Misdirection agents

[Thomas H. Purvis]

There may be "disinformation agents" (I'm going to start another "thread" on what that means.  There may also be "misdirection agents".  This is an interesting comment I "borrowed" from the Lancer Forum:

Confound and confuse...One of the oldest tricks in the book. All the government has to do is throw out a juicy tidbit that they know ahead of time is going nowhere to redirect, {misdirect}, people's attention elswhere. Why don't we stay on the simple, provable points and demand response on those? Examples... The doctors at Parkland identified the throat wound as an entrance wound. How could Oswald shoot Kennedy in the front from the back? The body was removed from Dallas under gunpoint illegally. The head wounds were different in Washington then they were in Dallas. Why don't we demand response on THESE points instead of increasing the volume of material to consider. Couldn't they also be playing "Divide and Conquer?"

Gordon Nightshade

I do not like to impugn another person's motives.  Too many people have impugned mine.  So I will not posit that anybody has a hidden agenda in posting meritless theories on this forum.

That being said, let me make another (hopefully final) comment re the "Dillon did it" scenario.  ANYTHING is possible, so it is certainly possible Dillon did it, even though he was one of Kennedy's personal friends and had no discernable motive.  By the same token it is POSSIBLE one of the first 100 names in the 1963 Boston telephone directory did it.  But by causing the members of this forum spend literally hours arguing the responsibility and ethics of claiming Dillon was a conspirator, much valuable time was lost which could have been spent researching the movements and/or backgrounds of people and.or organizations much more likely to have been a conspirator.

In one sense it might be akin to the controversial subject of "profiling" in the terrorist investigation.  If a terrorist investigator wastes time examing grandmothers and Norwegian mothers, he or she might allow a true terrorist to escape.

We need to "run down" likely suspects before we going chasing scenarios with little likely relationship to reality.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As the recepient of some of these "misdirection" agent innuendos, let me state that there is little need for any on either a full time or part time basis.

Since the "smoke screen" of the Clay Shaw episode, this subject has taken a life of it's own in which it fosters; breeds; and generates more than adequate numbers of misdirected persons.

Therefore, all employment applications for full-time, or even part-time misdirection agents were withdrawn long ago.

Tom

[John Simkin]

Over the last year I have read and studied a lot of the work of Robert Artwohl, Kenneth Rahn, Chad Zimmerman, Joseph Riley, Paul Seaton, John McAdams and Larry Sturdivan.  I believe more likely than not they are all sincere.  I think you can learn more by figuring out where these men are wrong (and they are) than by deciding that everything they say is disinformation.  If there are disinformationalists out there, working for the government, they would have to know that a certain percent of conspiracists will fall for almost anything, and that by falling for the bizarre, they drive a certain percentage of undecideds back towards the lone-nut position.  That's just the way it works.  As a result, I would suspect that the REAL disinformationalists don't adopt a lone-nut position at all, but create web-sites in which they try and blame the evils of the world on vast right-wing conspiracies against the ever-noble left, etc...  Oh when oh when will John Simkin finally step forward and admit his real role...

Pat is right to suggest that John McAdams and myself have similar objectives. We both want other people to share our view of the world. I can’t exactly say what McAdams’ view of the world is, although he definitely takes a more positive view of government agencies than I do.

My view is that there has been a giant conspiracy in operation throughout the western world since the early 19th century. It became necessary when mass communications made it possible for people to organize themselves into groups in order to demand more democratic societies. This posed a serious threat to the power elite in these different countries and they therefore conspired against those demanding democracy. In most cases these groups worked independently but in times of real crisis they have worked together. The controllers of newspapers played an important role in this conspiracy. Later, other forms of media became just as important. Sometimes reforms were allowed to take place. However, they only took place to enable the power elite to remain in control.

The most dangerous threat to the status quo was the Russian Revolution in 1917. There was a fear that these demands for equality would spread to all nations. Combined with the consequences of the First World War, the possibility of democracies in the west being restructured was very strong. It was now important for the state to develop intelligences agencies to counteract this historical development.

The disintegration of the Russian Revolution into a police state meant that the Russia would not be able to offer a good example for other people to follow.

For the rest of the 20th century the control of the mass media has been the best weapon of the power elite. In this way they have supported political parties that posed no threat to the status quo. In times of crisis, like in Italy in the 1920s and Germany and Spain in the 1930s, the power elite have been willing to support fascist movements. However, usually, the best option has been to support mildly reformist politicians and parties that pose no real threat to the status quo.

The only real threat to the power elite since the defeat of fascism is the possibility of the emergence of a charismatic leader that breaks out of the current party system. This includes both those on the left or the right. For example, a right-wing leader who manages to persuade a large number of people to abandon our flawed democratic system would create the danger of a civil war and the possibility of a real democratic revolution.

So far this has not happened. Neither on the right or left. I suppose our experience of Hitler makes us distrustful of dynamic charismatic leaders.

The nearest we have come to a charismatic leader is John F. Kennedy. Although elected as a right of centre politician in 1960, he became a new person after the Cuban Missile Crisis. He therefore posed a serious threat to the power elite in America, but ultimately, throughout the western world. Given time, it is possible that Kennedy would have turned out like other politicians. However, in 1963, he posed a real threat as it looked almost certain that he would win the 1964 election. This could have brought an end to the Cold War. If that happened the western world, without the distorted fear of communism, might have started thinking about out to create a more rational society. Therefore, I believe that the power elite had no option but to kill Kennedy.

The system was also threatened with the fall of communism in the late 1980s. It was therefore necessary to create new enemies that would insure that rational societies were not created. An important part of this strategy was to make sure the problems in the Middle East were not solved. This created a new threat, the Muslim Fundamentalist terrorist.

Over the last 20 years I have attempted to research the role that intelligence agencies have played in the giant conspiracy that has involved creating an “external” and “internal” enemy. My website and forum are attempts to reveal these interlocking conspiracies. As you can see, my scope is wider than John McAdams. After all, he only appears interested in the JFK assassination.

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

Over the last 20 years I have attempted to research the role that intelligence agencies have played in the giant conspiracy that has involved creating an “external” and “internal” enemy.

What a world view! There was no Communist conspiracy; it was merely a conspiracy of the CIA to create a Communist conspiracy where one did not exist.

Please, John, tell me I am misinterpreting what you say. I pray that I am!

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

The system was also threatened with the fall of communism in the late 1980s. It was therefore necessary to create new enemies that would insure that rational societies were not created. An important part of this strategy was to make sure the problems in the Middle East were not solved. This created a new threat, the Muslim Fundamentalist terrorist. [Emphasis supplied/]

There was a popular movie in America a year ago called "The Incredibles". I think perhaps John's secret identity is Mr. Incredible since this post stretches credulity about as far as it can go.

The efforts of American presidents starting with Nixon and continuing with Carter, to some extent Bush, and certainly Clinton to solve the problems in the Middle East, and all that shuttle diplomacy and all those meetings at Camp David never happened, I guess. Operation Mockingbird just invented all of those efforts at solving the problems in the Middle East.

I'll tell you something John: any of the presidents I mentioned spent a lot more time trying to create peace in the Mideast than JFK spent trying to create peace with Cuba!

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

John wrote:

Over the last 20 years I have attempted to research the role that intelligence agencies have played in the giant conspiracy that has involved creating an “external” and “internal” enemy.

What a world view!  There was no Communist conspiracy; it was merely a conspiracy of the CIA to create a Communist conspiracy where one did not exist.

It is surely fair to say that CIA, the Pentagon and FBI all played a crucial part in over-estimating the extent and nature of the threat for a simple reason: it was good for their own interests, and swelled the coffers of the private industrialists who provided CIA with commercial cover around the globe. 

You no doubt recall useful terms such as "domino theory" [did the "fall" of Vietnam lead to Communist takeovers throughout Asia?], "missile gap" [did the Soviets ever have such missile superiority?], the hysterical nonsense pumped up your collective jumper by the Gehlen types [who never did relay any accurate intelligence], etc.  More recently, CIA similarily told the President that WMD in Iraq was a "slam dunk" and all were roundly suckered by the likes of Chalabi, a fugitive felon who hadn't set foot in Iraq for nigh on 40 years.  These are the same fools whom you would have had us trust to assess the "Communist threat?"

With intelligence, as in JFK-related computer cartoon animation, the old adage "garbage in/garbage out" should be borne in mind.  The motives of those who procure and "analyze" that intelligence should never be considered distinctly separate from their output, for that way lies madness.  This is precisely why the House and Senate play a pivotal role in maintaining a civilian oversight of intelligence and military functions.  Without it, can you imagine the US foreign policy that would have been wrought?  A world constructed in the designs of Dulles, LeMay, et al? 

As for how astute your beloved CIA turned out to be, former Representative and current felon James Trafficante [i thought [b]that[/b] name might get your attention, Tim] nailed it perfectly when he stated on the floor of the House that CIA had been caught napping over the fall of The Wall, and the disintegration of the Soviet Union.  "They didn't predict this.  They learned about it from CNN, just like the rest of us." [Or words to that effect.]

Please, John, tell me I am misinterpreting what you say.  I pray that I am!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Michael Clark]

I found this thread to be a grounding, or centering, force for me.