and both of those kingdoms covered a lot more of the area now considered at issue. It would most likely be fair to say the Palestinians have no valid claim to Jerusalem at all other than being Muslim.

    Since the names Palestine and Israel elicits such strong feelings, maybe we can compromise and choose a neutral name that is less charged. I propose “Canaan”.

    • Agree: Opinionator
    • Replies: @Kyle McKenna
    I propose "Armpit". It offers the additional distinction of being the name of one of Jackie Coakley's rapists.
    , @The Alarmist
    What about the Samarians?
  221. @Stan Adams
    China slaughtered the students in Tiananmen Square on Sunday, June 4, 1989 - the day after the Ayatollah Khomeini breathed his last.

    Tiananmen Square

    Nanjing anti-African protests
    … The Tiananmen Square … came 4 months after the anti-African protests in Nanjing and some elements of the Nanjing protests were still evident, such as banners proclaiming “Stop Taking Advantage of Chinese Women”.

  222. @syonredux

    The Japs attacked us because Roosevelt cut off their access to Indonesian oil through an economic boycott joined by England, Holland, Australia, British India & Burma, Malaya and Siam. This culminated in the freezing of all Japanese non-Axis foreign bank assets on July 26th, 1941.
     
    Stupid move on the part of the Japanese; they should have only attacked European possessions and left the USA alone. Ah, well, I suppose that the urge to commit seppuku can't be denied....

    It would have been next to impossible to take the Dutch East Indies with the Aussies there in New Guinea and the mother country in Malaya and Singapore and with us occupying the Philippines.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    It would have been next to impossible to take the Dutch East Indies with the Aussies there in New Guinea and the mother country in Malaya and Singapore and with us occupying the Philippines.
     
    Why? I know that FDR was quite worried that the Japanese would strike at the Dutch East Indies while leaving the USA alone.....And controlling the Dutch East Indies was rather important to Japan...

    The East Indies was one of Japan's primary targets if and when it went to war because the colony possessed abundant valuable resources, the most important of which were its rubber plantations and oil fields;[12][13] the colony was the fourth-largest exporter of oil in the world, behind the U.S., Iran, and Romania
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_Indies_campaign
  223. @Kyle McKenna
    Jimmy, as you can see, even the irrelevant minions of the ruling class don't like it when you put two and two together.

    And you're right, the crass behaviour is not typical of their targets: but they want you to think it is. Hollywood Projection.

    IIRC The Heartbreak Kid (the 1972 original), which is overt shiksa-goddess resentment, has a similar portrayal of her rich WASP family.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    The Heartbreak Kid was a great movie with the then smoking hot Cybill Shepherd and Charles Grodin playing himself as the doofus.
    , @Kyle McKenna
    Yeah, there are a few thousand Hollywood movies with that theme.
    , @guest
    While the family is rich, the shiksa-goddess is named Corcoran and lives in Minnesota, and as such isn't very WASPy.
  224. @syonredux

    At age 16 I watched Ruby take out Oswald live on the television. Even then, for me it was an “aha” moment. Now, 53 years later, it still is.
     
    For me, it's further proof that Oswald acted alone.....

    Deep State Conspiracy Meeting. All the heavy hitters (Military, Mafia, Right-Wing Oil men, anti-Black racists, the New Orleans Gay community) :

    LBJ: OK, it's all set. We'll kill Kennedy and get this Oswald guy to take the rap.

    New Orleans Gay Community Representative: But how will we keep him from talking?

    CIA : We got it covered. He'll be killed leaving the Dallas jail by a guy named Jack Ruby. Dead man tell no tales.

    Racist: Great. Now how are we going to eliminate Ruby?

    CIA: D'oh!

    “For me, it’s further proof that Oswald acted alone…..”

    My dear fellow, it sounds as if you’ve finally come to your senses.

    Next step is to admit that Katherine Hepburn isn’t all that from a classic beauty standard.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    “For me, it’s further proof that Oswald acted alone…..”

    My dear fellow, it sounds as if you’ve finally come to your senses.
     
    I try always to be the perfect combination of sense and sensibility....

    Next step is to admit that Katherine Hepburn isn’t all that from a classic beauty standard.
     
    Perish the thought! Should I ever swerve from undying devotion to the divine Katharine, let my right hand forget her cunning, and let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth.....
  225. @anonymous
    At age 16 I watched Ruby take out Oswald live on the television. Even then, for me it was an "aha" moment. Now, 53 years later, it still is. Not for one minute did I ever believe that Oswald's death was coincidental and I still don't. As to who masterminded the whole shebang I have no clue. To paraphrase the immortal words of the philosopher Wittgenstein "I pass in silence."

    “Not for one minute did I believe ever believe that Oswald’s death was coincidental”

    What do you mean by coincidence in this context? That the guy who shot the president just so happened to die before he could go to trial? But they had him in custody for a while, long enough for beans to spill. The investigation didn’t stop just because Oswald died. I highly doubt more information would’ve been uncovered had he lived.

    I can see why a sensational event like a presidential assassin being shot on live tv would cause alarms to go off in your head. And in retrospect, it makes conspiracy theories more plausible, at least to excitable people. Because they like extreme happenings. But fact is that conspiracy theorizing didn’t take off for a while. Ruby shooting Oswald wasn’t enough for the vast majority of people.

    I’ve never been clear on what Oswald’s death was supposed to import. That he was shut up? Why not kill him on the scene, then, when he resisted arrest? Or were the cops not in on it? Or were only some of them in on it? Why didn’t Ruby shoot Oswald when he was at the station earlier? Why did Ruby slip in such a very narrow window during the transfer? It’s not like he was hanging out around there for hours. He was down the street at the Western Union moments before.

    Most importantly, Ruby did it in a such a way that he definitely gets caught. Doesn’t that present you with exactly the same problem? Who shuts up your shut-uperer? This plan leads to infinite regress. Kill the guy who killed the guy who killed the guy who killed the guy who…

    Ruby lived for a while in jail. Plenty of time to admit he was a patsy. Isn’t that kind of a big hole? Add to that how unreliable was Ruby. No hit squad in their right mind would pick such a person. They wouldn’t pick Oswald, either, but at least in Oswald’s case you can imagine he had nothing to do with it and was purely set up. You can’t fake Ruby having actually shot Oswald, unless they pulled the old switcheroo.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    They wouldn’t pick Oswald, either, but at least in Oswald’s case you can imagine he had nothing to do with it and was purely set up.

    You could imagine it. Pretty amazing the man purely set up picked that afternoon to murder a Dallas police officer in front of a scrum of witnesses.
    , @LondonBob
    JD Tippitt was supposed to shoot Oswald resisting arrest, it went wrong.

    J. Edgar Hoover made a telephone call to President Lyndon B. Johnson on 29th November, 1963 after Oswald was killed:

    ‘This fellow Rubenstein (Jack Ruby) is a very shady character, has a bad record –street brawler, fighter, and that sort of thing – and in the place in Dallas, . . .

    ‘He knew all the police in that white-light district…. and he also let them come in, see the show, get food, liquor . . . That’s how, I think, he got into police headquarters. Because they accepted him as kind of a police character, hanging around police headquarters . . .

    ‘They never made any moves, as the pictures show, even when they saw him approaching this fellow and got up right to him and pressed his pistol against Oswald’s stomach. Neither of the police officers on either side made any move to push him away or grab him. It wasn’t until after the gun was fired that they then moved… The Chief of Police admits that he moved him in the morning as a convenience and at the request of motion-picture people, who wanted to have daylight. He should have moved him at night . . . ’

    Deeply involved in the operational element he was going to the chair if Oswald wasn't silenced. That he was liaison to the police for the mob gave him the contacts necessary to carry it out.

    When in prison Ruby hinted that there had been a conspiracy of ‘big names’ behind Kennedy’s murder. In particular he fingered LBJ as the arch conspirator in letters smuggled out of jail. He soon died from a curiously virulent and unusual form of lung cancer.
  226. The Six Days War was Israeli aggression justified by a non-existent attack by Egypt.

    This was also when the USS Liberty was attacked by Israel.

    https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/05/the-six-day-war-and-israeli-lies-what-i-saw-at-the-cia/

  227. @syonredux

    The Japs attacked us because Roosevelt cut off their access to Indonesian oil through an economic boycott joined by England, Holland, Australia, British India & Burma, Malaya and Siam. This culminated in the freezing of all Japanese non-Axis foreign bank assets on July 26th, 1941.
     
    Stupid move on the part of the Japanese; they should have only attacked European possessions and left the USA alone. Ah, well, I suppose that the urge to commit seppuku can't be denied....

    We had ideas in our heads about sticking our fleet way out there and–oops–running into the Japs. “Interposition.” Like a couple of surly drunks bumping into eachother at a bar.

    Japan: Hey, watch where you’re going, buddy.

    U.S.: No, you watch where *you’re* going.

    Japan: Get outta my face!

    U.S.: Thems fightin’ words!

    The idea was not for our East Asian empire to collapse and for our fleet to be destroyed in harbor, I don’t think. But we didn’t do a lot to stop them. Including, you know, passing on the information that war was coming 14 hours before Pearl Harbor after we read a decoded diplomatic message.

    ————————–

    Not taking out the Philippines etc. at the same time that Japan attacked French, British, and Dutch possessions would’ve been foolhardy. What if we decide to go to war without them touching us? We had done it before, and we would do it again.

    You launch your giant, supersneak surprise attack and cross your fingers that the buddies of your enemies are gonna sit on their hands and watch? No, they didn’t want to risk Yanks in their backyard. Better to take out their ability to strike back. For a time.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    The idea was not for our East Asian empire to collapse and for our fleet to be destroyed in harbor, I don’t think. But we didn’t do a lot to stop them. Including, you know, passing on the information that war was coming 14 hours before Pearl Harbor after we read a decoded diplomatic message.
     
    Meh. If you want to get into that business, there's always the fact that MacArthur did damn little to prepare....and that was after Pearl Harbor was attacked...

    Not taking out the Philippines etc. at the same time that Japan attacked French, British, and Dutch possessions would’ve been foolhardy. What if we decide to go to war without them touching us? We had done it before, and we would do it again.
     
    Meh. Why make it easy on the US? Force us to declare war without being attacked....who knows how long that would have taken? 3 months? 6 months? A year?

    But, as I said, the Japanese had a strong death-urge circa 1937-45....
  228. @Anonymous
    IIRC The Heartbreak Kid (the 1972 original), which is overt shiksa-goddess resentment, has a similar portrayal of her rich WASP family.

    The Heartbreak Kid was a great movie with the then smoking hot Cybill Shepherd and Charles Grodin playing himself as the doofus.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Me, a Gentile doofus, couldn't understand why Grodin would prefer Shepherd to goddess-Jewess Jeannie Berlin. But that must be how these things work.
  229. @guest
    We had ideas in our heads about sticking our fleet way out there and--oops--running into the Japs. "Interposition." Like a couple of surly drunks bumping into eachother at a bar.

    Japan: Hey, watch where you're going, buddy.

    U.S.: No, you watch where *you're* going.

    Japan: Get outta my face!

    U.S.: Thems fightin' words!

    The idea was not for our East Asian empire to collapse and for our fleet to be destroyed in harbor, I don't think. But we didn't do a lot to stop them. Including, you know, passing on the information that war was coming 14 hours before Pearl Harbor after we read a decoded diplomatic message.

    --------------------------

    Not taking out the Philippines etc. at the same time that Japan attacked French, British, and Dutch possessions would've been foolhardy. What if we decide to go to war without them touching us? We had done it before, and we would do it again.

    You launch your giant, supersneak surprise attack and cross your fingers that the buddies of your enemies are gonna sit on their hands and watch? No, they didn't want to risk Yanks in their backyard. Better to take out their ability to strike back. For a time.

    The idea was not for our East Asian empire to collapse and for our fleet to be destroyed in harbor, I don’t think. But we didn’t do a lot to stop them. Including, you know, passing on the information that war was coming 14 hours before Pearl Harbor after we read a decoded diplomatic message.

    Meh. If you want to get into that business, there’s always the fact that MacArthur did damn little to prepare….and that was after Pearl Harbor was attacked…

    Not taking out the Philippines etc. at the same time that Japan attacked French, British, and Dutch possessions would’ve been foolhardy. What if we decide to go to war without them touching us? We had done it before, and we would do it again.

    Meh. Why make it easy on the US? Force us to declare war without being attacked….who knows how long that would have taken? 3 months? 6 months? A year?

    But, as I said, the Japanese had a strong death-urge circa 1937-45….

  230. @James Richard
    It would have been next to impossible to take the Dutch East Indies with the Aussies there in New Guinea and the mother country in Malaya and Singapore and with us occupying the Philippines.

    It would have been next to impossible to take the Dutch East Indies with the Aussies there in New Guinea and the mother country in Malaya and Singapore and with us occupying the Philippines.

    Why? I know that FDR was quite worried that the Japanese would strike at the Dutch East Indies while leaving the USA alone…..And controlling the Dutch East Indies was rather important to Japan…

    The East Indies was one of Japan’s primary targets if and when it went to war because the colony possessed abundant valuable resources, the most important of which were its rubber plantations and oil fields;[12][13] the colony was the fourth-largest exporter of oil in the world, behind the U.S., Iran, and Romania

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_Indies_campaign

  231. @Anonymous
    IIRC The Heartbreak Kid (the 1972 original), which is overt shiksa-goddess resentment, has a similar portrayal of her rich WASP family.

    Yeah, there are a few thousand Hollywood movies with that theme.

  232. @Jim Don Bob
    The Heartbreak Kid was a great movie with the then smoking hot Cybill Shepherd and Charles Grodin playing himself as the doofus.

    Me, a Gentile doofus, couldn’t understand why Grodin would prefer Shepherd to goddess-Jewess Jeannie Berlin. But that must be how these things work.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    But this one was directed by long-time Nichols associate Elaine May (born Elaine Berlin) so with the woman's touch it's basically The Graduate on overdrive, with the people Nichols' Ben Braddock really belongs to reified in a Jewish bride played by May's daughter.
  233. @German_reader
    Apparently it was reviewed (negatively) in the New York Times though, on May 2 1971:
    http://www.nytimes.com/1971/05/02/archives/why-robert-kennedy-was-killed-the-story-of-two-victims-by-godfrey.html?_r=0

    Apparently it was reviewed (negatively) in the New York Times though, on May 2 1971:

    Thanks for the link to the review, which I read.

    I don’t agree with the review, but I was happy to read it.

  234. @Almost Missouri
    I too admire Spruance, but ironically his greater decision than the early attack (which was just what his orders were anyway) was his choice not to pursue the Japanese fleet into the night, where he most likely would have run into Yamamoto's battleship trap which would have chewed his fragile carrier task force to bits turning Spruance's miraculous victory into an ignominious defeat.

    Looking back on the Battle of Midway, where the American forces had so many disadvantages and mistakes, while the Japanese had so many advantages guided by experience, it is striking how often the American faults were turned to good account by chance, timing or weather, while the Japanese advantages were neutralized by the same circumstances.

    Spruance accurately calculated and prudently took the risks that turned out to succeed, but it is hard not to see the hand of Providence or Fate, or whatever you want to call it, shaping the result.

    Looking back on the Battle of Midway, where the American forces had so many disadvantages and mistakes, while the Japanese had so many advantages guided by experience, it is striking how often the American faults were turned to good account by chance, timing or weather, while the Japanese advantages were neutralized by the same circumstances.

    Guided by experience? The Japanese? What experience? The Battle of the Coral Sea knocked the Japanese 5th Carrier Division (Shoukaku, Zuikaku) out of action and cost them their highly trained air group personnel, wiped out by US Navy aviators just the month before. The first carrier-to-carrier air battle in history and they were driven back, sustaining air crew losses that they never replaced because they didn’t have the solid aviator training program the US Navy had developed pre-war.
    The Japanese also hadn’t developed the efficient operation of flight deck crews that the US Navy had, as epitomized by the wearing of colored jerseys to distinguish functions. The Japanese also had not developed the deck-park system to refuel and re-arm aircraft quickly, as the US Navy had through a series of experiments in the 1920s. Japanese doctrine required aircraft to be moved to the hanger deck for servicing, then brought back on deck for launching. This proved to be a big part of their undoing at Midway.
    By contrast, as early as May, 1928, during Fleet Problem VIII, the Langley launched 35 aircraft in seven minutes — one aircraft every 12 seconds — thanks to these techniques. A dozen years later, the Japanese were not even close to matching that efficiency.
    Also, as a result of US Navy efficiencies, our aircraft carriers could carry more aircraft than comparable Japanese carriers. The standard Japanese carrier air group consisted of 63 planes while the US Navy carrier air group consisted of 72 planes.
    Another superiority of the US Navy carrier force: As a result of a series of carrier-to-carrier duels during fleet problems, it had been determined that the role of carrier aviation in naval battles was to find enemy carriers and disable their flight decks. The first to do this won the overall battle. So the US Navy developed the scout bomber and the doctrine to use it. Each CAG contained 18 scout bombers, their role to locate enemy carriers and disable their flight decks by dive-bombing.
    The Japanese, by contrast, did not bother to develop a strategy to deal with enemy carriers and never practiced carrier-to-carrier air battles. They did not believe reconnaissance was a suitable role for carrier aircraft, that job being assigned to float planes launched from cruisers. Their carriers’ job was to attack enemy battleships, primarily with torpedo bombers.
    The US Navy had made the aircraft carrier the center of fleet operations by 1940 and determined that speed and evasiveness were it’s chief protection, so it was uncoupled from slow battleship formations and each carrier group was to operate separately, so that if one was found by the enemy, that would not lead to the discovery of our other carriers.
    The Japanese, by contrast, had decided that concentration of carrier air power to achieve air superiority over the battle zone required close operation of carriers. They were also aware of the vulnerable position this put their carriers in — should one be found, all would be found. But they believed that arranging their carriers in a close box formation would provide advantages in a massing of air groups for offensive operations, while the carriers would be protected by a much larger combat air patrol consisting of fighters from all the carrier operating in cooperation.
    As the fighting around Midway played out, it showed that the Japanese Navy was wrong in what it believed about carrier air warfare, and the US Navy was right.
    Yes, luck played a part in the battle, as it does always. Everyone know about the good fortune of Enterprise‘s scout bombers spotting the Japanese destroyer Arashi, which led them to discover the Japanese fleet. But a very similar thing happened to the Japanese during their attack on the British Navy’s Repulse and Prince of Wales six months earlier. The main force of 26 Kanoya Ku G4M torpedo bombers had been unable to locate the British ships, which were only moderately damaged by earlier attacks, until they spotted a Walrus seaplane launched by Repulse, which was making a beeline for Singapore. They backtracked it to the ships and destroyed them.
    But luck favors the prepared and skilled, and at Midway, the US Navy not only had the luck, it was also prepared and skilled, and in the scout bomber, had the right equipment.
    The US Navy won Midway because it had been practicing for it for 15 years. The Japanese did not practice for such a battle, had the wrong strategy and tactics and equipment for it, and also had bad luck.

  235. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    “For me, it’s further proof that Oswald acted alone…..”

    My dear fellow, it sounds as if you’ve finally come to your senses.

    Next step is to admit that Katherine Hepburn isn’t all that from a classic beauty standard.

    “For me, it’s further proof that Oswald acted alone…..”

    My dear fellow, it sounds as if you’ve finally come to your senses.

    I try always to be the perfect combination of sense and sensibility….

    Next step is to admit that Katherine Hepburn isn’t all that from a classic beauty standard.

    Perish the thought! Should I ever swerve from undying devotion to the divine Katharine, let my right hand forget her cunning, and let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth…..

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "Should I ever swerve from undying devotion to the divine Katharine, let my right hand forget her cunning, and let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth….."

    Methinks thy tongue would rather cleave to someplace else. Unfortunately for you, Miss. Hepburn passed in May of 2003, two months before comedian Bob Hope. Although you're still in luck, as Mariette Hartley is still very much around. Now there was a lass of beauty, wit, sophistication, and amazing talent.

    And she took a darn fine photo with James Garner a la Polaroid.
  236. @Anonymous
    Me, a Gentile doofus, couldn't understand why Grodin would prefer Shepherd to goddess-Jewess Jeannie Berlin. But that must be how these things work.

    But this one was directed by long-time Nichols associate Elaine May (born Elaine Berlin) so with the woman’s touch it’s basically The Graduate on overdrive, with the people Nichols’ Ben Braddock really belongs to reified in a Jewish bride played by May’s daughter.

  237. @Anonymous
    As was Buck Henry, born Henry Zuckerman, who won Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay.

    Aww crap, not another one! Well that explains a lot. I’m so damned naïve sometimes.

  238. @Almost Missouri
    I too admire Spruance, but ironically his greater decision than the early attack (which was just what his orders were anyway) was his choice not to pursue the Japanese fleet into the night, where he most likely would have run into Yamamoto's battleship trap which would have chewed his fragile carrier task force to bits turning Spruance's miraculous victory into an ignominious defeat.

    Looking back on the Battle of Midway, where the American forces had so many disadvantages and mistakes, while the Japanese had so many advantages guided by experience, it is striking how often the American faults were turned to good account by chance, timing or weather, while the Japanese advantages were neutralized by the same circumstances.

    Spruance accurately calculated and prudently took the risks that turned out to succeed, but it is hard not to see the hand of Providence or Fate, or whatever you want to call it, shaping the result.

    Looking back on the Battle of Midway, where the American forces had so many disadvantages and mistakes, while the Japanese had so many advantages guided by experience, it is striking how often the American faults were turned to good account by chance, timing or weather, while the Japanese advantages were neutralized by the same circumstances.

    Guided by experience? The Japanese?
    The Battle of the Coral Sea knocked the Japanese 5th Carrier Division (Shoukaku, Zuikaku) out of action and cost them their highly trained air group personnel, wiped out by US Navy aviators just the month before. The first carrier-to-carrier air battle in history and they were driven back, sustaining air crew losses that they never replaced because they didn’t have the solid aviator training program the US Navy had developed pre-war.
    The Japanese also hadn’t developed the efficient operation of flight deck crews that the US Navy had, as epitomized by the wearing of colored jerseys to distinguish functions. The Japanese also had not developed the deck-park system to refuel and re-arm aircraft quickly, as the US Navy had through a series of experiments in the 1920s. Japanese doctrine required aircraft to be moved to the hanger deck for servicing, then brought back on deck for launching. This proved to be a big part of their undoing at Midway.
    By contrast, as early as May, 1928, during Fleet Problem VIII, the Langley launched 35 aircraft in seven minutes — one aircraft every 12 seconds — thanks to these techniques. A dozen years later, the Japanese were not even close to matching that efficiency.
    Also, as a result of US Navy efficiencies, our aircraft carriers could carry more aircraft than comparable Japanese carriers. The standard Japanese carrier air group consisted of 63 planes while the US Navy carrier air group consisted of 72 planes.
    Another superiority of the US Navy carrier force: As a result of a series of carrier-to-carrier duels during fleet problems, it had been determined that the role of carrier aviation in naval battles was to find enemy carriers and disable their flight decks. The first to do this won the overall battle. So the US Navy developed the scout bomber and the doctrine to use it. Each CAG contained 18 scout bombers, their role to locate enemy carriers and disable their flight decks by dive-bombing.
    The Japanese, by contrast, did not bother to develop a strategy to deal with enemy carriers and never practiced carrier-to-carrier air battles. They did not believe reconnaissance was a suitable role for carrier aircraft, that job being assigned to float planes launched from cruisers. Their carriers’ job was to attack enemy battleships, primarily with torpedo bombers.
    The US Navy had made the aircraft carrier the center of fleet operations by 1940 and determined that speed and evasiveness were it’s chief protection, so it was uncoupled from slow battleship formations and each carrier group was to operate separately, so that if one was found by the enemy, that would not lead to the discovery of our other carriers.
    The Japanese, by contrast, had decided that concentration of carrier air power to achieve air superiority over the battle zone required close operation of carriers. They were also aware of the vulnerable position this put their carriers in — should one be found, all would be found. But they believed that arranging their carriers in a close box formation would provide advantages in a massing of air groups for offensive operations, while the carriers would be protected by a much larger combat air patrol consisting of fighters from all the carrier operating in cooperation.
    As the fighting around Midway played out, it showed that the Japanese Navy was wrong in what it believed about carrier air warfare, and the US Navy was right.
    Yes, luck played a part in the battle, as it does always. Everyone know about the good fortune of Enterprise‘s scout bombers spotting the Japanese destroyer Arashi, which led them to discover the Japanese fleet. But a very similar thing happened to the Japanese during their attack on the British Navy’s Repulse and Prince of Wales six months earlier. The main force of 26 Kanoya Ku G4M torpedo bombers had been unable to locate the British ships, which were only moderately damaged by earlier attacks, until they spotted a Walrus seaplane launched by Repulse, which was making a beeline for Singapore. They backtracked it to the ships and destroyed them.
    But luck favors the prepared and skilled, and at Midway, the US Navy not only had the luck, it was also prepared and skilled, and in the scout bomber, had the right equipment.
    The US Navy won Midway because it had been practicing for it for 15 years. The Japanese did not practice for such a battle, had the wrong strategy and tactics and equipment for it, and also had bad luck.

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    Whoever:

    Very interesting analysis of what happened over what time frame. Thanks.
    , @Almost Missouri
    As you mention, Coral Sea was the first carrier-to-carrier battle in history, so by definition it was a new experience to everyone. Nevertheless, the Japanese naval and air crews had more actual combat experience than their American counterparts. This told at Coral Sea where they sunk a quarter of the US Pacific carrier force, damaged another quarter while only losing a light carrier of their own and suffering damage to a second carrier.

    "The Japanese also hadn’t developed the efficient operation of flight deck crews that the US Navy had, ... the Japanese were not even close to matching that efficiency."
     
    Whatever. For some reason, in spite of that vaunted USN efficiency, at Midway the Japanese managed to launch aircraft ten times faster than the Americans and with much better organization too. The Japanese forces launched aircraft faster and more organized than the Americans at Coral Sea as well, so Midway wasn't a one-time fluke.

    "The Japanese, by contrast, had decided that concentration of carrier air power to achieve air superiority over the battle zone required close operation of carriers. "
     
    At Coral Sea, the Japanese carriers were six miles apart from each other. The American carriers were just two miles apart from each other. Not that this has any bearing on the question of the experience level of the crews, just that the two sides had different tactical doctrines, which neither side seemed to follow very religiously.

    "But luck favors the prepared and skilled, and at Midway, the US Navy not only had the luck, it was also prepared and skilled..."
     
    Agree, but having a lot more luck helps too. At Midway, the US had it.

    "... and in the scout bomber, had the right equipment."
     
    Again, this doesn't really bear on who had more combat experience, but note that the Japanese were well supplied with scout bombers of their own. The Japanese B5N was nearly identical in performance to the US SBD scout bomber, and it was a B5N acting in the scout role that found the US fleet at Coral Sea.
  239. @Anonymous
    (Inscrutoroku Japamoto )
    Over the last couple of years, I've been developing the theory that the US Navy's AGTR and AGER ships had another, still more secret mission -- a real-time communications link for the Polaris ballistic missile submarines. Layered cover stories was a feature of the Navy's special projects office.

    The problem with ecplaining the Libery has always been motive. What could possibly be worth the risk for Israel? Having a ballistic missile submarine off of Gaza would give the U.S. an effective veto of any Israeli nuclear weapons activity out of Dimona. An airburst depressed trajectory shot would give no notice, but the overpressure would be enough to swat down a missile, or tip it over. So i think the threat of this veto -- on the cusp of the invasion of Golan, would have been enough.

    In my theory, the Liberty attack, plus the Pueblo incident the next year, showed the Navy that their comms system was unsatisfactory. The first TACAMO squadrons were established in 1968. The Navy proposed a hardened ELF transmitter that year, too. A huge ELF transmitter was put in to the ground in U.P. Michigan, but it's since been decomissioned.

    Defense Electronics, October 1981, has an article by James Ennes titled: “Israeli Attack on U.S. Ship Reveals Failure of C3.” There used to be a human transcribed version on his old website, but I suspect copyright issues led to it’s demise. I forget what book I read it in, but it is their most popular reprint.

  240. @Hippopotamusdrome
    Since the names Palestine and Israel elicits such strong feelings, maybe we can compromise and choose a neutral name that is less charged. I propose "Canaan".

    I propose “Armpit”. It offers the additional distinction of being the name of one of Jackie Coakley’s rapists.

  241. @Whoever

    Looking back on the Battle of Midway, where the American forces had so many disadvantages and mistakes, while the Japanese had so many advantages guided by experience, it is striking how often the American faults were turned to good account by chance, timing or weather, while the Japanese advantages were neutralized by the same circumstances.
     
    Guided by experience? The Japanese?
    The Battle of the Coral Sea knocked the Japanese 5th Carrier Division (Shoukaku, Zuikaku) out of action and cost them their highly trained air group personnel, wiped out by US Navy aviators just the month before. The first carrier-to-carrier air battle in history and they were driven back, sustaining air crew losses that they never replaced because they didn't have the solid aviator training program the US Navy had developed pre-war.
    The Japanese also hadn't developed the efficient operation of flight deck crews that the US Navy had, as epitomized by the wearing of colored jerseys to distinguish functions. The Japanese also had not developed the deck-park system to refuel and re-arm aircraft quickly, as the US Navy had through a series of experiments in the 1920s. Japanese doctrine required aircraft to be moved to the hanger deck for servicing, then brought back on deck for launching. This proved to be a big part of their undoing at Midway.
    By contrast, as early as May, 1928, during Fleet Problem VIII, the Langley launched 35 aircraft in seven minutes -- one aircraft every 12 seconds -- thanks to these techniques. A dozen years later, the Japanese were not even close to matching that efficiency.
    Also, as a result of US Navy efficiencies, our aircraft carriers could carry more aircraft than comparable Japanese carriers. The standard Japanese carrier air group consisted of 63 planes while the US Navy carrier air group consisted of 72 planes.
    Another superiority of the US Navy carrier force: As a result of a series of carrier-to-carrier duels during fleet problems, it had been determined that the role of carrier aviation in naval battles was to find enemy carriers and disable their flight decks. The first to do this won the overall battle. So the US Navy developed the scout bomber and the doctrine to use it. Each CAG contained 18 scout bombers, their role to locate enemy carriers and disable their flight decks by dive-bombing.
    The Japanese, by contrast, did not bother to develop a strategy to deal with enemy carriers and never practiced carrier-to-carrier air battles. They did not believe reconnaissance was a suitable role for carrier aircraft, that job being assigned to float planes launched from cruisers. Their carriers' job was to attack enemy battleships, primarily with torpedo bombers.
    The US Navy had made the aircraft carrier the center of fleet operations by 1940 and determined that speed and evasiveness were it's chief protection, so it was uncoupled from slow battleship formations and each carrier group was to operate separately, so that if one was found by the enemy, that would not lead to the discovery of our other carriers.
    The Japanese, by contrast, had decided that concentration of carrier air power to achieve air superiority over the battle zone required close operation of carriers. They were also aware of the vulnerable position this put their carriers in -- should one be found, all would be found. But they believed that arranging their carriers in a close box formation would provide advantages in a massing of air groups for offensive operations, while the carriers would be protected by a much larger combat air patrol consisting of fighters from all the carrier operating in cooperation.
    As the fighting around Midway played out, it showed that the Japanese Navy was wrong in what it believed about carrier air warfare, and the US Navy was right.
    Yes, luck played a part in the battle, as it does always. Everyone know about the good fortune of Enterprise's scout bombers spotting the Japanese destroyer Arashi, which led them to discover the Japanese fleet. But a very similar thing happened to the Japanese during their attack on the British Navy's Repulse and Prince of Wales six months earlier. The main force of 26 Kanoya Ku G4M torpedo bombers had been unable to locate the British ships, which were only moderately damaged by earlier attacks, until they spotted a Walrus seaplane launched by Repulse, which was making a beeline for Singapore. They backtracked it to the ships and destroyed them.
    But luck favors the prepared and skilled, and at Midway, the US Navy not only had the luck, it was also prepared and skilled, and in the scout bomber, had the right equipment.
    The US Navy won Midway because it had been practicing for it for 15 years. The Japanese did not practice for such a battle, had the wrong strategy and tactics and equipment for it, and also had bad luck.

    Whoever:

    Very interesting analysis of what happened over what time frame. Thanks.

    • Agree: PiltdownMan
  242. @European-American
    Sirhan Sirhan is rather articulate at his trial and explains his political motivations very clearly when questioned by his attorney:

    Trial of Sirhan Bishara Sirhan, 3 Mar 1969 - 4 Mar 1969
    https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=99532#relPageId=207

    Too bad I was only able to find a difficult-to-read photocopy of the trial transcript. Still, it's enough to see that Sirhan had a rather detailed and coherent understanding of the situation both in his native country and in the United States.

    I don't know anything about the hypnotism allegations, but they sound like a lot of convenient BS that serves to ignore Sirhan Sirhan's plain-as-day motivations.

    I suppose I am guilty of a second-order conspiracy theory: there's a conspiracy to encourage people to consider ridiculous conspiracy theories, all as a distraction from the actual facts.

    re: "suppressed" I see what you mean, it's tricky to find the right word. Has the native American point of view been suppressed from US history? Or is it just that nobody important cared...

    Sirhan Sirhan’s plain-as-day motivations.

    Plain as day? He mortally wounds one member of Congress friendly to Israel. What was he planning to do about the other 500-odd? What did his act accomplish but kill a politician abrasive to him? And how is that not a motive derived entirely from his inner life?

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    I know. I know. You have asked the same questions about Herschel Grynszpan.

    What an extraordinary amount of verbiage you have to produce to try cover up the fundamental fact of violent state racism.
    , @European-American
    > He mortally wounds one member of Congress

    A bit more than just another member of Congress...

    Reading what he says at the trial, it's clear he is well-informed about the situation in Palestine. He is mad as hell that a man who presents himself as a pacifist supports what he sees as the utterly unfair and cruel destruction of his country. So his motives seem clear, and it's the media and biographers that seems obtuse or worse.

    Now, you may well argue that his action was wrong or futile. But that is another matter. Are all those who fight for their country, or to right perceived wrongs, perfectly rational? Not everyone can be as "successful" as Gavrilo Princip, but some will try. And whether they are later seen as heroes or villains, such men's inner lives are, I imagine, rather messy.

  243. Not for one minute did I ever believe that Oswald’s death was coincidental and I still don’t.

    So, the Deep State conspirators put on the case their best man: a nightclub impresario known to be highly voluble and to have a hair-trigger temper. Sounds like a plan.

  244. @guest
    "Not for one minute did I believe ever believe that Oswald's death was coincidental"

    What do you mean by coincidence in this context? That the guy who shot the president just so happened to die before he could go to trial? But they had him in custody for a while, long enough for beans to spill. The investigation didn't stop just because Oswald died. I highly doubt more information would've been uncovered had he lived.

    I can see why a sensational event like a presidential assassin being shot on live tv would cause alarms to go off in your head. And in retrospect, it makes conspiracy theories more plausible, at least to excitable people. Because they like extreme happenings. But fact is that conspiracy theorizing didn't take off for a while. Ruby shooting Oswald wasn't enough for the vast majority of people.

    I've never been clear on what Oswald's death was supposed to import. That he was shut up? Why not kill him on the scene, then, when he resisted arrest? Or were the cops not in on it? Or were only some of them in on it? Why didn't Ruby shoot Oswald when he was at the station earlier? Why did Ruby slip in such a very narrow window during the transfer? It's not like he was hanging out around there for hours. He was down the street at the Western Union moments before.

    Most importantly, Ruby did it in a such a way that he definitely gets caught. Doesn't that present you with exactly the same problem? Who shuts up your shut-uperer? This plan leads to infinite regress. Kill the guy who killed the guy who killed the guy who killed the guy who...

    Ruby lived for a while in jail. Plenty of time to admit he was a patsy. Isn't that kind of a big hole? Add to that how unreliable was Ruby. No hit squad in their right mind would pick such a person. They wouldn't pick Oswald, either, but at least in Oswald's case you can imagine he had nothing to do with it and was purely set up. You can't fake Ruby having actually shot Oswald, unless they pulled the old switcheroo.

    They wouldn’t pick Oswald, either, but at least in Oswald’s case you can imagine he had nothing to do with it and was purely set up.

    You could imagine it. Pretty amazing the man purely set up picked that afternoon to murder a Dallas police officer in front of a scrum of witnesses.

    • Replies: @guest
    "Pretty amazing the man purely set up picked that afternoon to murder a Dallas police officer in front of a scrum of witnesses"

    Speaking of witnesses, Ruby shot Oswald in front of a room full of people on national tv. There's a mountain of evidence against Oswald,* but no one actually saw him shoot Kennedy/Connolly. That's all I meant about imagining.

    You can't imagine Ruby not shooting Oswald. Unless it was a Fake Ruby.

    *Pretty amazing Oswald was the only guy to leave work at the Book Depository that day, shot a cop for no discernable reason, mail-ordered a rifle and posed for a picture with it, brought a strange rifle-shaped package with him to work that morning, attempted to assassinate a political figure not long before, previously defected to Russia, was active in the pro-Castro movement, and so on.
  245. @James Richard
    One mountainous area from the hills to the Jordan River occupied and ruled for a very short time c. 900 B.C. by one of the local Canaanite tribes was Judea but the name the Egyptians gave the coastal plain during a punitive expedition against the Philistines during the 20th Dynasty is now spelled "Palestine" and that name has stuck for the entire southern Levant through dozens of colonizations, tribal wars, and regime changes for the last 3200 years.

    While pacifying the general area Ramesses III built an Egyptian temple in the Judean hills at Karnak. He described the local inhabitants as illiterate but fierce bandits who dealt in silver and preyed on everyone. I guess some things never change.

    One mountainous area from the hills to the Jordan River occupied and ruled for a very short time c. 900 B.C.

    Occupied pretty continuously by at least a remnant since about 1100 bc. As for ‘ruling’, the short time in question lasted 500 years.

  246. @Buffalo Joe
    On April 30th, 1982 my wife and I traveled by bus from Tel Aviv to Cairo, a trip that took 10 hours across the Sinai Desert. The desert was still littered with debris from the Six Day War. A burned out tank here, a crushed jet fuselage there. It was 15 years since the war and this was the inaugural run of the Egged/Delta Bus Line. We rode in a brand new Renault bus. I still have my bus ticket in a scrap book. If I had known that this was the first day, first bus, I would have stayed another day in Cairo. RFK's assassination happened the day of our formal Junior Class Dance in college. I was driving my father-in-law's Lincoln Town Car with the suicide doors in the back and we were headed out for drinks with two other couples in the car. I think we were all stunned and numb. Just some random memories that haven't faded in 50 years.

    There was a dust up over the same territory in 1973.

  247. @Art Deco
    They wouldn’t pick Oswald, either, but at least in Oswald’s case you can imagine he had nothing to do with it and was purely set up.

    You could imagine it. Pretty amazing the man purely set up picked that afternoon to murder a Dallas police officer in front of a scrum of witnesses.

    “Pretty amazing the man purely set up picked that afternoon to murder a Dallas police officer in front of a scrum of witnesses”

    Speaking of witnesses, Ruby shot Oswald in front of a room full of people on national tv. There’s a mountain of evidence against Oswald,* but no one actually saw him shoot Kennedy/Connolly. That’s all I meant about imagining.

    You can’t imagine Ruby not shooting Oswald. Unless it was a Fake Ruby.

    *Pretty amazing Oswald was the only guy to leave work at the Book Depository that day, shot a cop for no discernable reason, mail-ordered a rifle and posed for a picture with it, brought a strange rifle-shaped package with him to work that morning, attempted to assassinate a political figure not long before, previously defected to Russia, was active in the pro-Castro movement, and so on.

  248. @Anonymous
    IIRC The Heartbreak Kid (the 1972 original), which is overt shiksa-goddess resentment, has a similar portrayal of her rich WASP family.

    While the family is rich, the shiksa-goddess is named Corcoran and lives in Minnesota, and as such isn’t very WASPy.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    What kind of name is Corcoran? Irish? It's quite common but strange looking when you stop and focus on it, kind of like how James Thurber could weird himself out by repeating "Perth Amboy" over and over. It sounds kind of Filipino, since they love repeated syllables, like the ex-dictator's son, Bong-Bong Marcos.
    , @syonredux

    While the family is rich, the shiksa-goddess is named Corcoran
     
    I doubt that the film-makers cared about details like that.
  249. @Art Deco
    Sirhan Sirhan’s plain-as-day motivations.

    Plain as day? He mortally wounds one member of Congress friendly to Israel. What was he planning to do about the other 500-odd? What did his act accomplish but kill a politician abrasive to him? And how is that not a motive derived entirely from his inner life?

    I know. I know. You have asked the same questions about Herschel Grynszpan.

    What an extraordinary amount of verbiage you have to produce to try cover up the fundamental fact of violent state racism.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    What an extraordinary amount of verbiage you have to produce to try cover up the fundamental fact of violent state racism.

    Israel's a good place to live for it's Arab citizens. The political class in the Gulf emirates puts some effort into making their countries congenial for their citizens to live in. Pity the rest of the Arab world's elites are not so diligent.
  250. @guest
    While the family is rich, the shiksa-goddess is named Corcoran and lives in Minnesota, and as such isn't very WASPy.

    What kind of name is Corcoran? Irish? It’s quite common but strange looking when you stop and focus on it, kind of like how James Thurber could weird himself out by repeating “Perth Amboy” over and over. It sounds kind of Filipino, since they love repeated syllables, like the ex-dictator’s son, Bong-Bong Marcos.

    • Replies: @guest
    Corcoran is Gaelic in origin.

    When I hear the name I think of Thomas "Tommy the Cork" Corcoran, who was part of FDR's Brain Trust and one of Felix Frankfurter's "happy hot dogs." He's also sort of an Iron Triangle legend, because he stacked the executive branch with followers and became a big time lobbyist.

  251. @Steve Sailer
    What kind of name is Corcoran? Irish? It's quite common but strange looking when you stop and focus on it, kind of like how James Thurber could weird himself out by repeating "Perth Amboy" over and over. It sounds kind of Filipino, since they love repeated syllables, like the ex-dictator's son, Bong-Bong Marcos.

    Corcoran is Gaelic in origin.

    When I hear the name I think of Thomas “Tommy the Cork” Corcoran, who was part of FDR’s Brain Trust and one of Felix Frankfurter’s “happy hot dogs.” He’s also sort of an Iron Triangle legend, because he stacked the executive branch with followers and became a big time lobbyist.

  252. @guest
    "Not for one minute did I believe ever believe that Oswald's death was coincidental"

    What do you mean by coincidence in this context? That the guy who shot the president just so happened to die before he could go to trial? But they had him in custody for a while, long enough for beans to spill. The investigation didn't stop just because Oswald died. I highly doubt more information would've been uncovered had he lived.

    I can see why a sensational event like a presidential assassin being shot on live tv would cause alarms to go off in your head. And in retrospect, it makes conspiracy theories more plausible, at least to excitable people. Because they like extreme happenings. But fact is that conspiracy theorizing didn't take off for a while. Ruby shooting Oswald wasn't enough for the vast majority of people.

    I've never been clear on what Oswald's death was supposed to import. That he was shut up? Why not kill him on the scene, then, when he resisted arrest? Or were the cops not in on it? Or were only some of them in on it? Why didn't Ruby shoot Oswald when he was at the station earlier? Why did Ruby slip in such a very narrow window during the transfer? It's not like he was hanging out around there for hours. He was down the street at the Western Union moments before.

    Most importantly, Ruby did it in a such a way that he definitely gets caught. Doesn't that present you with exactly the same problem? Who shuts up your shut-uperer? This plan leads to infinite regress. Kill the guy who killed the guy who killed the guy who killed the guy who...

    Ruby lived for a while in jail. Plenty of time to admit he was a patsy. Isn't that kind of a big hole? Add to that how unreliable was Ruby. No hit squad in their right mind would pick such a person. They wouldn't pick Oswald, either, but at least in Oswald's case you can imagine he had nothing to do with it and was purely set up. You can't fake Ruby having actually shot Oswald, unless they pulled the old switcheroo.

    JD Tippitt was supposed to shoot Oswald resisting arrest, it went wrong.

    J. Edgar Hoover made a telephone call to President Lyndon B. Johnson on 29th November, 1963 after Oswald was killed:

    ‘This fellow Rubenstein (Jack Ruby) is a very shady character, has a bad record –street brawler, fighter, and that sort of thing – and in the place in Dallas, . . .

    ‘He knew all the police in that white-light district…. and he also let them come in, see the show, get food, liquor . . . That’s how, I think, he got into police headquarters. Because they accepted him as kind of a police character, hanging around police headquarters . . .

    ‘They never made any moves, as the pictures show, even when they saw him approaching this fellow and got up right to him and pressed his pistol against Oswald’s stomach. Neither of the police officers on either side made any move to push him away or grab him. It wasn’t until after the gun was fired that they then moved… The Chief of Police admits that he moved him in the morning as a convenience and at the request of motion-picture people, who wanted to have daylight. He should have moved him at night . . . ’

    Deeply involved in the operational element he was going to the chair if Oswald wasn’t silenced. That he was liaison to the police for the mob gave him the contacts necessary to carry it out.

    When in prison Ruby hinted that there had been a conspiracy of ‘big names’ behind Kennedy’s murder. In particular he fingered LBJ as the arch conspirator in letters smuggled out of jail. He soon died from a curiously virulent and unusual form of lung cancer.

  253. @Art Deco
    Sirhan Sirhan’s plain-as-day motivations.

    Plain as day? He mortally wounds one member of Congress friendly to Israel. What was he planning to do about the other 500-odd? What did his act accomplish but kill a politician abrasive to him? And how is that not a motive derived entirely from his inner life?

    > He mortally wounds one member of Congress

    A bit more than just another member of Congress…

    Reading what he says at the trial, it’s clear he is well-informed about the situation in Palestine. He is mad as hell that a man who presents himself as a pacifist supports what he sees as the utterly unfair and cruel destruction of his country. So his motives seem clear, and it’s the media and biographers that seems obtuse or worse.

    Now, you may well argue that his action was wrong or futile. But that is another matter. Are all those who fight for their country, or to right perceived wrongs, perfectly rational? Not everyone can be as “successful” as Gavrilo Princip, but some will try. And whether they are later seen as heroes or villains, such men’s inner lives are, I imagine, rather messy.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    He is mad as hell that a man who presents himself as a pacifist
     
    RFK "present[ed] himself" as a pacifist?
    , @Art Deco
    Reading what he says at the trial, it’s clear he is well-informed about the situation in Palestine.

    "Palestine" was a jurisdiction which existed between 1920 and 1948, not after that. The West Bank, where his father was living, had only a year earlier changed hands and the future trajectory of public policy was uncertain. (As it happened, Israel was fairly magnanimous to the local Arabs for the first dozen years).


    He is mad as hell that a man who presents himself as a pacifist supports what he sees as the utterly unfair and cruel destruction of his country. So his motives seem clear, and it’s the media and biographers that seems obtuse or worse.

    Kennedy never in his life presented himself as a pacifist and no component of the territory in question was being destroyed, in 1968 or at any other time. Neither was the Arab population treated with cruelty by Israel. If I'm not mistaken, the opportunities for the population in Gaza (who were stateless wards of the UNRWA) to migrate elsewhere were circumscribed and Jordan was the only Arab country willing to grant the UNRWA clientele citizenship. Neither of these problems were something Israel could do much about (with out cutting own throats that is, which people seem to see as a Jewish obligation).

    Your argument boils down to saying Sirhan, being 'mad as hell', had every reason to cap Sen. Kennedy, even if he achieved not one blessed thing other than killing a member of Congress (who had 11 children) and consigning himself to the state prisons of California. Well, if you fancy emotional self-expression is its own justification, than I suppose that's reasonable. I don't think any sensible society can run on that ethic, however.
  254. @Art Deco
    Oswald had a very high level of security clearance as he worked with the U2 spy planes the CIA ran out of Japan. He would have been recruited there, it is believed the ONI had a fake defectors program and that Oswald was selected for this, the Russians were not fooled and it was not a success. Still his background as a purported defector and time in the Marines made him an excellent candidate for sheep dipping.

    I often wonder what the point of origin of these idiot memes is. My suspicion is that they start out as submissions to trade book publishers who include spy fiction on their lists, and someone somewhere gets hold of these and fancies they were treatments for works of history or current affairs.

    The real Lee Harvey Oswald was quite hopeless and failed at everything he attempted between 1952 and his death. Very adept at getting fired from his job and surprisingly adept at getting a handsome women to marry him, bear his children, and put up with his personality problems (until such time as she realized he was useless and that there were other people in this world who would work with her and look after her).

    What is interesting is how similar the backgrounds of Gilberto Policarpo Lopez (Tampa) and Tom Vallee (Chicago) are to Oswald’s. Tom Vallee was set up as the patsy for the original hit planned for Chicago on 2 November. Secret Service Agent Bolden drew attention to the striking physical similarities between ex Marines Vallee and Oswald. Lopez worked for Fair Play for Cuba Committee and had purportedly visited Mexico City.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    You mistake me for someone interested in the issue of your imagination. I am not.
  255. @Hippopotamusdrome
    Since the names Palestine and Israel elicits such strong feelings, maybe we can compromise and choose a neutral name that is less charged. I propose "Canaan".

    What about the Samarians?

  256. Karl says:
    @Chris Mallory
    So nice of you to admit that Israel's current blockades of Gaza is an act of war and the residents are fully justified in their attacks upon Israel.

    > 149 Chris Mallory So nice of you to admit that Israel’s current blockades of Gaza is an act of war

    There most certainly is a war. We aren’t going to allow our cities to be rocketed. You can say anything you want….. we’ll CONTINUE to shoot anyone who tries it.

    Do you have a problem with that?

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Yes. Because you are the aggressor.
  257. @LondonBob
    You Yanks had cracked the Jap code, Midway was a success due to superior US intelligence rather than the hand of Providence or Fate. Analysis continues to ignore the often decisive effect of superior intelligence in deciding battles.

    https://warontherocks.com/2016/06/the-battle-of-midway-the-complete-intelligence-story/

    It was only because we (partially) cracked the code that the battle took place at all. The US knew the target, the approximate date and the order of battle, but no tactical level intelligence. Based on this partial picture, the US risked an uneven battle using its damaged and weakly screened carriers against the much larger and heavily reinforced Japanese fleet, which also had better aircraft and more experienced crews. It was a huge risk–calculated, but still huge. Had anything gone wrong such that the US surface fleet came into contact with the more heavily gunned and armored Japanese, the US fleet would have been obliterated.

    In fact the Japanese were scheduled to have retired the broken code already before the battle, but they hung onto it a few extra days, enabling the US intel to glean the the above mentioned details. This is one of those little accidents I mentioned.

    [MORE]

    Other little accidents and coincidences:

    • Though the American Midway-based aircraft were unsuccessful at damaging the incoming Japanese task force, a stricken US B-26 nearly destroyed Nagumo’s bridge in its terminal dive. It was probably an accident, but the near-death experience changed Nagumo’s priorities toward neutralizing Midway, which wasn’t really important, and away from finding and attacking the American fleet, which was important.

    • The Japanese scout plane that happened to be the one whose vector would intercept the US fleet also happened to suffer launch delays. Even when it finally did make the crucial intercept, its incomplete radio message was delayed again reaching Admiral Nagumo. These delays gave the US a crucial first strike advantage–decisive in naval air warfare. Even worse for the Japanese, the compound delays caused the scout’s message to arrive at exactly the moment when Nagumo could least make use of it: his remaining planes were configured for the wrong targets with munitions and fuel exposed, and his flight decks had to accommodate the planes returning from attacking Midway which were nearly out of fuel. So the powerful Japanese air wing was both paralyzed and vulnerable at exactly the moment it needed to be neither.

    • In any attack, but a naval attack in the open sea in particular, it is much better to saturate the enemy’s defenses by striking with all available units at once, which prevents individual attackers from facing undivided defenses and being picked off successively. The Japanese could and did do this, launching their air missions in just a few minutes and proceeding as a unit to the target. The less experienced, less disciplined Americans had fewer flight decks, so it took them about ten times as long to get their air mission aloft. Since they were launching at extreme range, the earlier departures couldn’t wait for the later departures to join formation, so various tranches of planes made their own way to the target in semi-random gaggles. Some navigated correctly, some didn’t. The torpedo bombers arrived first and were immediately pounced on by the Japanese fighters and wiped out. Ironically, this poor American organization blindsided the Japanese, who didn’t expect or notice the late arriving dive bombers coming from high altitude. The Japanese carriers’ decks awash in fuel, ordinance and semi-refitted planes, they were tinder boxes for even the small weapons of the American scout bombers. All the above mentioned circumstances combined to make the next few minutes an epic disaster for the Japanese, as a few hundred pounds of bombs suddenly demolished half the Japanese carrier fleet and inverted the balance of power in the entire Pacific.

    The outnumbered, outgunned and under experienced Americans could not expect to arrange such a stunning upset except by planning and execution so meticulous as to be beyond even the more skilled and disciplined Japanese. Yet Fate conspired to arrange just these circumstances for them, that they could never in a hundred attempts have arranged for themselves.

    • Replies: @Kyle McKenna
    This site could use a dedicated subforum for WWII analyses. We clearly have some expertise on board, and I trust the testimony here a whole lot more than Wikipedia. I volunteer as proofreader.
  258. @Almost Missouri
    It was only because we (partially) cracked the code that the battle took place at all. The US knew the target, the approximate date and the order of battle, but no tactical level intelligence. Based on this partial picture, the US risked an uneven battle using its damaged and weakly screened carriers against the much larger and heavily reinforced Japanese fleet, which also had better aircraft and more experienced crews. It was a huge risk--calculated, but still huge. Had anything gone wrong such that the US surface fleet came into contact with the more heavily gunned and armored Japanese, the US fleet would have been obliterated.

    In fact the Japanese were scheduled to have retired the broken code already before the battle, but they hung onto it a few extra days, enabling the US intel to glean the the above mentioned details. This is one of those little accidents I mentioned.



    Other little accidents and coincidences:

    • Though the American Midway-based aircraft were unsuccessful at damaging the incoming Japanese task force, a stricken US B-26 nearly destroyed Nagumo's bridge in its terminal dive. It was probably an accident, but the near-death experience changed Nagumo's priorities toward neutralizing Midway, which wasn't really important, and away from finding and attacking the American fleet, which was important.

    • The Japanese scout plane that happened to be the one whose vector would intercept the US fleet also happened to suffer launch delays. Even when it finally did make the crucial intercept, its incomplete radio message was delayed again reaching Admiral Nagumo. These delays gave the US a crucial first strike advantage--decisive in naval air warfare. Even worse for the Japanese, the compound delays caused the scout's message to arrive at exactly the moment when Nagumo could least make use of it: his remaining planes were configured for the wrong targets with munitions and fuel exposed, and his flight decks had to accommodate the planes returning from attacking Midway which were nearly out of fuel. So the powerful Japanese air wing was both paralyzed and vulnerable at exactly the moment it needed to be neither.

    • In any attack, but a naval attack in the open sea in particular, it is much better to saturate the enemy's defenses by striking with all available units at once, which prevents individual attackers from facing undivided defenses and being picked off successively. The Japanese could and did do this, launching their air missions in just a few minutes and proceeding as a unit to the target. The less experienced, less disciplined Americans had fewer flight decks, so it took them about ten times as long to get their air mission aloft. Since they were launching at extreme range, the earlier departures couldn't wait for the later departures to join formation, so various tranches of planes made their own way to the target in semi-random gaggles. Some navigated correctly, some didn't. The torpedo bombers arrived first and were immediately pounced on by the Japanese fighters and wiped out. Ironically, this poor American organization blindsided the Japanese, who didn't expect or notice the late arriving dive bombers coming from high altitude. The Japanese carriers' decks awash in fuel, ordinance and semi-refitted planes, they were tinder boxes for even the small weapons of the American scout bombers. All the above mentioned circumstances combined to make the next few minutes an epic disaster for the Japanese, as a few hundred pounds of bombs suddenly demolished half the Japanese carrier fleet and inverted the balance of power in the entire Pacific.

    The outnumbered, outgunned and under experienced Americans could not expect to arrange such a stunning upset except by planning and execution so meticulous as to be beyond even the more skilled and disciplined Japanese. Yet Fate conspired to arrange just these circumstances for them, that they could never in a hundred attempts have arranged for themselves.

    This site could use a dedicated subforum for WWII analyses. We clearly have some expertise on board, and I trust the testimony here a whole lot more than Wikipedia. I volunteer as proofreader.

    • Agree: Dan Hayes, German_reader
    • Disagree: PiltdownMan
  259. @Johann Ricke

    Islam, on the other hand, seems to have no shortage of suicide-ready (even suicide-enthusiastic) soldiers.
     
    Not really. A few dozen terrorists in the West aren't exactly a surplus. I think we get the impression that they're determined and everywhere because we've been the target of some of their attacks. In reality, the Syrian opposition is on its last legs because of a couple of hundred thousand casualties (at most). The Vietnamese Communists lost 1.2m dead before Congress cried uncle. North Vietnam's population then was about the same as Syria's population today.

    The real issue is Islam's tendency to deliberately target Western civilians outside of the field of battle. At some point, we may start returning the favor, much as Axis air attacks on Allied cities led to repayment in kind, with interest.

    “The real issue is Islam’s tendency to deliberately target Western civilians outside of the field of battle.”

    I agree, but unfortunately, Islam doesn’t. To Islam, the “field of battle” is the entire Dar al-Harb (“House of War”, i.e., the entire non-Muslim world), so Islam does not see this as an automatic moral problem, as you and I do.

    Lest we shake our heads in condescending dismay, let us remember that the US and Britain decided that German and Japanese civilians were legitimate “strategic bombing” targets in WWII. So we are not total strangers to Islamic logic here.

  260. @Johann Ricke

    It’s almost like spending decades rewarding angry Middle Easterners for terrorism incentivises them to do it more, but liberals and dolt rightists know that can’t possibly be true.
     
    The root cause is Arab funding for fire-breathing imams. If we really wanted to stop terrorism, we'd issue an ultimatum to the Gulf Arabs to end this funding, followed by air and missile attacks against their military installations upon the next round of terror attacks in the West. Instead, we poke away at the symptoms, while avoiding the root causes.

    “The root cause is Arab funding for fire-breathing imams. If we really wanted to stop terrorism, we’d issue an ultimatum to the Gulf Arabs to end this funding”

    This is a good point and one that bears repeating. There is something of a choke point on Islamic terrorism: the jihadist imams and their subsidized mosques. The financial and ideological support for those imams and mosques comes largely from the Gulf Arabs, especially from Saudi Arabia. I say “from” because it is not official government policy of these states. The support comes mainly from wealthy Arabs outside the government. Some may be true believers, but others cynically want the jihadis to do their dirty work and displace the local government so they can become the government/royals instead. The local governments do have elements of a police state that could suppress the imams and financial supporters more if they tried. The two problems with this are 1) the more police states suppress, the more resentments build up locally against the government, worsening the original problem, and 2) in a globalized world, the jihadi bacillus has long since escaped the Arabian petri dish and now festers on many foreign shores, each of which will have to up their own police state game to crush it. And of course, the West is hypocritically demanding crushing of jihadism, which is part and parcel of originalist Islam, while simultaneously demanding liberalization of Arab societies, which those societies correctly perceive as an attack on their fundamental Muslim character.

    So in short, it is not unlike the hypocrisy of the left within the West: freedom of speech except for speech we disagree with, liberty (and libertinism) of action except for actions we dislike, etc.

    How to square this circle?

    The answer may have been provided by incisive political analyst P. J. O’Rourke:

    “Whatever it is that the government does, sensible Americans would prefer that the government does it to somebody else. This is the idea behind foreign policy.”

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    Agree. The Faustian bargain the Saudis have made is to let the religious police do what they want internally and fund madrassas abroad as long as the Saudi princes can carry on their hedonistic ways. This will not end well.
  261. All these bizarre nutjob theories from the alt-right intelligensia re assassination of RFK. All you’ve got to do is something simple like read the autopsy to know that Sirhan dindu nuffin.

  262. @Whoever

    Looking back on the Battle of Midway, where the American forces had so many disadvantages and mistakes, while the Japanese had so many advantages guided by experience, it is striking how often the American faults were turned to good account by chance, timing or weather, while the Japanese advantages were neutralized by the same circumstances.
     
    Guided by experience? The Japanese?
    The Battle of the Coral Sea knocked the Japanese 5th Carrier Division (Shoukaku, Zuikaku) out of action and cost them their highly trained air group personnel, wiped out by US Navy aviators just the month before. The first carrier-to-carrier air battle in history and they were driven back, sustaining air crew losses that they never replaced because they didn't have the solid aviator training program the US Navy had developed pre-war.
    The Japanese also hadn't developed the efficient operation of flight deck crews that the US Navy had, as epitomized by the wearing of colored jerseys to distinguish functions. The Japanese also had not developed the deck-park system to refuel and re-arm aircraft quickly, as the US Navy had through a series of experiments in the 1920s. Japanese doctrine required aircraft to be moved to the hanger deck for servicing, then brought back on deck for launching. This proved to be a big part of their undoing at Midway.
    By contrast, as early as May, 1928, during Fleet Problem VIII, the Langley launched 35 aircraft in seven minutes -- one aircraft every 12 seconds -- thanks to these techniques. A dozen years later, the Japanese were not even close to matching that efficiency.
    Also, as a result of US Navy efficiencies, our aircraft carriers could carry more aircraft than comparable Japanese carriers. The standard Japanese carrier air group consisted of 63 planes while the US Navy carrier air group consisted of 72 planes.
    Another superiority of the US Navy carrier force: As a result of a series of carrier-to-carrier duels during fleet problems, it had been determined that the role of carrier aviation in naval battles was to find enemy carriers and disable their flight decks. The first to do this won the overall battle. So the US Navy developed the scout bomber and the doctrine to use it. Each CAG contained 18 scout bombers, their role to locate enemy carriers and disable their flight decks by dive-bombing.
    The Japanese, by contrast, did not bother to develop a strategy to deal with enemy carriers and never practiced carrier-to-carrier air battles. They did not believe reconnaissance was a suitable role for carrier aircraft, that job being assigned to float planes launched from cruisers. Their carriers' job was to attack enemy battleships, primarily with torpedo bombers.
    The US Navy had made the aircraft carrier the center of fleet operations by 1940 and determined that speed and evasiveness were it's chief protection, so it was uncoupled from slow battleship formations and each carrier group was to operate separately, so that if one was found by the enemy, that would not lead to the discovery of our other carriers.
    The Japanese, by contrast, had decided that concentration of carrier air power to achieve air superiority over the battle zone required close operation of carriers. They were also aware of the vulnerable position this put their carriers in -- should one be found, all would be found. But they believed that arranging their carriers in a close box formation would provide advantages in a massing of air groups for offensive operations, while the carriers would be protected by a much larger combat air patrol consisting of fighters from all the carrier operating in cooperation.
    As the fighting around Midway played out, it showed that the Japanese Navy was wrong in what it believed about carrier air warfare, and the US Navy was right.
    Yes, luck played a part in the battle, as it does always. Everyone know about the good fortune of Enterprise's scout bombers spotting the Japanese destroyer Arashi, which led them to discover the Japanese fleet. But a very similar thing happened to the Japanese during their attack on the British Navy's Repulse and Prince of Wales six months earlier. The main force of 26 Kanoya Ku G4M torpedo bombers had been unable to locate the British ships, which were only moderately damaged by earlier attacks, until they spotted a Walrus seaplane launched by Repulse, which was making a beeline for Singapore. They backtracked it to the ships and destroyed them.
    But luck favors the prepared and skilled, and at Midway, the US Navy not only had the luck, it was also prepared and skilled, and in the scout bomber, had the right equipment.
    The US Navy won Midway because it had been practicing for it for 15 years. The Japanese did not practice for such a battle, had the wrong strategy and tactics and equipment for it, and also had bad luck.

    As you mention, Coral Sea was the first carrier-to-carrier battle in history, so by definition it was a new experience to everyone. Nevertheless, the Japanese naval and air crews had more actual combat experience than their American counterparts. This told at Coral Sea where they sunk a quarter of the US Pacific carrier force, damaged another quarter while only losing a light carrier of their own and suffering damage to a second carrier.

    “The Japanese also hadn’t developed the efficient operation of flight deck crews that the US Navy had, … the Japanese were not even close to matching that efficiency.”

    Whatever. For some reason, in spite of that vaunted USN efficiency, at Midway the Japanese managed to launch aircraft ten times faster than the Americans and with much better organization too. The Japanese forces launched aircraft faster and more organized than the Americans at Coral Sea as well, so Midway wasn’t a one-time fluke.

    “The Japanese, by contrast, had decided that concentration of carrier air power to achieve air superiority over the battle zone required close operation of carriers. “

    At Coral Sea, the Japanese carriers were six miles apart from each other. The American carriers were just two miles apart from each other. Not that this has any bearing on the question of the experience level of the crews, just that the two sides had different tactical doctrines, which neither side seemed to follow very religiously.

    “But luck favors the prepared and skilled, and at Midway, the US Navy not only had the luck, it was also prepared and skilled…”

    Agree, but having a lot more luck helps too. At Midway, the US had it.

    “… and in the scout bomber, had the right equipment.”

    Again, this doesn’t really bear on who had more combat experience, but note that the Japanese were well supplied with scout bombers of their own. The Japanese B5N was nearly identical in performance to the US SBD scout bomber, and it was a B5N acting in the scout role that found the US fleet at Coral Sea.

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    Almost Missouri:

    Very interesting counter arguments to @Whoever. These discussions once again demonstrate the high caliber/content of the UR and its various participants.

    , @Whoever

    they sunk a quarter of the US Pacific carrier force
     
    The Lexington. Why not just say that?

    while only losing a light carrier of their own and suffering damage to a second carrier.
     
    Why no mention of CAG losses? -- that's what was critically important for the prosecution of the war. According to Vice Admiral Takagi Takeo, commander of the MO Striking Force, of which the 5th Carrier Division was apart, Japanese losses were "catastrophic," and such that he ordered the battle to be broken off and his fleet to retreat.
    Regarding Japanese efficiency at carrier flight deck operations, at Coral Sea, recovery took two hours to try to land 46 aircraft. I say try, because seven planes ran out of fuel and ditched during the process. Another crashed while attempting to land and was destroyed.
    Of the 38 safely recovered, 12 were immediately pushed over the side as too damaged to be repaired. Of the 26 remaining aircraft, only nine were in immediately flyable condition.

    Whatever.
     
    It's not a whatever. It's a key to the Japanese loss of the Pacific War within less than a year of their starting it, along with the fatal trade-offs they took regarding tactical effectiveness versus strategic risk.

    that vaunted USN efficiency
     
    Who vaunts it? It's always overlooked! The Langley's crew invented the deck park, the crash barrier, flight-deck teams in jerseys of various colors and a host of other innovations that radically changed the way carrier operations were conducted in the 1920s and our navy was master of them by 1942.

    the Japanese were well supplied with scout bombers of their own.
     
    No, they were not. They had no VS, and it was not part of their doctrine. There were no organic scouting units of significant size in the entire Japanese navy, and very little emphasis was placed on scouting. All the emphasis was on attack. When scouting efforts were made, the Japanese relied on single-phase search patterns. Akagi's air officer, Mitsuo Fuchida, blamed the Japanese disaster at Midway on poor scouting. It was certainly part of it. He also commented on the confusion on the flight deck while attempting to re-arm.

    The Japanese B5N was nearly identical in performance to the US SBD scout bomber
     
    The B5N was a torpedo bomber, pressed into service for search. The Japanese Navy did not develop a dedicated aircraft designed to scout out enemy carriers and attack them with intent of disabling their decks. This was US Navy doctrine and the SBD was developed to implement it.
    _____
    In another post, you write:

    Do you think that anywhere in the West today, you could find enough volunteers for even the relatively modest number of aircrews at Midway, given the semi-suicidal nature of the work? I rather doubt it.
     
    I guess you and I associate with a different class of people.
  263. @syonredux

    “For me, it’s further proof that Oswald acted alone…..”

    My dear fellow, it sounds as if you’ve finally come to your senses.
     
    I try always to be the perfect combination of sense and sensibility....

    Next step is to admit that Katherine Hepburn isn’t all that from a classic beauty standard.
     
    Perish the thought! Should I ever swerve from undying devotion to the divine Katharine, let my right hand forget her cunning, and let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth.....

    “Should I ever swerve from undying devotion to the divine Katharine, let my right hand forget her cunning, and let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth…..”

    Methinks thy tongue would rather cleave to someplace else. Unfortunately for you, Miss. Hepburn passed in May of 2003, two months before comedian Bob Hope. Although you’re still in luck, as Mariette Hartley is still very much around. Now there was a lass of beauty, wit, sophistication, and amazing talent.

    And she took a darn fine photo with James Garner a la Polaroid.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    I always th0ught Hepburn to be just this side of b***h, but Mariette Hartley! She could eat crackers in my bed.

    http://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/3x23hd/allouryesterdayshd1090.jpg
    , @syonredux

    Should I ever swerve from undying devotion to the divine Katharine, let my right hand forget her cunning, and let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth…..”

    Methinks thy tongue would rather cleave to someplace else. Unfortunately for you, Miss. Hepburn passed in May of 2003,
     
    Carnal contact with such a divinity? That would be a consummation indeed.....

    As it stands, I still have The Philadelphia Story to keep me warm....A relic from the apogee of Anglo-American civilization, the time before the the coming of the Hispanic hordes.....

    Although you’re still in luck, as Mariette Hartley
     
    I have very fond memories of her in the Star Trek episode "All Our Yesterdays."
  264. @anonymous
    Apropos of your last sentence, I forget whether it was Peretz or Wieseltier who said in support of the Six Day War (while simultaneously opposing the Vietnam War) "Politics stops at the deli door."

    That does not sound like either one of them. In 1967, Wieseltier was a 15 year old yeshiva student in Brooklyn. Peretz was a 28 year old lecturer at Harvard and not known outside a modest circle of people in Boston.

  265. @Opinionator
    I know. I know. You have asked the same questions about Herschel Grynszpan.

    What an extraordinary amount of verbiage you have to produce to try cover up the fundamental fact of violent state racism.

    What an extraordinary amount of verbiage you have to produce to try cover up the fundamental fact of violent state racism.

    Israel’s a good place to live for it’s Arab citizens. The political class in the Gulf emirates puts some effort into making their countries congenial for their citizens to live in. Pity the rest of the Arab world’s elites are not so diligent.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    The Gentile residents of the West Bank and Gaza would differ from you. Time to give them equal rights.
  266. @Almost Missouri
    As you mention, Coral Sea was the first carrier-to-carrier battle in history, so by definition it was a new experience to everyone. Nevertheless, the Japanese naval and air crews had more actual combat experience than their American counterparts. This told at Coral Sea where they sunk a quarter of the US Pacific carrier force, damaged another quarter while only losing a light carrier of their own and suffering damage to a second carrier.

    "The Japanese also hadn’t developed the efficient operation of flight deck crews that the US Navy had, ... the Japanese were not even close to matching that efficiency."
     
    Whatever. For some reason, in spite of that vaunted USN efficiency, at Midway the Japanese managed to launch aircraft ten times faster than the Americans and with much better organization too. The Japanese forces launched aircraft faster and more organized than the Americans at Coral Sea as well, so Midway wasn't a one-time fluke.

    "The Japanese, by contrast, had decided that concentration of carrier air power to achieve air superiority over the battle zone required close operation of carriers. "
     
    At Coral Sea, the Japanese carriers were six miles apart from each other. The American carriers were just two miles apart from each other. Not that this has any bearing on the question of the experience level of the crews, just that the two sides had different tactical doctrines, which neither side seemed to follow very religiously.

    "But luck favors the prepared and skilled, and at Midway, the US Navy not only had the luck, it was also prepared and skilled..."
     
    Agree, but having a lot more luck helps too. At Midway, the US had it.

    "... and in the scout bomber, had the right equipment."
     
    Again, this doesn't really bear on who had more combat experience, but note that the Japanese were well supplied with scout bombers of their own. The Japanese B5N was nearly identical in performance to the US SBD scout bomber, and it was a B5N acting in the scout role that found the US fleet at Coral Sea.

    Almost Missouri:

    Very interesting counter arguments to . These discussions once again demonstrate the high caliber/content of the UR and its various participants.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
  267. @guest
    While the family is rich, the shiksa-goddess is named Corcoran and lives in Minnesota, and as such isn't very WASPy.

    While the family is rich, the shiksa-goddess is named Corcoran

    I doubt that the film-makers cared about details like that.

    • Replies: @guest
    I might agree, except why pick an obviously Irish name like Corcoran over Smith, for instance?
  268. @Karl
    > 149 Chris Mallory So nice of you to admit that Israel’s current blockades of Gaza is an act of war


    There most certainly is a war. We aren't going to allow our cities to be rocketed. You can say anything you want..... we'll CONTINUE to shoot anyone who tries it.

    Do you have a problem with that?

    Yes. Because you are the aggressor.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Yes. Because you are the aggressor.

    The term 'aggressor' does not mean what you fancy it means.
  269. @Art Deco
    What an extraordinary amount of verbiage you have to produce to try cover up the fundamental fact of violent state racism.

    Israel's a good place to live for it's Arab citizens. The political class in the Gulf emirates puts some effort into making their countries congenial for their citizens to live in. Pity the rest of the Arab world's elites are not so diligent.

    The Gentile residents of the West Bank and Gaza would differ from you. Time to give them equal rights.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    The Gentile residents of the West Bank and Gaza would differ from you. Time to give them equal rights.

    'Equal rights' to what? They could have had their own territorial state 17 years ago. Their political leadership did not want that and there is no indication from social survey research or election results that more than a 1/3 of the population of the West Bank and Gaza was in disagreement with that preference. They don't like their situation, they can bargain for something better. Hint you're not in a position to dictate terms to your enemy just because you wish you were in such a position. The Arabs have been standing tall for 70 years now. How's that workin' out for ya?

  270. @European-American
    > He mortally wounds one member of Congress

    A bit more than just another member of Congress...

    Reading what he says at the trial, it's clear he is well-informed about the situation in Palestine. He is mad as hell that a man who presents himself as a pacifist supports what he sees as the utterly unfair and cruel destruction of his country. So his motives seem clear, and it's the media and biographers that seems obtuse or worse.

    Now, you may well argue that his action was wrong or futile. But that is another matter. Are all those who fight for their country, or to right perceived wrongs, perfectly rational? Not everyone can be as "successful" as Gavrilo Princip, but some will try. And whether they are later seen as heroes or villains, such men's inner lives are, I imagine, rather messy.

    He is mad as hell that a man who presents himself as a pacifist

    RFK “present[ed] himself” as a pacifist?

    • Replies: @European-American
    Sorry, "pacifist" is too strong, I mean he had an anti-war platform. He was against war in Vietnam, pro war in Israel. That's what Sirhan saw as inconsistent.

    In a 1967 "Face the Nation" debate, Kennedy asked: “Do we have the right here in the United States to say that we’re going to kill tens of thousands, make millions of people, as we have, refugees, kill women and children, as we have?.… I very seriously question whether we have that right.”
     
  271. @European-American
    > He mortally wounds one member of Congress

    A bit more than just another member of Congress...

    Reading what he says at the trial, it's clear he is well-informed about the situation in Palestine. He is mad as hell that a man who presents himself as a pacifist supports what he sees as the utterly unfair and cruel destruction of his country. So his motives seem clear, and it's the media and biographers that seems obtuse or worse.

    Now, you may well argue that his action was wrong or futile. But that is another matter. Are all those who fight for their country, or to right perceived wrongs, perfectly rational? Not everyone can be as "successful" as Gavrilo Princip, but some will try. And whether they are later seen as heroes or villains, such men's inner lives are, I imagine, rather messy.

    Reading what he says at the trial, it’s clear he is well-informed about the situation in Palestine.

    “Palestine” was a jurisdiction which existed between 1920 and 1948, not after that. The West Bank, where his father was living, had only a year earlier changed hands and the future trajectory of public policy was uncertain. (As it happened, Israel was fairly magnanimous to the local Arabs for the first dozen years).

    He is mad as hell that a man who presents himself as a pacifist supports what he sees as the utterly unfair and cruel destruction of his country. So his motives seem clear, and it’s the media and biographers that seems obtuse or worse.

    Kennedy never in his life presented himself as a pacifist and no component of the territory in question was being destroyed, in 1968 or at any other time. Neither was the Arab population treated with cruelty by Israel. If I’m not mistaken, the opportunities for the population in Gaza (who were stateless wards of the UNRWA) to migrate elsewhere were circumscribed and Jordan was the only Arab country willing to grant the UNRWA clientele citizenship. Neither of these problems were something Israel could do much about (with out cutting own throats that is, which people seem to see as a Jewish obligation).

    Your argument boils down to saying Sirhan, being ‘mad as hell’, had every reason to cap Sen. Kennedy, even if he achieved not one blessed thing other than killing a member of Congress (who had 11 children) and consigning himself to the state prisons of California. Well, if you fancy emotional self-expression is its own justification, than I suppose that’s reasonable. I don’t think any sensible society can run on that ethic, however.

    • Replies: @European-American
    > Israel was fairly magnanimous to local Arabs

    Sorry, that's just laughable. Even if in some universe that could be seen as true, surely you know Sirhan wouldn't see it that way. He lost his home, several members of his family, and his entire country to these magnanimous people.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus

    > Your argument boils down to

    Again, it doesn't seem complicated. Futile maybe. A considerable loss to everyone involved, agreed. But anger and revenge aren't hard to understand. You don't have to invoke hypnosis, madness, or stupidity. And deterrence could be a further, non-emotional motive: keep hurting us, we will hurt you back.

    > I don’t think any sensible society can run on that ethic, however

    We're talking about war-like behavior. That's a peculiar case of running society. No one would suggest the Hiroshima bombing is an "ethic" for running a sensible society, either. And yet war happens.

  272. @Opinionator
    The Gentile residents of the West Bank and Gaza would differ from you. Time to give them equal rights.

    The Gentile residents of the West Bank and Gaza would differ from you. Time to give them equal rights.

    ‘Equal rights’ to what? They could have had their own territorial state 17 years ago. Their political leadership did not want that and there is no indication from social survey research or election results that more than a 1/3 of the population of the West Bank and Gaza was in disagreement with that preference. They don’t like their situation, they can bargain for something better. Hint you’re not in a position to dictate terms to your enemy just because you wish you were in such a position. The Arabs have been standing tall for 70 years now. How’s that workin’ out for ya?

  273. @Opinionator
    Yes. Because you are the aggressor.

    Yes. Because you are the aggressor.

    The term ‘aggressor’ does not mean what you fancy it means.

  274. @Almost Missouri
    As you mention, Coral Sea was the first carrier-to-carrier battle in history, so by definition it was a new experience to everyone. Nevertheless, the Japanese naval and air crews had more actual combat experience than their American counterparts. This told at Coral Sea where they sunk a quarter of the US Pacific carrier force, damaged another quarter while only losing a light carrier of their own and suffering damage to a second carrier.

    "The Japanese also hadn’t developed the efficient operation of flight deck crews that the US Navy had, ... the Japanese were not even close to matching that efficiency."
     
    Whatever. For some reason, in spite of that vaunted USN efficiency, at Midway the Japanese managed to launch aircraft ten times faster than the Americans and with much better organization too. The Japanese forces launched aircraft faster and more organized than the Americans at Coral Sea as well, so Midway wasn't a one-time fluke.

    "The Japanese, by contrast, had decided that concentration of carrier air power to achieve air superiority over the battle zone required close operation of carriers. "
     
    At Coral Sea, the Japanese carriers were six miles apart from each other. The American carriers were just two miles apart from each other. Not that this has any bearing on the question of the experience level of the crews, just that the two sides had different tactical doctrines, which neither side seemed to follow very religiously.

    "But luck favors the prepared and skilled, and at Midway, the US Navy not only had the luck, it was also prepared and skilled..."
     
    Agree, but having a lot more luck helps too. At Midway, the US had it.

    "... and in the scout bomber, had the right equipment."
     
    Again, this doesn't really bear on who had more combat experience, but note that the Japanese were well supplied with scout bombers of their own. The Japanese B5N was nearly identical in performance to the US SBD scout bomber, and it was a B5N acting in the scout role that found the US fleet at Coral Sea.

    they sunk a quarter of the US Pacific carrier force

    The Lexington. Why not just say that?

    while only losing a light carrier of their own and suffering damage to a second carrier.

    Why no mention of CAG losses? — that’s what was critically important for the prosecution of the war. According to Vice Admiral Takagi Takeo, commander of the MO Striking Force, of which the 5th Carrier Division was apart, Japanese losses were “catastrophic,” and such that he ordered the battle to be broken off and his fleet to retreat.
    Regarding Japanese efficiency at carrier flight deck operations, at Coral Sea, recovery took two hours to try to land 46 aircraft. I say try, because seven planes ran out of fuel and ditched during the process. Another crashed while attempting to land and was destroyed.
    Of the 38 safely recovered, 12 were immediately pushed over the side as too damaged to be repaired. Of the 26 remaining aircraft, only nine were in immediately flyable condition.

    Whatever.

    It’s not a whatever. It’s a key to the Japanese loss of the Pacific War within less than a year of their starting it, along with the fatal trade-offs they took regarding tactical effectiveness versus strategic risk.

    that vaunted USN efficiency

    Who vaunts it? It’s always overlooked! The Langley’s crew invented the deck park, the crash barrier, flight-deck teams in jerseys of various colors and a host of other innovations that radically changed the way carrier operations were conducted in the 1920s and our navy was master of them by 1942.

    the Japanese were well supplied with scout bombers of their own.

    No, they were not. They had no VS, and it was not part of their doctrine. There were no organic scouting units of significant size in the entire Japanese navy, and very little emphasis was placed on scouting. All the emphasis was on attack. When scouting efforts were made, the Japanese relied on single-phase search patterns. Akagi‘s air officer, Mitsuo Fuchida, blamed the Japanese disaster at Midway on poor scouting. It was certainly part of it. He also commented on the confusion on the flight deck while attempting to re-arm.

    The Japanese B5N was nearly identical in performance to the US SBD scout bomber

    The B5N was a torpedo bomber, pressed into service for search. The Japanese Navy did not develop a dedicated aircraft designed to scout out enemy carriers and attack them with intent of disabling their decks. This was US Navy doctrine and the SBD was developed to implement it.
    _____
    In another post, you write:

    Do you think that anywhere in the West today, you could find enough volunteers for even the relatively modest number of aircrews at Midway, given the semi-suicidal nature of the work? I rather doubt it.

    I guess you and I associate with a different class of people.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The computer term "systems integration" can be applied to much else in military affairs. The U.S. had better systems integration for fighting a carrier to carrier battle where the ships never come within sight of each other, while the Japanese were optimized for a carrier to battleship in harbor strike like Pearl Harbor. The Japanese had a terrific torpedo for sinking armored battleships, while the U.S. had a terrible torpedo and poor torpedo bombers, but the US dive bombers were ideal for attacking carriers with unarmored decks.

    Carrier to carrier battles were science fiction warfare, with much different logic than had been seen before in actual warfare. It's maybe not a coincidence that sci-fi writer Robert Heinlein served on the state of the art Lexington (?) carrier in the late 1920s.

    , @Almost Missouri

    "Why no mention of..."
     
    Because it is not relevant to the efficiency of carrier launches at Midway, which was the original point of contention.

    "Akagi‘s air officer, Mitsuo Fuchida, blamed the Japanese disaster at Midway on poor scouting. It was certainly part of it. He also commented on the confusion on the flight deck while attempting to re-arm."
     
    As did I.

    "This was US Navy doctrine and the SBD was developed to implement it."
     
    Note that the Japanese task forces at Midway were found by land-based PBYs, not by the SBD scout bombers. The justification doctrine of the SBDs may have been scouting, but in the actual event they turned out to be decisive as attack bombers, rather than as scouts. Not saying it wasn't a good plane or a good doctrine, just that doctrine, plans and actual events don't necessarily match.

    "It’s not a whatever. It’s a key to the Japanese loss ..."
     
    I'm sure much of what you say is true. It's just not relevant to what I wrote, so while I'm happy to read it, I haven't responded specifically.

    If we want to zoom out to the really big picture, though, I would just say that while Midway was a spectacular upset, and probably saved a lot of American lives, it did not change the course of the war. The industrial, technological, demographic and geographic balance of power was so massively skewed in favor of the US, that there was no way that Japan would win so long as America chose to fight. Absent the Midway victory, it might have taken longer and the US may have had to invade more islands, but the final result would have been the same. At 7:48 AM on 12/7/1941, when the first bombs fell on Pearl Harbor, the Japanese Empire was doomed. The only question was when and how.


    "I guess you and I associate with a different class of people."
     
    Probably true. I've spent most of my life in what we might call "blue state environments", which is a big reason I am at iSteve: I prefer the conversation of the normal, patriotic people here.
  275. @syonredux

    While the family is rich, the shiksa-goddess is named Corcoran
     
    I doubt that the film-makers cared about details like that.

    I might agree, except why pick an obviously Irish name like Corcoran over Smith, for instance?

    • Replies: @syonredux

    I might agree, except why pick an obviously Irish name like Corcoran over Smith, for instance?
     
    I'm not sure how obviously Irish it is. It's certainly not as obviously Irish as something like O'Brien, say. When I asked a couple of friends what they thought it was, they guessed Scottish....
  276. @Whoever

    they sunk a quarter of the US Pacific carrier force
     
    The Lexington. Why not just say that?

    while only losing a light carrier of their own and suffering damage to a second carrier.
     
    Why no mention of CAG losses? -- that's what was critically important for the prosecution of the war. According to Vice Admiral Takagi Takeo, commander of the MO Striking Force, of which the 5th Carrier Division was apart, Japanese losses were "catastrophic," and such that he ordered the battle to be broken off and his fleet to retreat.
    Regarding Japanese efficiency at carrier flight deck operations, at Coral Sea, recovery took two hours to try to land 46 aircraft. I say try, because seven planes ran out of fuel and ditched during the process. Another crashed while attempting to land and was destroyed.
    Of the 38 safely recovered, 12 were immediately pushed over the side as too damaged to be repaired. Of the 26 remaining aircraft, only nine were in immediately flyable condition.

    Whatever.
     
    It's not a whatever. It's a key to the Japanese loss of the Pacific War within less than a year of their starting it, along with the fatal trade-offs they took regarding tactical effectiveness versus strategic risk.

    that vaunted USN efficiency
     
    Who vaunts it? It's always overlooked! The Langley's crew invented the deck park, the crash barrier, flight-deck teams in jerseys of various colors and a host of other innovations that radically changed the way carrier operations were conducted in the 1920s and our navy was master of them by 1942.

    the Japanese were well supplied with scout bombers of their own.
     
    No, they were not. They had no VS, and it was not part of their doctrine. There were no organic scouting units of significant size in the entire Japanese navy, and very little emphasis was placed on scouting. All the emphasis was on attack. When scouting efforts were made, the Japanese relied on single-phase search patterns. Akagi's air officer, Mitsuo Fuchida, blamed the Japanese disaster at Midway on poor scouting. It was certainly part of it. He also commented on the confusion on the flight deck while attempting to re-arm.

    The Japanese B5N was nearly identical in performance to the US SBD scout bomber
     
    The B5N was a torpedo bomber, pressed into service for search. The Japanese Navy did not develop a dedicated aircraft designed to scout out enemy carriers and attack them with intent of disabling their decks. This was US Navy doctrine and the SBD was developed to implement it.
    _____
    In another post, you write:

    Do you think that anywhere in the West today, you could find enough volunteers for even the relatively modest number of aircrews at Midway, given the semi-suicidal nature of the work? I rather doubt it.
     
    I guess you and I associate with a different class of people.

    The computer term “systems integration” can be applied to much else in military affairs. The U.S. had better systems integration for fighting a carrier to carrier battle where the ships never come within sight of each other, while the Japanese were optimized for a carrier to battleship in harbor strike like Pearl Harbor. The Japanese had a terrific torpedo for sinking armored battleships, while the U.S. had a terrible torpedo and poor torpedo bombers, but the US dive bombers were ideal for attacking carriers with unarmored decks.

    Carrier to carrier battles were science fiction warfare, with much different logic than had been seen before in actual warfare. It’s maybe not a coincidence that sci-fi writer Robert Heinlein served on the state of the art Lexington (?) carrier in the late 1920s.

    • Agree: Whoever, PiltdownMan
    • Replies: @Whoever
    You're probably already familiar with his research, but for anyone interested in Japan's wars, among the best sources are the books of Mark Peattie, in particular for carrier warfare, Sunburst: The Rise of Japanese Naval Air Power, 1909 –1941 and Kaigun: Strategy, Tactics, and Technology in the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1887–1941 .
  277. @Buzz Mohawk
    You left out Chapman, the patriotic music fan.

    He killed John Lennon out of fervent love for his country. He knew that the outspoken star would interfere with the neocon war plans that were to be carried out by Bush -- once Hinckley got rid of Reagan.

    Wait a minute... never mind.

    I wonder what if Chapman had missed the shot and had hit Yoko Ono instead?

  278. @whorefinder
    The best conspiracy-theory way to tie up Oswald, Sirhan, Hinckley, Ruby, etc. would be a massive sleeper cell-hypnosis-brain-wahsing project that bore fruit to create untraceable lone wacko gunmen.

    Unfortunately for all fans of The Manchurian Candidate and MKULTRA, there remains no hard evidence that any brainwashing program could produce such results. Perhaps one day the curtain will be lifted on CIA programs that actually worked to created empty-headed, babbling killers doing what they were programmed to do. You know, how the history of computing had it's history illuminated when the Brits declassified all the computer stuff they did in WW2 that was previously unknown.

    But until then, the evidence suggests very strongly that:

    -Oswald the communist, acting alone, shot Kennedy for being anti-communist (perhaps at the urging/teasing of Cuban intelligence, who refused to let Oswald defect because they recognized he was a nut).

    -Sirhan the Arab (and church-hopper) shot RFK for helping Israel.

    -Ruby shot Oswald because of the intense hatred/patriotism engendered by JFK's death. Comparable to the hatred generated against Bin Laden in the few days after 9/11----I can attest personally that, in New York, had Bin Laden been captured on 9/12 or 9/13, and had been held anywhere near NYC, thousands of New Yorkers would have rioted and lynched him, such was the mood.

    -Hinckley, obsessed with Jodie Foster, shot Reagan in a bizarre attempt to impress her.

    Let’s throw in the mix, the assasination of the Prime Minister of South Africa,Hendrik Verwoerd in 1966 with some eerie similarities with JFK. http://hendrikverwoerd.blogspot.ca/p/conspiracy.html (in case if this page dissapear, here a link to http://archive.is/7Jgy6 )

    As well as Martin Luther King, where the late Steve Cokely claimed then Jesse Jackson was involved in MLK assasination.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Let’s throw in the mix, the assasination of the Prime Minister of South Africa,Hendrik Verwoerd in 1966 with some eerie similarities with JFK.

    Dr. Verwoerd was stabbed to death on the floor of parliament in front of dozens of witnesses. Other than both men were chief executives and both assassins had bad employment histories, I'm not seeing any similarity at all.


    As well as Martin Luther King, where the late Steve Cokely claimed then Jesse Jackson was involved in MLK assasination.

    Steve Cokely was a patronage employee in Eugene Sawyer's city hall. He was described by Joseph Epstein thus: "a man unhinged with racial paranoia. No doubt he sees a white conspiracy when he burns his toast". No clue why Cokely's opinions on anything need be adduced, whether or not he's speaking to a gathering of the Nation of Islam.
    , @Art Deco
    Let’s throw in the mix, the assasination of the Prime Minister of South Africa,Hendrik Verwoerd in 1966 with some eerie similarities with JFK.

    Dr. Verwoerd was stabbed to death on the floor of parliament in front of dozens of witnesses. Other than both men were chief executives and both assassins had bad employment histories, I'm not seeing any similarity at all.


    As well as Martin Luther King, where the late Steve Cokely claimed then Jesse Jackson was involved in MLK assasination.

    Steve Cokely was a patronage employee in Eugene Sawyer's city hall. He was described by Joseph Epstein thus: "a man unhinged with racial paranoia. No doubt he sees a white conspiracy when he burns his toast". No clue why Cokely's opinions on anything need be adduced, whether or not he's speaking to a gathering of the Nation of Islam.
  279. @guest
    I might agree, except why pick an obviously Irish name like Corcoran over Smith, for instance?

    I might agree, except why pick an obviously Irish name like Corcoran over Smith, for instance?

    I’m not sure how obviously Irish it is. It’s certainly not as obviously Irish as something like O’Brien, say. When I asked a couple of friends what they thought it was, they guessed Scottish….

  280. @LondonBob
    What is interesting is how similar the backgrounds of Gilberto Policarpo Lopez (Tampa) and Tom Vallee (Chicago) are to Oswald's. Tom Vallee was set up as the patsy for the original hit planned for Chicago on 2 November. Secret Service Agent Bolden drew attention to the striking physical similarities between ex Marines Vallee and Oswald. Lopez worked for Fair Play for Cuba Committee and had purportedly visited Mexico City.

    You mistake me for someone interested in the issue of your imagination. I am not.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    You could have fooled me.
  281. @Hrw-500
    Let's throw in the mix, the assasination of the Prime Minister of South Africa,Hendrik Verwoerd in 1966 with some eerie similarities with JFK. http://hendrikverwoerd.blogspot.ca/p/conspiracy.html (in case if this page dissapear, here a link to http://archive.is/7Jgy6 )

    As well as Martin Luther King, where the late Steve Cokely claimed then Jesse Jackson was involved in MLK assasination.

    Let’s throw in the mix, the assasination of the Prime Minister of South Africa,Hendrik Verwoerd in 1966 with some eerie similarities with JFK.

    Dr. Verwoerd was stabbed to death on the floor of parliament in front of dozens of witnesses. Other than both men were chief executives and both assassins had bad employment histories, I’m not seeing any similarity at all.

    As well as Martin Luther King, where the late Steve Cokely claimed then Jesse Jackson was involved in MLK assasination.

    Steve Cokely was a patronage employee in Eugene Sawyer’s city hall. He was described by Joseph Epstein thus: “a man unhinged with racial paranoia. No doubt he sees a white conspiracy when he burns his toast”. No clue why Cokely’s opinions on anything need be adduced, whether or not he’s speaking to a gathering of the Nation of Islam.

  282. @Hrw-500
    Let's throw in the mix, the assasination of the Prime Minister of South Africa,Hendrik Verwoerd in 1966 with some eerie similarities with JFK. http://hendrikverwoerd.blogspot.ca/p/conspiracy.html (in case if this page dissapear, here a link to http://archive.is/7Jgy6 )

    As well as Martin Luther King, where the late Steve Cokely claimed then Jesse Jackson was involved in MLK assasination.

    Let’s throw in the mix, the assasination of the Prime Minister of South Africa,Hendrik Verwoerd in 1966 with some eerie similarities with JFK.

    Dr. Verwoerd was stabbed to death on the floor of parliament in front of dozens of witnesses. Other than both men were chief executives and both assassins had bad employment histories, I’m not seeing any similarity at all.

    As well as Martin Luther King, where the late Steve Cokely claimed then Jesse Jackson was involved in MLK assasination.

    Steve Cokely was a patronage employee in Eugene Sawyer’s city hall. He was described by Joseph Epstein thus: “a man unhinged with racial paranoia. No doubt he sees a white conspiracy when he burns his toast”. No clue why Cokely’s opinions on anything need be adduced, whether or not he’s speaking to a gathering of the Nation of Islam.

  283. @anon
    Do your own research. Act like a man for once in your life.

    Correct. That whole, “link?” response is the annoying left’s trollish behavior.

    Usually they know you’re right but just wish you weren’t.

    Well, done, great and well deserves response. “Opinionator” (he literally tells you he isn’t worth reading in rhe name) is one of those wonderful people who hates arabs -until they kill jews or people who can (if you look just right) be friends of Jews.

    The lying bastard claims to have taken 7 years of years of ayissish yet can’t even use the expression “oy vey” accurately.

    He gives rational skeptics of all matters (including Jewish related ones) a bad name.

    He is, after all just an opinionator. His opinions can be taken as seriously as a fart in the wind.

    • Replies: @Moshe
    7 years of *Yiddish
  284. @Steve Sailer
    The computer term "systems integration" can be applied to much else in military affairs. The U.S. had better systems integration for fighting a carrier to carrier battle where the ships never come within sight of each other, while the Japanese were optimized for a carrier to battleship in harbor strike like Pearl Harbor. The Japanese had a terrific torpedo for sinking armored battleships, while the U.S. had a terrible torpedo and poor torpedo bombers, but the US dive bombers were ideal for attacking carriers with unarmored decks.

    Carrier to carrier battles were science fiction warfare, with much different logic than had been seen before in actual warfare. It's maybe not a coincidence that sci-fi writer Robert Heinlein served on the state of the art Lexington (?) carrier in the late 1920s.

    You’re probably already familiar with his research, but for anyone interested in Japan’s wars, among the best sources are the books of Mark Peattie, in particular for carrier warfare, Sunburst: The Rise of Japanese Naval Air Power, 1909 –1941 and Kaigun: Strategy, Tactics, and Technology in the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1887–1941 .

  285. @Almost Missouri

    "The root cause is Arab funding for fire-breathing imams. If we really wanted to stop terrorism, we’d issue an ultimatum to the Gulf Arabs to end this funding"
     
    This is a good point and one that bears repeating. There is something of a choke point on Islamic terrorism: the jihadist imams and their subsidized mosques. The financial and ideological support for those imams and mosques comes largely from the Gulf Arabs, especially from Saudi Arabia. I say "from" because it is not official government policy of these states. The support comes mainly from wealthy Arabs outside the government. Some may be true believers, but others cynically want the jihadis to do their dirty work and displace the local government so they can become the government/royals instead. The local governments do have elements of a police state that could suppress the imams and financial supporters more if they tried. The two problems with this are 1) the more police states suppress, the more resentments build up locally against the government, worsening the original problem, and 2) in a globalized world, the jihadi bacillus has long since escaped the Arabian petri dish and now festers on many foreign shores, each of which will have to up their own police state game to crush it. And of course, the West is hypocritically demanding crushing of jihadism, which is part and parcel of originalist Islam, while simultaneously demanding liberalization of Arab societies, which those societies correctly perceive as an attack on their fundamental Muslim character.

    So in short, it is not unlike the hypocrisy of the left within the West: freedom of speech except for speech we disagree with, liberty (and libertinism) of action except for actions we dislike, etc.

    How to square this circle?

    The answer may have been provided by incisive political analyst P. J. O'Rourke:

    "Whatever it is that the government does, sensible Americans would prefer that the government does it to somebody else. This is the idea behind foreign policy."
     

    Agree. The Faustian bargain the Saudis have made is to let the religious police do what they want internally and fund madrassas abroad as long as the Saudi princes can carry on their hedonistic ways. This will not end well.

  286. @Dave Pinsen
    It had been referred to as that since the Romans put down the Bar Kochba revolt in the 2nd century, but Arabs didn't call themselves "Palestinian" until the 1960s (they actually don't call themselves that in Arabic, because there's no "P" in Arabic). Prior to the '60s, "Palestinian" had Jewish connotations in the 20th Century. E.g., The Jerusalem Post was founded as the Palestine Post, and the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra was founded as the Palestine Orchestra.

    He knows, he knows.

    Don’t five congenital anti-sems rational answers. Their response to it will Never be rational any more than a faked moonlanding nut will be.

    I know what they want and what they need and I will be happy to supply it.

    They are The Enemy Dave, not honest open-minded player. I treat them as such and so should we all – “Jews” (I hate the limitation of identify-words), people who like Jews, people who are openminded and may dialike Jews but are rational about it.

    They are a joke of course and not really worthy of fighting but they Certainly aren’t worth talking to.

    Your comment was a good one and may be intellectually stimulating to honest players here but don’t expect or want a rational give and take with these washed in the blood anti-sems theough the core.

  287. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "Should I ever swerve from undying devotion to the divine Katharine, let my right hand forget her cunning, and let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth….."

    Methinks thy tongue would rather cleave to someplace else. Unfortunately for you, Miss. Hepburn passed in May of 2003, two months before comedian Bob Hope. Although you're still in luck, as Mariette Hartley is still very much around. Now there was a lass of beauty, wit, sophistication, and amazing talent.

    And she took a darn fine photo with James Garner a la Polaroid.

    I always th0ught Hepburn to be just this side of b***h, but Mariette Hartley! She could eat crackers in my bed.

  288. @Steve Sailer
    Are Palestine and Philistine related words?

    Yes, after Bar Kosiba’s revolt the Romans passed all sort of you-will-know-you-are-conquered and changed the name from Judea (which the Romans called it and minted coints “JVDEA CAPTA” after the First Revolt) to Syria Palestina – two groups that had almost entirely left history by this point (the Assyrians of today are an interesting subject for another time). They also changed Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina. All of this was an attempt to wipe out Jewish Israel from historical memory.

    It didn’t quite work at first as everyone all ovee the world called Jews “Palestinians”.

    Until in 1964 When Abu Amar and Shukeiri decised that it would be wise to stop calling this mixed multitude of Arabs – Arabs (which is how they themselves saw themselves) but a Nationality! called Phalustinians.

    I believe that now they ARE a nation. Regardless of what they call themselves and regardless of where their great grandparents were born.

    People are a nation when they say, and agree, that they are.

    But that’s a separate, more modern point.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The Lebanese Shi'ites have gone through a nation-building experience under Hezbollah in their conflict with Israel.
  289. @Moshe
    Yes, after Bar Kosiba's revolt the Romans passed all sort of you-will-know-you-are-conquered and changed the name from Judea (which the Romans called it and minted coints "JVDEA CAPTA" after the First Revolt) to Syria Palestina - two groups that had almost entirely left history by this point (the Assyrians of today are an interesting subject for another time). They also changed Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina. All of this was an attempt to wipe out Jewish Israel from historical memory.

    It didn't quite work at first as everyone all ovee the world called Jews "Palestinians".

    Until in 1964 When Abu Amar and Shukeiri decised that it would be wise to stop calling this mixed multitude of Arabs - Arabs (which is how they themselves saw themselves) but a Nationality! called Phalustinians.

    I believe that now they ARE a nation. Regardless of what they call themselves and regardless of where their great grandparents were born.

    People are a nation when they say, and agree, that they are.

    But that's a separate, more modern point.

    The Lebanese Shi’ites have gone through a nation-building experience under Hezbollah in their conflict with Israel.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    The Lebanese Shi’ites have gone through a nation-building experience under Hezbollah in their conflict with Israel.
     
    Nation-building experiences for the USA:

    The Revolution

    The Civil War

    The Conquest of the West

    World War II

    The last (WW2) was of critical importance in terms of Americanizing the 1890-1924 wave of immigrants.

    Unfortunately, I don't see anything that will function in a similar fashion for the post-1965 wave...Unless it's hatred for White Anglos....
    , @Moshe
    Interesting. I did not know that. I always found the existence of Shiites in Lebanon to be bizarre. I mean Shiites can be violent, as we see every day in the news these days, but Lebanon?

    So you're saying that their identity as a group was only forged recently?

    The people who today call themselves Palestinians have a very varied background. There are even plenty of Black African Palestinians, Turkiah Palestinians and plenty plenty Egyptian Palestinians (like Arafat).

    But it's more complicated than that because until the Jewish Aliyot started turning that territory around, many Arab Nomads and partial nomads passed through Judea/Palestine/Canan/Israel and pretty much the whole of their identity as the particular tribe that they belonged to.

    The Arabs of Sham - Syria through Israel - all know where their families originated 400 years ago and often where they were from1000 years ago. Even when they claim no decent from the prophet.

    You often quote 'me against my brother, us against the cousin, etc' and it's more or less like that. Most Sham Arabs considered their secondary identity to be Arab.

    Now of course some Arab villages and (in Israel just 1) Arab cities in Sham had their tribal identity tied to their village and farm too.

    But the idea of a government run nationality that defines people beyond their tribal name and the Arab name was conpletely foreign to their way of thinking. (Islamic identity was unnecessary when everyone you and your great grandfather ever meet are Muslims.)

    In fact even today, from Southern Turkey through Southern Jordan numerous tribes of closely intermarried relatives view the family on the next hill as foreigners and whenever there's a car accident or farm fight - enemies.

    That's why Arafat and Shukeiri wisely popularised the idea of a Palestinian Identity.

    I'm curuous as as to whether you are saying that something similar took place in Lebanon. My assumption was that - stuck in Lebanon with Christians and Sunnis - the
    Shiite would be more or less from less than a handful of different tribes. Which is quite different with the situation in Israel where "Palestinians" were creatws out of 500 or more separate families. Almost all small and now disconnected from their tribe outside Israel.

  290. @Moshe
    Correct. That whole, "link?" response is the annoying left's trollish behavior.

    Usually they know you're right but just wish you weren't.

    Well, done, great and well deserves response. "Opinionator" (he literally tells you he isn't worth reading in rhe name) is one of those wonderful people who hates arabs -until they kill jews or people who can (if you look just right) be friends of Jews.

    The lying bastard claims to have taken 7 years of years of ayissish yet can't even use the expression "oy vey" accurately.

    He gives rational skeptics of all matters (including Jewish related ones) a bad name.

    He is, after all just an opinionator. His opinions can be taken as seriously as a fart in the wind.

    7 years of *Yiddish

  291. @Steve Sailer
    The Lebanese Shi'ites have gone through a nation-building experience under Hezbollah in their conflict with Israel.

    The Lebanese Shi’ites have gone through a nation-building experience under Hezbollah in their conflict with Israel.

    Nation-building experiences for the USA:

    The Revolution

    The Civil War

    The Conquest of the West

    World War II

    The last (WW2) was of critical importance in terms of Americanizing the 1890-1924 wave of immigrants.

    Unfortunately, I don’t see anything that will function in a similar fashion for the post-1965 wave…Unless it’s hatred for White Anglos….

  292. @Steve Sailer
    The Lebanese Shi'ites have gone through a nation-building experience under Hezbollah in their conflict with Israel.

    Interesting. I did not know that. I always found the existence of Shiites in Lebanon to be bizarre. I mean Shiites can be violent, as we see every day in the news these days, but Lebanon?

    So you’re saying that their identity as a group was only forged recently?

    The people who today call themselves Palestinians have a very varied background. There are even plenty of Black African Palestinians, Turkiah Palestinians and plenty plenty Egyptian Palestinians (like Arafat).

    But it’s more complicated than that because until the Jewish Aliyot started turning that territory around, many Arab Nomads and partial nomads passed through Judea/Palestine/Canan/Israel and pretty much the whole of their identity as the particular tribe that they belonged to.

    The Arabs of Sham – Syria through Israel – all know where their families originated 400 years ago and often where they were from1000 years ago. Even when they claim no decent from the prophet.

    You often quote ‘me against my brother, us against the cousin, etc’ and it’s more or less like that. Most Sham Arabs considered their secondary identity to be Arab.

    Now of course some Arab villages and (in Israel just 1) Arab cities in Sham had their tribal identity tied to their village and farm too.

    But the idea of a government run nationality that defines people beyond their tribal name and the Arab name was conpletely foreign to their way of thinking. (Islamic identity was unnecessary when everyone you and your great grandfather ever meet are Muslims.)

    In fact even today, from Southern Turkey through Southern Jordan numerous tribes of closely intermarried relatives view the family on the next hill as foreigners and whenever there’s a car accident or farm fight – enemies.

    That’s why Arafat and Shukeiri wisely popularised the idea of a Palestinian Identity.

    I’m curuous as as to whether you are saying that something similar took place in Lebanon. My assumption was that – stuck in Lebanon with Christians and Sunnis – the
    Shiite would be more or less from less than a handful of different tribes. Which is quite different with the situation in Israel where “Palestinians” were creatws out of 500 or more separate families. Almost all small and now disconnected from their tribe outside Israel.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The Shi-ites in Lebanon were kind of obscure clannish hillbillies when Lebanon was a functioning country until 1975, but under the pressure of cataclysmic events they've become more of a functioning nation.
  293. @Moshe
    Interesting. I did not know that. I always found the existence of Shiites in Lebanon to be bizarre. I mean Shiites can be violent, as we see every day in the news these days, but Lebanon?

    So you're saying that their identity as a group was only forged recently?

    The people who today call themselves Palestinians have a very varied background. There are even plenty of Black African Palestinians, Turkiah Palestinians and plenty plenty Egyptian Palestinians (like Arafat).

    But it's more complicated than that because until the Jewish Aliyot started turning that territory around, many Arab Nomads and partial nomads passed through Judea/Palestine/Canan/Israel and pretty much the whole of their identity as the particular tribe that they belonged to.

    The Arabs of Sham - Syria through Israel - all know where their families originated 400 years ago and often where they were from1000 years ago. Even when they claim no decent from the prophet.

    You often quote 'me against my brother, us against the cousin, etc' and it's more or less like that. Most Sham Arabs considered their secondary identity to be Arab.

    Now of course some Arab villages and (in Israel just 1) Arab cities in Sham had their tribal identity tied to their village and farm too.

    But the idea of a government run nationality that defines people beyond their tribal name and the Arab name was conpletely foreign to their way of thinking. (Islamic identity was unnecessary when everyone you and your great grandfather ever meet are Muslims.)

    In fact even today, from Southern Turkey through Southern Jordan numerous tribes of closely intermarried relatives view the family on the next hill as foreigners and whenever there's a car accident or farm fight - enemies.

    That's why Arafat and Shukeiri wisely popularised the idea of a Palestinian Identity.

    I'm curuous as as to whether you are saying that something similar took place in Lebanon. My assumption was that - stuck in Lebanon with Christians and Sunnis - the
    Shiite would be more or less from less than a handful of different tribes. Which is quite different with the situation in Israel where "Palestinians" were creatws out of 500 or more separate families. Almost all small and now disconnected from their tribe outside Israel.

    The Shi-ites in Lebanon were kind of obscure clannish hillbillies when Lebanon was a functioning country until 1975, but under the pressure of cataclysmic events they’ve become more of a functioning nation.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    I think the Lebanese Shia have also benefited from Iranian patronage in this regard. Like Turkey, Iran has a strong national identity that precedes Islamicization. Both nations also somewhat condescend to the more fractious Arabs. Unlike Turkey, Iran does cultivate clients among the Arabs: the Shia. And Iran has worked for decades to make their clients more potent.

    One thinks of the scene in the desert in Lawrence of Arabia, where Peter O'Toole berates Omar Sharif for lethally prosecuting petty clan vendettas: "So long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people," implying they need nationalism to make them consequential. Ironically, while nationalism never caught on much with the Sunnis like Sherif Ali, it does seem to have more of a purchase on the Shia. On the other hand, the Sunnis are nowadays taking more to the supra-nationalism of the global Umma Caliphate, with certain ... consequences. From the non-Arab point of view, nationalism may have been preferable, but we don't get to choose.
  294. @syonredux

    He is mad as hell that a man who presents himself as a pacifist
     
    RFK "present[ed] himself" as a pacifist?

    Sorry, “pacifist” is too strong, I mean he had an anti-war platform. He was against war in Vietnam, pro war in Israel. That’s what Sirhan saw as inconsistent.

    In a 1967 “Face the Nation” debate, Kennedy asked: “Do we have the right here in the United States to say that we’re going to kill tens of thousands, make millions of people, as we have, refugees, kill women and children, as we have?.… I very seriously question whether we have that right.”

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    He was against war in Vietnam, pro war in Israel. That’s what Sirhan saw as inconsistent.

    Because Sirhan was bad at analogical thinking. Indochina was in a state of war from 1946 to 1975, bar the years running from 1954 to 1959. Palpable participants included 2 extra-regional parties (not including auxilliaries thereto like Australia's expeditionary force) and 2 financiers. For six years at that point, the U.S. government had been running a counter-partisan operation that looked like it was failing. The 'war' between Israel and it's neighboring states in 1967 was six days long. The entire portfolio of armed conflicts over 26 years and every notable episode within it was something the Arab parties very much wanted; the United States was not a participant in any of them. Also, American aid to Israel prior to 1973 was inconsequantially small.

  295. @Art Deco
    Reading what he says at the trial, it’s clear he is well-informed about the situation in Palestine.

    "Palestine" was a jurisdiction which existed between 1920 and 1948, not after that. The West Bank, where his father was living, had only a year earlier changed hands and the future trajectory of public policy was uncertain. (As it happened, Israel was fairly magnanimous to the local Arabs for the first dozen years).


    He is mad as hell that a man who presents himself as a pacifist supports what he sees as the utterly unfair and cruel destruction of his country. So his motives seem clear, and it’s the media and biographers that seems obtuse or worse.

    Kennedy never in his life presented himself as a pacifist and no component of the territory in question was being destroyed, in 1968 or at any other time. Neither was the Arab population treated with cruelty by Israel. If I'm not mistaken, the opportunities for the population in Gaza (who were stateless wards of the UNRWA) to migrate elsewhere were circumscribed and Jordan was the only Arab country willing to grant the UNRWA clientele citizenship. Neither of these problems were something Israel could do much about (with out cutting own throats that is, which people seem to see as a Jewish obligation).

    Your argument boils down to saying Sirhan, being 'mad as hell', had every reason to cap Sen. Kennedy, even if he achieved not one blessed thing other than killing a member of Congress (who had 11 children) and consigning himself to the state prisons of California. Well, if you fancy emotional self-expression is its own justification, than I suppose that's reasonable. I don't think any sensible society can run on that ethic, however.

    > Israel was fairly magnanimous to local Arabs

    Sorry, that’s just laughable. Even if in some universe that could be seen as true, surely you know Sirhan wouldn’t see it that way. He lost his home, several members of his family, and his entire country to these magnanimous people.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus

    > Your argument boils down to

    Again, it doesn’t seem complicated. Futile maybe. A considerable loss to everyone involved, agreed. But anger and revenge aren’t hard to understand. You don’t have to invoke hypnosis, madness, or stupidity. And deterrence could be a further, non-emotional motive: keep hurting us, we will hurt you back.

    > I don’t think any sensible society can run on that ethic, however

    We’re talking about war-like behavior. That’s a peculiar case of running society. No one would suggest the Hiroshima bombing is an “ethic” for running a sensible society, either. And yet war happens.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Sorry, that’s just laughable. Even if in some universe that could be seen as true, surely you know Sirhan wouldn’t see it that way. He lost his home, several members of his family, and his entire country to these magnanimous people.


    No, it's 'laughable' to people who resent it that Jews live and breathe, govern their own communities, and prosper. That's a fairly common type on these boards and evidently includes you and Opinionator (and Philip Giraldi as well). For 11 years, Jewish settlement on the West Bank was minimal (and mostly in areas along the Jordan River with few Arabs). Israel couldn't off-load the territories because the Arab states had in 1967 rejected any settlement with Israel, after which Egypt had spent another two-years and change harassing the Israeli military with artillery barrages. Just negotiating an armistice in 1973 and 1974 was a sorely labor intensive task. At the conclusion thereof, the Arab states declared that the Arafat mafias and not the Hashemites would be the agents for the Arab population in the disputed territories, which precluded any settlement for the duration Over the years, Israel attempted devolving responsibilities onto elected municipal councils in the territories, a failure when the local population elected revanchists. Israel also signed an agreement with Egypt which incorporated provisions for an elected territorial government in the West Bank and Gaza, provisions Arafat & co. rejected out of hand. Israel did not have many alternatives at that point of a meliorist character; of course, in saying that, I'm being normal and assuming Israel will make decisions incorporating a concern for it's security, when the rest of you fancy Israel is obligated to allow the Arabs to cut its throat.


    Again, it doesn’t seem complicated. Futile maybe. A considerable loss to everyone involved, agreed. But anger and revenge aren’t hard to understand. You don’t have to invoke hypnosis, madness, or stupidity. And deterrence could be a further, non-emotional motive: keep hurting us, we will hurt you back.

    You fancy the tape Sirhan had running through his head was sensible and important. I'm telling you it doesn't matter much more than John Hinckley's musings over Jodie Foster and Sara Jane Moore's babble about Patrice Lumumba. I'm right and you're wrong. Killing Kennedy achieved nothing and defining Kennedy as part of some 'you' that Sirhan had a beef with is a definition that made sense in Sirhan's addled head and nowhere else. Robert Kennedy wasn't enrolled in the Haganah and his views on the Near East weren't much different from the other seven notable presidential candidates that year.


    We’re talking about war-like behavior. That’s a peculiar case of running society. No one would suggest the Hiroshima bombing is an “ethic” for running a sensible society, either. And yet war happens.

    No, we're talking about a hotel employee who put a bullet in the brain of an elected official who happened to be at his work site.
  296. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "Should I ever swerve from undying devotion to the divine Katharine, let my right hand forget her cunning, and let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth….."

    Methinks thy tongue would rather cleave to someplace else. Unfortunately for you, Miss. Hepburn passed in May of 2003, two months before comedian Bob Hope. Although you're still in luck, as Mariette Hartley is still very much around. Now there was a lass of beauty, wit, sophistication, and amazing talent.

    And she took a darn fine photo with James Garner a la Polaroid.

    Should I ever swerve from undying devotion to the divine Katharine, let my right hand forget her cunning, and let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth…..”

    Methinks thy tongue would rather cleave to someplace else. Unfortunately for you, Miss. Hepburn passed in May of 2003,

    Carnal contact with such a divinity? That would be a consummation indeed…..

    As it stands, I still have The Philadelphia Story to keep me warm….A relic from the apogee of Anglo-American civilization, the time before the the coming of the Hispanic hordes…..

    Although you’re still in luck, as Mariette Hartley

    I have very fond memories of her in the Star Trek episode “All Our Yesterdays.”

  297. No one has mentioned that the fleet that the USS Liberty belonged to was commanded by Adm George S. Morrison, the father of the lead singer of the Doors. Adm Morrison also was at the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
    There was a rumor that Adm Morrison was too vocal about this incident. It is understandable, sailors do not like to see their ships dented. As revenge, the Mossad killed his son in Paris.
    I will let other conspiracy theorists take it from here.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    As revenge, the Mossad killed his son in Paris. I will let other conspiracy theorists take it from here.

    I take it you and Opinionator are fighting over the dayroom computer.
  298. @Art Deco
    You mistake me for someone interested in the issue of your imagination. I am not.

    You could have fooled me.

  299. @European-American
    Sorry, "pacifist" is too strong, I mean he had an anti-war platform. He was against war in Vietnam, pro war in Israel. That's what Sirhan saw as inconsistent.

    In a 1967 "Face the Nation" debate, Kennedy asked: “Do we have the right here in the United States to say that we’re going to kill tens of thousands, make millions of people, as we have, refugees, kill women and children, as we have?.… I very seriously question whether we have that right.”
     

    He was against war in Vietnam, pro war in Israel. That’s what Sirhan saw as inconsistent.

    Because Sirhan was bad at analogical thinking. Indochina was in a state of war from 1946 to 1975, bar the years running from 1954 to 1959. Palpable participants included 2 extra-regional parties (not including auxilliaries thereto like Australia’s expeditionary force) and 2 financiers. For six years at that point, the U.S. government had been running a counter-partisan operation that looked like it was failing. The ‘war’ between Israel and it’s neighboring states in 1967 was six days long. The entire portfolio of armed conflicts over 26 years and every notable episode within it was something the Arab parties very much wanted; the United States was not a participant in any of them. Also, American aid to Israel prior to 1973 was inconsequantially small.

  300. @flyingtiger
    No one has mentioned that the fleet that the USS Liberty belonged to was commanded by Adm George S. Morrison, the father of the lead singer of the Doors. Adm Morrison also was at the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
    There was a rumor that Adm Morrison was too vocal about this incident. It is understandable, sailors do not like to see their ships dented. As revenge, the Mossad killed his son in Paris.
    I will let other conspiracy theorists take it from here.

    As revenge, the Mossad killed his son in Paris. I will let other conspiracy theorists take it from here.

    I take it you and Opinionator are fighting over the dayroom computer.

  301. @European-American
    > Israel was fairly magnanimous to local Arabs

    Sorry, that's just laughable. Even if in some universe that could be seen as true, surely you know Sirhan wouldn't see it that way. He lost his home, several members of his family, and his entire country to these magnanimous people.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus

    > Your argument boils down to

    Again, it doesn't seem complicated. Futile maybe. A considerable loss to everyone involved, agreed. But anger and revenge aren't hard to understand. You don't have to invoke hypnosis, madness, or stupidity. And deterrence could be a further, non-emotional motive: keep hurting us, we will hurt you back.

    > I don’t think any sensible society can run on that ethic, however

    We're talking about war-like behavior. That's a peculiar case of running society. No one would suggest the Hiroshima bombing is an "ethic" for running a sensible society, either. And yet war happens.

    Sorry, that’s just laughable. Even if in some universe that could be seen as true, surely you know Sirhan wouldn’t see it that way. He lost his home, several members of his family, and his entire country to these magnanimous people.

    No, it’s ‘laughable’ to people who resent it that Jews live and breathe, govern their own communities, and prosper. That’s a fairly common type on these boards and evidently includes you and Opinionator (and Philip Giraldi as well). For 11 years, Jewish settlement on the West Bank was minimal (and mostly in areas along the Jordan River with few Arabs). Israel couldn’t off-load the territories because the Arab states had in 1967 rejected any settlement with Israel, after which Egypt had spent another two-years and change harassing the Israeli military with artillery barrages. Just negotiating an armistice in 1973 and 1974 was a sorely labor intensive task. At the conclusion thereof, the Arab states declared that the Arafat mafias and not the Hashemites would be the agents for the Arab population in the disputed territories, which precluded any settlement for the duration Over the years, Israel attempted devolving responsibilities onto elected municipal councils in the territories, a failure when the local population elected revanchists. Israel also signed an agreement with Egypt which incorporated provisions for an elected territorial government in the West Bank and Gaza, provisions Arafat & co. rejected out of hand. Israel did not have many alternatives at that point of a meliorist character; of course, in saying that, I’m being normal and assuming Israel will make decisions incorporating a concern for it’s security, when the rest of you fancy Israel is obligated to allow the Arabs to cut its throat.

    Again, it doesn’t seem complicated. Futile maybe. A considerable loss to everyone involved, agreed. But anger and revenge aren’t hard to understand. You don’t have to invoke hypnosis, madness, or stupidity. And deterrence could be a further, non-emotional motive: keep hurting us, we will hurt you back.

    You fancy the tape Sirhan had running through his head was sensible and important. I’m telling you it doesn’t matter much more than John Hinckley’s musings over Jodie Foster and Sara Jane Moore’s babble about Patrice Lumumba. I’m right and you’re wrong. Killing Kennedy achieved nothing and defining Kennedy as part of some ‘you’ that Sirhan had a beef with is a definition that made sense in Sirhan’s addled head and nowhere else. Robert Kennedy wasn’t enrolled in the Haganah and his views on the Near East weren’t much different from the other seven notable presidential candidates that year.

    We’re talking about war-like behavior. That’s a peculiar case of running society. No one would suggest the Hiroshima bombing is an “ethic” for running a sensible society, either. And yet war happens.

    No, we’re talking about a hotel employee who put a bullet in the brain of an elected official who happened to be at his work site.

    • Replies: @European-American
    > > He lost his home [in Jerusalem, in 1948]

    > West Bank... 1967 ... 1973

    It's like you constantly want to avoid the subject at hand, which was Sirhan's motive in committing his crime.

    You want to just keep saying how great Israel is, etc. It's boring. And I don't like being told I "resent it that Jews live and breathe", which is so hyperbolic you should just be embarrassed. But it's also ad hominem and makes it likely that discussion will become angry.

    I don't support or oppose Sirhan's point of view, or Osama's. I'm just trying to understand it. More importantly I want to know why obvious aspects of Sirhan's case have been obscured. And I'm not even that interested in the history, except insofar as similar stuff may be happening now with the current terror attacks. It might be important to know why terrorism is happening, even if nothing justifies it.

    But I don't think it's very interesting to discuss with you, since to me you seem to have a one-sided and intentionally thick way of responding. I may add you to my "commenter to ignore" list.

  302. @James Richard

    a limp wristed English sot
     
    Richard Burton was Welsh and if he was gay it certainly didn't prevent him from banging every leading lady he ever worked with.

    Exactly .

  303. @Art Deco
    Sorry, that’s just laughable. Even if in some universe that could be seen as true, surely you know Sirhan wouldn’t see it that way. He lost his home, several members of his family, and his entire country to these magnanimous people.


    No, it's 'laughable' to people who resent it that Jews live and breathe, govern their own communities, and prosper. That's a fairly common type on these boards and evidently includes you and Opinionator (and Philip Giraldi as well). For 11 years, Jewish settlement on the West Bank was minimal (and mostly in areas along the Jordan River with few Arabs). Israel couldn't off-load the territories because the Arab states had in 1967 rejected any settlement with Israel, after which Egypt had spent another two-years and change harassing the Israeli military with artillery barrages. Just negotiating an armistice in 1973 and 1974 was a sorely labor intensive task. At the conclusion thereof, the Arab states declared that the Arafat mafias and not the Hashemites would be the agents for the Arab population in the disputed territories, which precluded any settlement for the duration Over the years, Israel attempted devolving responsibilities onto elected municipal councils in the territories, a failure when the local population elected revanchists. Israel also signed an agreement with Egypt which incorporated provisions for an elected territorial government in the West Bank and Gaza, provisions Arafat & co. rejected out of hand. Israel did not have many alternatives at that point of a meliorist character; of course, in saying that, I'm being normal and assuming Israel will make decisions incorporating a concern for it's security, when the rest of you fancy Israel is obligated to allow the Arabs to cut its throat.


    Again, it doesn’t seem complicated. Futile maybe. A considerable loss to everyone involved, agreed. But anger and revenge aren’t hard to understand. You don’t have to invoke hypnosis, madness, or stupidity. And deterrence could be a further, non-emotional motive: keep hurting us, we will hurt you back.

    You fancy the tape Sirhan had running through his head was sensible and important. I'm telling you it doesn't matter much more than John Hinckley's musings over Jodie Foster and Sara Jane Moore's babble about Patrice Lumumba. I'm right and you're wrong. Killing Kennedy achieved nothing and defining Kennedy as part of some 'you' that Sirhan had a beef with is a definition that made sense in Sirhan's addled head and nowhere else. Robert Kennedy wasn't enrolled in the Haganah and his views on the Near East weren't much different from the other seven notable presidential candidates that year.


    We’re talking about war-like behavior. That’s a peculiar case of running society. No one would suggest the Hiroshima bombing is an “ethic” for running a sensible society, either. And yet war happens.

    No, we're talking about a hotel employee who put a bullet in the brain of an elected official who happened to be at his work site.

    > > He lost his home [in Jerusalem, in 1948]

    > West Bank… 1967 … 1973

    It’s like you constantly want to avoid the subject at hand, which was Sirhan’s motive in committing his crime.

    You want to just keep saying how great Israel is, etc. It’s boring. And I don’t like being told I “resent it that Jews live and breathe”, which is so hyperbolic you should just be embarrassed. But it’s also ad hominem and makes it likely that discussion will become angry.

    I don’t support or oppose Sirhan’s point of view, or Osama’s. I’m just trying to understand it. More importantly I want to know why obvious aspects of Sirhan’s case have been obscured. And I’m not even that interested in the history, except insofar as similar stuff may be happening now with the current terror attacks. It might be important to know why terrorism is happening, even if nothing justifies it.

    But I don’t think it’s very interesting to discuss with you, since to me you seem to have a one-sided and intentionally thick way of responding. I may add you to my “commenter to ignore” list.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    I don’t support or oppose Sirhan’s point of view, or Osama’s. I’m just trying to understand it.

    You're not understanding it.


    I want to know why obvious aspects of Sirhan’s case have been obscured.

    You're taking him seriously. That's your mistake, one not made by newsmen at the time. He was Joe Blow off the sidewalks of Pasadena. He grew up in a family with an unhappy history and a tendency to emotional volatility manifest in his father, his brother Saidallah, and, to a degree, his brother Sharif. Kennedy was an object of his rage, not the cause of it.



    It’s like you constantly want to avoid the subject at hand, which was Sirhan’s motive in committing his crime.

    You complained it was 'laughable' for me to say Israel's occupation of the West Bank was magnanimous during the period running from 1967 to 1978, then you veered off into a discussion of Sirhan's family history in 1948, now you've complained I'm avoiding the issue because I did not veer with you. As for 1948, the Arab authorities wanted a war. Wars have casualties. Israel was not occupying East Jerusalem or the West Bank in 1949, nor was it running Arab refugee camps, so their magnanimity was irrelevant to the Sirhans' situation.


    You want to just keep saying how great Israel is, etc. It’s boring.

    I gave no description of Israel. I pointed out some of the features of Israeli policy on the West Bank over an 11 year period.


    And I don’t like being told I “resent it that Jews live and breathe”, which is so hyperbolic you should just be embarrassed. But it’s also ad hominem and makes it likely that discussion will become angry.

    Nice try. What you said was nonsensical absent certain assumptions. I pointed out what the assumptions are. You're complaining it's 'ad hominem', a term which does not mean what you think it means. What's your alternative explaination? That 'European-American' has not a clue about how occupiers ordinarily behave? Or about what people can reasonably expect in the way of a congenial environment in fissured societies?
  304. @European-American
    > > He lost his home [in Jerusalem, in 1948]

    > West Bank... 1967 ... 1973

    It's like you constantly want to avoid the subject at hand, which was Sirhan's motive in committing his crime.

    You want to just keep saying how great Israel is, etc. It's boring. And I don't like being told I "resent it that Jews live and breathe", which is so hyperbolic you should just be embarrassed. But it's also ad hominem and makes it likely that discussion will become angry.

    I don't support or oppose Sirhan's point of view, or Osama's. I'm just trying to understand it. More importantly I want to know why obvious aspects of Sirhan's case have been obscured. And I'm not even that interested in the history, except insofar as similar stuff may be happening now with the current terror attacks. It might be important to know why terrorism is happening, even if nothing justifies it.

    But I don't think it's very interesting to discuss with you, since to me you seem to have a one-sided and intentionally thick way of responding. I may add you to my "commenter to ignore" list.

    I don’t support or oppose Sirhan’s point of view, or Osama’s. I’m just trying to understand it.

    You’re not understanding it.

    I want to know why obvious aspects of Sirhan’s case have been obscured.

    You’re taking him seriously. That’s your mistake, one not made by newsmen at the time. He was Joe Blow off the sidewalks of Pasadena. He grew up in a family with an unhappy history and a tendency to emotional volatility manifest in his father, his brother Saidallah, and, to a degree, his brother Sharif. Kennedy was an object of his rage, not the cause of it.

    It’s like you constantly want to avoid the subject at hand, which was Sirhan’s motive in committing his crime.

    You complained it was ‘laughable’ for me to say Israel’s occupation of the West Bank was magnanimous during the period running from 1967 to 1978, then you veered off into a discussion of Sirhan’s family history in 1948, now you’ve complained I’m avoiding the issue because I did not veer with you. As for 1948, the Arab authorities wanted a war. Wars have casualties. Israel was not occupying East Jerusalem or the West Bank in 1949, nor was it running Arab refugee camps, so their magnanimity was irrelevant to the Sirhans’ situation.

    You want to just keep saying how great Israel is, etc. It’s boring.

    I gave no description of Israel. I pointed out some of the features of Israeli policy on the West Bank over an 11 year period.

    And I don’t like being told I “resent it that Jews live and breathe”, which is so hyperbolic you should just be embarrassed. But it’s also ad hominem and makes it likely that discussion will become angry.

    Nice try. What you said was nonsensical absent certain assumptions. I pointed out what the assumptions are. You’re complaining it’s ‘ad hominem’, a term which does not mean what you think it means. What’s your alternative explaination? That ‘European-American’ has not a clue about how occupiers ordinarily behave? Or about what people can reasonably expect in the way of a congenial environment in fissured societies?

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
  305. @The Anti-Gnostic
    What is it with Putin that triggers so many respectable conservatives? He's admired for the same reason a lot of people admire Benjamin Netanyahu or Lee Kuan Yew or Paul Kagame: a vigorous, masculine leader who acts in his country's national interest, not some ambiguous "global" interest.

    Which reminds me, I've read articles that claim news photos of Ronald Reagan, sitting tall in the saddle and chopping wood on his beloved, remote ranch, terrified all the doddering old Soviets.

    Lesley Stahl, longtime CBS White House correspondent, wrote in her book that reporters were forbidden to photograph Reagan at his ranch. They used special telescopic lenses to shoot pictures of him riding on his horse in the hours after the Soviets shot down a Korean airliner. Good liberals everywhere decried the president’s “laziness” and “indifference” in the midst of an international crisis.

    Reagan also was lambasted for testing a microphone by joking that he had outlawed Russia and that “we start bombing in five minutes.”

  306. @Whoever

    they sunk a quarter of the US Pacific carrier force
     
    The Lexington. Why not just say that?

    while only losing a light carrier of their own and suffering damage to a second carrier.
     
    Why no mention of CAG losses? -- that's what was critically important for the prosecution of the war. According to Vice Admiral Takagi Takeo, commander of the MO Striking Force, of which the 5th Carrier Division was apart, Japanese losses were "catastrophic," and such that he ordered the battle to be broken off and his fleet to retreat.
    Regarding Japanese efficiency at carrier flight deck operations, at Coral Sea, recovery took two hours to try to land 46 aircraft. I say try, because seven planes ran out of fuel and ditched during the process. Another crashed while attempting to land and was destroyed.
    Of the 38 safely recovered, 12 were immediately pushed over the side as too damaged to be repaired. Of the 26 remaining aircraft, only nine were in immediately flyable condition.

    Whatever.
     
    It's not a whatever. It's a key to the Japanese loss of the Pacific War within less than a year of their starting it, along with the fatal trade-offs they took regarding tactical effectiveness versus strategic risk.

    that vaunted USN efficiency
     
    Who vaunts it? It's always overlooked! The Langley's crew invented the deck park, the crash barrier, flight-deck teams in jerseys of various colors and a host of other innovations that radically changed the way carrier operations were conducted in the 1920s and our navy was master of them by 1942.

    the Japanese were well supplied with scout bombers of their own.
     
    No, they were not. They had no VS, and it was not part of their doctrine. There were no organic scouting units of significant size in the entire Japanese navy, and very little emphasis was placed on scouting. All the emphasis was on attack. When scouting efforts were made, the Japanese relied on single-phase search patterns. Akagi's air officer, Mitsuo Fuchida, blamed the Japanese disaster at Midway on poor scouting. It was certainly part of it. He also commented on the confusion on the flight deck while attempting to re-arm.

    The Japanese B5N was nearly identical in performance to the US SBD scout bomber
     
    The B5N was a torpedo bomber, pressed into service for search. The Japanese Navy did not develop a dedicated aircraft designed to scout out enemy carriers and attack them with intent of disabling their decks. This was US Navy doctrine and the SBD was developed to implement it.
    _____
    In another post, you write:

    Do you think that anywhere in the West today, you could find enough volunteers for even the relatively modest number of aircrews at Midway, given the semi-suicidal nature of the work? I rather doubt it.
     
    I guess you and I associate with a different class of people.

    “Why no mention of…”

    Because it is not relevant to the efficiency of carrier launches at Midway, which was the original point of contention.

    “Akagi‘s air officer, Mitsuo Fuchida, blamed the Japanese disaster at Midway on poor scouting. It was certainly part of it. He also commented on the confusion on the flight deck while attempting to re-arm.”

    As did I.

    “This was US Navy doctrine and the SBD was developed to implement it.”

    Note that the Japanese task forces at Midway were found by land-based PBYs, not by the SBD scout bombers. The justification doctrine of the SBDs may have been scouting, but in the actual event they turned out to be decisive as attack bombers, rather than as scouts. Not saying it wasn’t a good plane or a good doctrine, just that doctrine, plans and actual events don’t necessarily match.

    “It’s not a whatever. It’s a key to the Japanese loss …”

    I’m sure much of what you say is true. It’s just not relevant to what I wrote, so while I’m happy to read it, I haven’t responded specifically.

    If we want to zoom out to the really big picture, though, I would just say that while Midway was a spectacular upset, and probably saved a lot of American lives, it did not change the course of the war. The industrial, technological, demographic and geographic balance of power was so massively skewed in favor of the US, that there was no way that Japan would win so long as America chose to fight. Absent the Midway victory, it might have taken longer and the US may have had to invade more islands, but the final result would have been the same. At 7:48 AM on 12/7/1941, when the first bombs fell on Pearl Harbor, the Japanese Empire was doomed. The only question was when and how.

    “I guess you and I associate with a different class of people.”

    Probably true. I’ve spent most of my life in what we might call “blue state environments”, which is a big reason I am at iSteve: I prefer the conversation of the normal, patriotic people here.

  307. @Steve Sailer
    The Shi-ites in Lebanon were kind of obscure clannish hillbillies when Lebanon was a functioning country until 1975, but under the pressure of cataclysmic events they've become more of a functioning nation.

    I think the Lebanese Shia have also benefited from Iranian patronage in this regard. Like Turkey, Iran has a strong national identity that precedes Islamicization. Both nations also somewhat condescend to the more fractious Arabs. Unlike Turkey, Iran does cultivate clients among the Arabs: the Shia. And Iran has worked for decades to make their clients more potent.

    One thinks of the scene in the desert in Lawrence of Arabia, where Peter O’Toole berates Omar Sharif for lethally prosecuting petty clan vendettas: “So long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people,” implying they need nationalism to make them consequential. Ironically, while nationalism never caught on much with the Sunnis like Sherif Ali, it does seem to have more of a purchase on the Shia. On the other hand, the Sunnis are nowadays taking more to the supra-nationalism of the global Umma Caliphate, with certain … consequences. From the non-Arab point of view, nationalism may have been preferable, but we don’t get to choose.

  308. One thinks of the scene in the desert in Lawrence of Arabia, where Peter O’Toole berates Omar Sharif for lethally prosecuting petty clan vendettas: “So long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people,” implying they need nationalism to make them consequential.

    That was a great line from Robert Bolt, in a screenplay known for its pithy utterances, but I wonder if the real T.E. Lawrence actually said anything of the sort. Had he done so, in the midst of WWI, as Europe was tearing itself apart on the rock of nationalism, it would have taken considerable insouciance to do so.

  309. Neither UCLA nor USC is an acronym

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
How a Young Syndicate Lawyer from Chicago Earned a Fortune Looting the Property of the Japanese-Americans, then Lived...
Becker update V1.3.2