David Andrews Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 (edited) I think if you asked John Simkin - another legendary academic in JFK research - if he thought Lyndon Johnson was involved, Simkin would say yes. I think if you asked me, I would agree. I believe Johnson held the authority for Texas's participation in the assassination. But I don't believe LBJ was the ultimate authority - of any part of the assassination. I'm just interested, as an information phenomenon, in why there's lately a rush of Johnson-dunnit books. Why now? Why so many? There'll be others. It was not either the Eastern CIA/CFR/Rockefeller "Yankees" OR the Western Texas/ oil men/military contractor "Cowboys" who killed JFK ... It was the elites of BOTH the Yankees AND the Cowboys who murdered JFK. That is where all the evidence leads me. That means LBJ/CIA/CFR insider elites/Rockefellers ALL involved in the JFK assassination planning, execution and cover up. I've believed this for a number of years. Big Oil controls domestic and foreign policy, and Texas oil is, in the end, small oil, horizontally integrated into Big. And doesn't Big and its derivatives own mass-market publishing? The JFK assassination was about the "Rockfellerization" of American foreign policy. JFK was not following the CIA/CFR/Rockefeller script either in foreign policy or domestic policy. The JFK assassination was a Rockefeller/Allen Dulles coup. It was also a great way to keep Lyndon Johnson out of jail. I agree here too. The endgame was a designedly "unwinnable" war in SE Asia, using Johnson as long as possible, but eventually seating Nixon as corporate representative. RFK had to go because he was Nixon's obstacle, not LBJ's. The increased control exerted by packing Nixon's second admin with family retainers signals that Nixon was somehow judged uncontrollable and being maneuvered out. After Nixon resigned, the resulting "national malaise," as Jimmy Carter later put it, allowed Constitutional amendment permitting the vice-president to be appointed. Then there were presidential assassination attempts.... It's amazing how naked it all was, like seasons that might have passed in Chile. SONY stands for: STANDARD OIL of NEW YORK...an American acronym that has become a Japanese "brand" and has been "positioned" in the market...to give the impression that it is a product of superior (Japanese) quality. In which case they owe me double for that malfunctioning high-end CD player I bought in the 1990s, with the motor that burned out every time it was replaced. If they're going to kill people overseas in the name of "my" democratic ideals, they owe me Macintosh. Edited March 26, 2011 by David Andrews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Hagerman Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 ....One such "obscured" interest is seen in a company most all of us take for granted is/was a Japanese company from its inception, but which was not. SONY is one such example. SONY is not a Japanese word nor is it a Japanese acronym. It is an American acronym that has become a Japanese "brand" and has been "positioned" in the market in such a manner as to give the impression that it is a product of superior (Japanese) quality available for a reasonable price (due to its having been manufactured in Japan). That impression is false. SONY stands for: STANDARD OIL of NEW YORK -- Yes, Rockefeller! Greg, are you sure about this? I must say this info caught me off gaurd as well, I have respect for Fletcher Prouty so I dont doubt this Thanks for sharing this with us Greg! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 You're welcome, Dean. It's an amazing phenomenon how so many myths have been created to obscure the truth. For instance, a lot of the business "models" that were adopted by the Japanese post WWII were created in America, but attributed to the ingenuity of the Japanese. That is not meant to disparage the Japanese culture, work ethic, ingenuity, creativity, or ability. However, there were numerous studies conducted by American "think-tanks" regarding how to best extract superior effort from employees. These experiments were conducted for selfish purposes in order to help businesses determine how to become more efficient. The cost of employees is far and away the biggest expense businesses bear, so finding out how to extract from employees the most "bang for the buck" was a very worthwhile endeavor. The "model" that emerged from the study was so far removed from the "old school" methodology as to appear to be counter-intuitive to everything that American Big Business had heretofore been established upon--in terms of employee treatment. Remember, part of our heritage includes slavery--which is diametrically opposed to employee rights. So, these "employee friendly" work models were rejected in America in the immediate aftermath of WWII, despite the evidence that adopting such practices would produce a more efficient work force and incidentally yield "more satisfied" (happier) employees. Due to the models' having been too far removed from the then current school of thought, the "model" was exported to Japan as an experiment. The belief was that it could never work, but maybe...since the studies said it would. However, why take the chance ourselves? We have a "control group" in the US and a host of subjects in Japan on which we can impose this new standard to see if it really will work. Well, it apparently worked after all and it continues to work to this very day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now