Jump to content
The Education Forum

Why did/do the Kennedys remain silent?


John Dolva
 Share

Recommended Posts

Joe Kennedy was a bootlegger involved with Meyer Lansky and the Bronfman gang. He got the distribution rights to Dewars, Haig, etc. from the British. His acquisition of RKO studios also came from British aristocracy. Then the old boy married his daughter into the "Cecil" family. You can't find a more oligarchical clan then the Cecil's.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,850493,00.html

What evidence do you have other that your furhrer's or elderly mobsters's declarations that Kennedy was a bootlegger or that the "British aristocracy" financed "his acquisition of RKO studios" ?

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 229
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Don posted the question asking what the odds were that Joe Kennedy would lose four of his children to untimely deaths. What are the odds, Don, that all of these details are only irrelevant coincidences?

This is silly there is no evidence of foul play in Joe Jr.'s and Kathleen's deaths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe Kennedy was a bootlegger involved with Meyer Lansky and the Bronfman gang. He got the distribution rights to Dewars, Haig, etc. from the British. His acquisition of RKO studios also came from British aristocracy. Then the old boy married his daughter into the "Cecil" family. You can't find a more oligarchical clan then the Cecil's.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,850493,00.html

What evidence do you have other that your furhrer's or elderly mobsters's declarations that Kennedy was a bootlegger or that the "British aristocracy" financed "his acquisition of RKO studios" ?

The same guy that told me your old man effectively ended his career at RJ Reynolds when he stole all the incriminating files and ran them up to New York law firm offices for safe keeping.

Do you think he was telling me the truth?

Edited by Terry Mauro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terry,

Joe Kennedy was not a "nazi." He was against America entering WWII, which made him anathema to FDR and Churchill, and led to his ouster as Ambassador to England. He had a very personal motive in doing so, as he publicly acknowledged; he didn't want to sacrifice young American men for England, and that included his own prime age sons Joe, Jr. and Jack. At that time, the vast majority of Americans were against our entrance into the war against Germany, which England desperately desired. I don't believe they were "nazis" for holding that view.

JFK and RFK had to, by necessity, work with many people they were ideologically opposed to. JFK's administration was typical of any president's; filled to the core with fellow Ivy Leaguers and members of the CFR. The key difference, however, was that his only really trusted aide was his brother Bobby. Many of us here think that advisors like McGeorge Bundy knew JFK was going to be assassinated. I'm sure the White House was filled with those who whispered behind his (and Bobby's) backs all the time, and I'm just as certain the Kennedy brothers spent quite a bit of time bashing the same people in their private conversations. Still, politics requires that enemies smile and pose next to each other, slap each other on the back and pretend to be friendly. There is also little question, in my mind, that many of the blue bloods in the establishment distrusted the Kennedys simply because they were Catholic.

I question RFK's public acceptance of the bogus official fairy tale, but he clearly was working out his own private plan to eventually expose the conspirators, and the fact he was assassinated himself, when he was on the cusp of being in a position to do that, really proves that, imho. While Maria Shriver may be a part of the mainstream media, she is not married to a "nazi." Arnold's dad was like all German youth of his generation, but he held no power and Arnold certainly can't be held responsible for any of that. If you want to understand how much the media hates the notion of any Kennedy being elected to public office again, consider that, when Caroline was a shoo-in to be named Senator from New York a few years back, the powers that be rose up against her in a solid front. How else do you explain the articles which appeared everywhere, following her awkward interview, in which the transcript was published, complete with all her "uhs" and "you knows" intact? Kind of like when CBS aired that hit piece on Ted Kennedy back in 1980, after he decided to challenge Carter, and made certain to air all his "ers" and "uhs" for the audience to enjoy.

I have no real problem with Larouche- I think he provides food for thought and I even voted for him for president once (I think back in either '84 or '88), when there was no other real alternative to the republicrats. But I really think you're letting his philosophy take on way too much importance; you have a keen mind and great insight, and I've always respected your opinions, but they've clearly shifted now to where I don't know where you're coming from half the time. At this point, WHO do you think was responsible for the assassination of JFK?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terry,

Joe Kennedy was not a "nazi." He was against America entering WWII, which made him anathema to FDR and Churchill, and led to his ouster as Ambassador to England. He had a very personal motive in doing so, as he publicly acknowledged; he didn't want to sacrifice young American men for England, and that included his own prime age sons Joe, Jr. and Jack. At that time, the vast majority of Americans were against our entrance into the war against Germany, which England desperately desired. I don't believe they were "nazis" for holding that view.

JFK and RFK had to, by necessity, work with many people they were ideologically opposed to. JFK's administration was typical of any president's; filled to the core with fellow Ivy Leaguers and members of the CFR. The key difference, however, was that his only really trusted aide was his brother Bobby. Many of us here think that advisors like McGeorge Bundy knew JFK was going to be assassinated. I'm sure the White House was filled with those who whispered behind his (and Bobby's) backs all the time, and I'm just as certain the Kennedy brothers spent quite a bit of time bashing the same people in their private conversations. Still, politics requires that enemies smile and pose next to each other, slap each other on the back and pretend to be friendly. There is also little question, in my mind, that many of the blue bloods in the establishment distrusted the Kennedys simply because they were Catholic.

I question RFK's public acceptance of the bogus official fairy tale, but he clearly was working out his own private plan to eventually expose the conspirators, and the fact he was assassinated himself, when he was on the cusp of being in a position to do that, really proves that, imho. While Maria Shriver may be a part of the mainstream media, she is not married to a "nazi." Arnold's dad was like all German youth of his generation, but he held no power and Arnold certainly can't be held responsible for any of that. If you want to understand how much the media hates the notion of any Kennedy being elected to public office again, consider that, when Caroline was a shoo-in to be named Senator from New York a few years back, the powers that be rose up against her in a solid front. How else do you explain the articles which appeared everywhere, following her awkward interview, in which the transcript was published, complete with all her "uhs" and "you knows" intact? Kind of like when CBS aired that hit piece on Ted Kennedy back in 1980, after he decided to challenge Carter, and made certain to air all his "ers" and "uhs" for the audience to enjoy.

I have no real problem with Larouche- I think he provides food for thought and I even voted for him for president once (I think back in either '84 or '88), when there was no other real alternative to the republicrats. But I really think you're letting his philosophy take on way too much importance; you have a keen mind and great insight, and I've always respected your opinions, but they've clearly shifted now to where I don't know where you're coming from half the time. At this point, WHO do you think was responsible for the assassination of JFK?

Don,

You're wrong, Joe Kennedy was in total agreement with the Nazi's. Look at who he aligned himself with during his stint as Ambassador to the Court of St. James. He aligned himself with all the British backers of Hitler. Joe Kennedy was a personal friend of Herman Goering. They were reports that Jews would come to Kennedy asking for help for relatives being put to death by the Nazi's and he would tell them "I'll do nothing for you" and sent them packing.

Arnold Schwarzenegger was quoted many times saying Hitler was a "great man". He believed that you need a "strong man" to rule the population. His father was part of the Waffen SS. He is now part of the Kennedy clan :D

Keep in mind the Kennedy clan helped pull off the California "recall" that effectively ran a "coup" against Gray Davis and allowed Arnold to assume his role as "strong man" of a collapsing California. The entire "recall" scam was run by financial elites like Lord Jacob Rothschild.

http://images.scotsman.com/2002/09/25/2509ARNB.JPG

Why do you think there is a need for an Adolph Hitler? The financiers want a "strong man" who has the ability and desire to run massive "austerity" against the population. These "strong men" always seem to appear on the scene during times of financial and economic collapse.

Back in 2004/2005 you had another Kennedy inlaw revealed in the media as an FBI informant. He was helping the FBI to run a scam on former President Clinton and his wife then NY Senator Hillary Clinton.

Glad you voted for Lyndon.

The apparatus used to assassinate JFK along with the attempts on the life of Charles De Gaulle, the murders of Enrico Mattei, RFK, MLK and Jimmy Hoffa was Permindex/ INTERTEL.

George Shutlz wife Charlotte (The same George Schultz that convinced President Richard Nixon to cancel the FDR Bretton Woods System on August 15, 1971 is an intregal part of the Governor and First Lady's administration. George Shultz followed up the death of the Bretton Woods system with severe austerity called Phase I and II of Nixon's "freeze" on wages, prices etc. Exactly the kind of thing Hitler did for the bankers like Hlajmar Schacht) is part of the current administration.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger today appointed Charlotte Mailliard Shultz to be the chief of protocol for the State of California. Shultz will head the Governor's Office of Protocol which will work in conjunction with the Governor and First Lady Maria Shriver to host foreign dignitaries, promote international trade and business, and cross-cultural understanding.

http://gov.ca.gov/press-release/3180/

Edited by Terry Mauro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe Kennedy was a bootlegger involved with Meyer Lansky and the Bronfman gang. He got the distribution rights to Dewars, Haig, etc. from the British. His acquisition of RKO studios also came from British aristocracy. Then the old boy married his daughter into the "Cecil" family. You can't find a more oligarchical clan then the Cecil's.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,850493,00.html

What evidence do you have other that your furhrer's or elderly mobsters's declarations that Kennedy was a bootlegger or that the "British aristocracy" financed "his acquisition of RKO studios" ?

The same guy that told me your old man effectively ended his career at RJ Reynolds when he stole all the incriminating files and ran them up to New York law firm offices for safe keeping.

Do you think he was telling me the truth?

In other words you don't have any valid evidence but rather than admit it you slip in an obnoxios attack against my dad. He "ended his career at RJ Reynolds" with his retirement after working there for 30 years. Got evidence he stole files or is that just another vile attempt at libel?

Once again, got any evidence against Joe Sr. not from LaDouche or statements made by mobsters decades after the fact?

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to understand how much the media hates the notion of any Kennedy being elected to public office again, consider that, when Caroline was a shoo-in to be named Senator from New York a few years back, the powers that be rose up against her in a solid front. How else do you explain the articles which appeared everywhere, following her awkward interview, in which the transcript was published, complete with all her "uhs" and "you knows" intact? Kind of like when CBS aired that hit piece on Ted Kennedy back in 1980, after he decided to challenge Carter, and made certain to air all his "ers" and "uhs" for the audience to enjoy.

It wans't just the MSM, it was also the blogosphere which rose up against Caroline. This is what convinced me that the blogosphere was going to be little different than the MSM. The following column really ticked off Jane Hamsher. As it shoudl have.

http://www.ctka.net/2009/hamsher.html

Perhaps it was the fact she had absolutely no qualifications other than her pedigree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

If you want to understand how much the media hates the notion of any Kennedy being elected to public office again, consider that, when Caroline was a shoo-in to be named Senator from New York a few years back, the powers that be rose up against her in a solid front. How else do you explain the articles which appeared everywhere, following her awkward interview, in which the transcript was published, complete with all her "uhs" and "you knows" intact? Kind of like when CBS aired that hit piece on Ted Kennedy back in 1980, after he decided to challenge Carter, and made certain to air all his "ers" and "uhs" for the audience to enjoy.

It wans't just the MSM, it was also the blogosphere which rose up against Caroline. This is what convinced me that the blogosphere was going to be little different than the MSM. The following column really ticked off Jane Hamsher. As it shoudl have.

http://www.ctka.net/2009/hamsher.html

That is an excellent column, Jim. Great info about JFK not being on the side of the colonialists; most do NOT know this. A lot of the "young" folks don't know much about John Kennedy. I wonder when the MSM will start talking honestly about the JFK assassination. Just last night I heard Chris Matthews on Hardball pushing the Big Lie about Lee Harvey Oswald being the lone nut killer of John Kennedy. [btw, Chris Matthews a friend of Richard Haass, head of CFR, and Haass' wife is an editor of Chris Matthews' book ...]

A lot of the "young folks" don't know much about Lyndon Johnson either. They think he was some "great" man who gave black folks civil rights in 1964-1965 and was some sort of innocent bystander in the JFK assassination and cover up. They need to read LBJ: Mastermind of JFK's Assassination by Phillip Nelson: http://www.lbj-themastermind.com/ .

This was after Lyndon Johnson had done practically nothing for civil rights under JFK and was sabotaging the Kennedy's policy agenda on all fronts, domestic and foreign.

Then, in my opinion, Lyndon Johnson and the CIA (and the shadow government) murdered John Kennedy. And the first thing Lyndon Johnson did, to pacify the Left who was so deeply suspicious of his possible role in the JFK assassination, was to come out for civil rights out of the blue.

Edited by Robert Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perspective on an issue raised: Much of FDR's purpose and method in replacing Joe Kennedy as ambassador was to prevent aiding the British-German alliance that others in England sought as well. Joe's feet were planted in both camps - in this, he was of a mind with Hitler, who avoided a complete slaughter and shaming of the British army at Dunkirk, and later resisted invading England by land. Of a mind, yet not a Nazi.

The larger upshot for Britain and America - contra to the wishes of ally Winston Churchill - would be the dismantling of the Empire after the war, and the American appropriation of the bankrupt island's European and Balkan military installations in the name of anti-communism, plus the co-option of the British intelligence services' files and spy networks, giving America an intel power in Europe and the east that the US could not have gotten without Britain mortgaging it to the US for war assistance.

I believe that John Kennedy absorbed the world need for national self-determination - expressed a second time after a second world war, as it had been at Versailles, 1919. I believe he was uncomfortable with the subversion of that need in the Cold War struggle of alliances among the "developing nations" of Africa, South America, the Caribbean - subversion through the US's desire for strategic hegemony. Yet he had to work with the materials of that world, and among its temptations.

Did JFK and RFK accept from the beginning the possibility that Diem and Nhu, if unable to control their own dissident peoples in the artificially created South Vietnam, might have to be removed by coup? Was mere regret at failing to preserve their lives excuse enough? Did JFK and RFK accept that Castro might be removed by assassination through plans already laid under Eisenhower, and acquiesce - or at times actively advance this potentiality? These compromises are far more interesting and germane than their sex lives. If Joe Kennedy's character and alliances (apart from his money) were at all an influence upon putting the brothers into power, into the tentative approval of the mob and of the highest American economic-political movers, then that character and those alliances ought to be examined, apart from his common flaws.

I see Kennedy as a kind of Churchill of his age - a principled romantic, an auto-didact beyond his school experiences, and a pragmatist (rather more pragmatic that Churchill, by my lights), and so a maker of the world at odds with its other makers, who judged him recklessly uncooperative. If the Empire had to be dismantled, then Churchill had to go, Labour Party vote or no. If Vietnam had to come, then too Kennedy must depart.

After the American Civil War, with a growing number of legislators corruptly wedded to the proto-military-industrial complex of the coming Gilded Age, and also pledged to the hard-hearted Indian removal, as many men of influence felt the same about Lincoln as later men of their kind felt about Churchill and Kennedy.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 bits fwiw, It was important to have the british working class on a war footing which means a state of war which means significant curtailments of freedom. Hitlers aim, like Napoleon and others was the possession of the huge wealth of the Soviet landmass. This had been taken control of by the reds. The whites had failed. Hitler enjoyed a closeness with numerous western capitalists who shared with him his ultimate goal as described in Mein Kamph, the complete destruction of Bolchevism. The CCCP enjoyed wide support amongst the western working class, it took a full frontal assault on the left in the US over many decades to eradicate this empathy. Once on a war footing, and armies marshalled, the western allies prepared for the worst. That Hitler would fail. Only when it became obvious, after Leningrad, and the pondersous march of the soviets towards Berlin had begun did the Western allies attack in Normandy. Then, as later in the pacific arena, it became a matter of demarcation.

The US almost completely financed the French in Indo China and later assumed full control and elements that were the precursor to op phoenix were already in place and in action in '62.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John - and then we get into the larger questions of who bankrolled both Lenin and Hitler, and for what goals? I have a feeling that we went to Korea and Indochina on the same momentum, both "necessary" after losing China to isolationist feelings in the US after VJ-Day.

Do you have any idea why Nelson Rockefeller advocated use of nukes in Vietnam after Dien Bien Phu or at any time after? Seems contrary to the long-term land war plan.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose he saw a window of opportunity, or on a larger scale sent a message of sorts.

The Bolchevics had a special commodity acquisition unit in action. I suppose you could call them bank robbers. Hitler was bankrolled by people like Ford and Bush and many other western industrialists.

Could you elaborate on : ''I have a feeling that we went to Korea and Indochina on the same momentum, both "necessary" after losing China to isolationist feelings in the US after VJ-Day.'' please?

edit typo

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you elaborate on : ''I have a feeling that we went to Korea and Indochina on the same momentum, both "necessary" after losing China to isolationist feelings in the US after VJ-Day.'' please?

"Necessary" - The wars in Korea and Vietnam were reactions against losing China through American foreign policy's acquiescing to public horror of further war after the defeat of Japan - plus the disruption of FDR out, Truman in. And we'd been angling toward China since Perry in Japan, the missionary influx and the Boxer Rebellion putdown, the Philippines revolt, etc.

"Momentum" - I'm thinking of Fletcher Prouty's story told in JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and The Plot To Assassinate John F. Kennedy, and repeated by Prouty elsewhere, of his witnessing enormous arms and materiel caches in post-war Japan earmarked not for destruction or arsenal storage, but for shipment to Korea and Vietnam. I always keep a dish of salt handy when considering Prouty, but I was impressed by the Vietnam (non-assaassination) parts of the book, and intend to read and listen to more Prouty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to understand how much the media hates the notion of any Kennedy being elected to public office again, consider that, when Caroline was a shoo-in to be named Senator from New York a few years back, the powers that be rose up against her in a solid front. How else do you explain the articles which appeared everywhere, following her awkward interview, in which the transcript was published, complete with all her "uhs" and "you knows" intact? Kind of like when CBS aired that hit piece on Ted Kennedy back in 1980, after he decided to challenge Carter, and made certain to air all his "ers" and "uhs" for the audience to enjoy.

It wans't just the MSM, it was also the blogosphere which rose up against Caroline. This is what convinced me that the blogosphere was going to be little different than the MSM. The following column really ticked off Jane Hamsher. As it shoudl have.

http://www.ctka.net/2009/hamsher.html

Perhaps it was the fact she had absolutely no qualifications other than her pedigree.

I agree with you, Len.

I have grown weary of political dynasties like the Kennedys, the Bushes, the Rockefellers and the Clintons.

Their progeny aren't entitled to elective office as a matter of birthright - or at least they shouldn't be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so you aren't referring to a reemergence of The Isolationists of pre US entering the war, their influence seemed to completely disintegrate after Pearl Harbour. They pushed a line that the asiatic race should be included in the Ubermenchen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...