Jump to content
The Education Forum

Why Lies Aimed At the "Left" about JFK are Far and Away The Most Important Lies


Recommended Posts

a typo. w above s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

To summarize, I think that the Warren Commission made a special point to blame the left-wing for the assassination of JFK, specifically so that they could protect the right-wing in Dallas.

That is, the Warren Commission knew very well that Oswald had 'accomplices' because they could easily identify those 'accomplices'. They knew from the beginning who they were -- they were the extreme right-wing in Dallas, starting with ex-General Edwin Walker, IMHO, and fanning out to his immediate associates (Larrie Schmidt, H.L. Hunt, Robert Morris, Robert Allen Surrey, James Hosty, the Minutemen, the JBS and perhaps Billy James Hargis and George Lincoln Rockwell).

The primary effort of the Warren Commission, IMHO, was to blame the left-wing, when they knew very well that the right-wing was to blame. At the very least, as Sylvia Meagher wrote, the Warren Commission members (like the FBI) were "accomplices after the fact."

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK. You're on the right track. I suggest a couple of matters that, after putting down the textbook, are important to consider in order to be able to stand back with a fully opened mind: one needs to necessarily look at JFK's actions on Civil rights that as a consequence of actions in these spheres, ....sure going back to Ole Miss.

That's when it went underground.

It started to emerge in the new year when JFK made some highly significant statements of intent that led unerringly through the simultaneous Civil Rights Speech in mid '63. (about the time J.E. Day 'resigned) and the assassination of Medgar Evers (an excellent comparative study) through the hysterical Southern Response to JFK's (NOT LBJ's) Civil Rights Bill (of 1963) and make minor adjustments in recognition of the true name of the Report and its Volumes, all minor adjustments..Friends and Enemies shift and dots connect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Civil Rights had tremendous implications for the price of US labor. That's why LBJ started NAFTA. Now who would you expect to make this connection, the left or the right? That is why you need special liars crafted just for the left. To create a firewall between liberal and left so liberals would stop playing offense in this new price-of-labor environment that had been altered by Civil Rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK. You're on the right track. I suggest a couple of matters that, after putting down the textbook, are important to consider in order to be able to stand back with a fully opened mind: one needs to necessarily look at JFK's actions on Civil rights that as a consequence of actions in these spheres, ....sure going back to Ole Miss.

That's when it went underground.

It started to emerge in the new year when JFK made some highly significant statements of intent that led unerringly through the simultaneous Civil Rights Speech in mid '63. (about the time J.E. Day 'resigned) and the assassination of Medgar Evers (an excellent comparative study) through the hysterical Southern Response to JFK's (NOT LBJ's) Civil Rights Bill (of 1963) and make minor adjustments in recognition of the true name of the Report and its Volumes, all minor adjustments..Friends and Enemies shift and dots connect.

John, I fully agree that the murder of Medgar Evers is somehow related to all this. Ex-General Edwin Walker helped instigate the riots at Ole Miss on 30 September 1962 on behalf of Governor Ross Barnett of Mississippi, over the policy of keeping Ole Miss racially segregated.

The black applicant, James Meredith, had a black political advisor named Medgar Evers. Obviously, Barnett and Walker lost their bid to keep Ole Miss racially segregated, which means Meredith and Evers were the winners. However, in June of 1963, Byron De La Beckwith (according to Mississippi court records) shot Medgar Evers in the back and killed him; this was in front of Evers' own doorstep in Mississippi. De La Beckwith was arrested and went on trial shortly afterwards.

In February, 1964, as the Warren Commission was starting up, Byron De La Beckwith finally went to trial for the murder of Medgar Evers. In the courtroom, Governor Ross Barnett walked up to De La Beckwith and publicly shook his hand for the press to photograph. This was a sign of support. The very next day, ex-General Edwin Walker walked into the same courtroom and also shook hands with Byron De La Beckwith. This was in broad daylight for all to see and photograph if desired.

As history would have it, De La Beckwith was not found guilty in that trial -- he went home a free man. (It would be another 30 years before a jury would finally convict De La Beckwith of that murder.)

The extreme right-wing in the USA in 1963 believed that the US Civil Rights movement was a Communist plot. They truly believed this; they were so paranoid. Therefore, they were capable of any crime. That seems obvious today.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

RFK flew to Medgar's brother Charles side and they became and stayed friends. Charles was with RFK when he was shot. Stick that in the mix and you gotta see things more as a Civil Rights thing.

Of course you should expect to find Communists there. That's what Communism is all about. So let's assume you get that, a whole new, imo more objective, way.

Medgar spent the night watching JFK's Civil Rights speech that night. Friends described him as unusually disturbed at a point of the night. I think he had received some worrisome, not friendly, message.

The bit about comparative study was really about the legal process reported in a lot of detail by news articles of the time at the MSC site. Very similar. Telescopic Rifle ditched at the scene. et.c. except this one survived to go to trial. That in itself is telling I suppose. Anyway, the FBI etc were very involved and there was nothing the prosecution could do to avoid the obvious outcome even though his guilt and that of numerous accomplices stretching right up to the top was just as obvious (ditto the later M3).(Mi Lai, ... etc ad infinitum)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently read an article that makes this point (topic). It is on the Fourth International web site. It's

about a current event many are probably aware of. Here's a different way to look at it.

title.png logo.png

Published by the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI)

New York Times lauds Supreme Court’s “exquisite delicacy” in health care decision

By Joseph Kishore

30 June 2012

For anyone seeking to follow American politics, there is a certain professional obligation to read the New York Times, the “newspaper of record.” This obligation has less to do with the information that can be gleaned from its pages than the insight its commentaries and articles provide into the thinking of the Democratic Party milieu for which the Times speaks.

The Times specializes in serving up the lying hypocrisy of the liberal bourgeois establishment, which is then echoed by the various “left” defenders of the Democratic Party. As such, one of the newspaper’s primary tasks is to lend a progressive veneer to the right-wing policies of the Obama administration.

The response of the Times to Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling on Obama’s health care program is a typical, although particularly disgusting and absurd, example of its propaganda in support of the administration. A few articles are worth singling out.

In “Roberts Shows Deft Hand as Swing Vote on Health Care,” which appeared under the category of “news analysis,” the newspaper’sSupreme Court correspondentAdam Liptak heaps praise on Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the deciding opinion of the Court on the most significant element of Obama’s bill, the individual mandate to purchase insurance from private corporations.

Referring to the statement of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. that determining the constitutionality of a law is “the gravest and most delicate duty” of the Supreme Court, Liptak declares: “In finding a way to uphold President Obama’s health care overhaul law on Thursday, Chief Justice Roberts performed the task with exquisite delicacy.”

Liptak repeated a few paragraphs down that “the chief justice’s defining and delicate role in upholding the health care law will always be associated with his tenure.”

What is the content of Roberts’ “exquisitely delicate” ruling? It is in fact politically motivated hack work, a classic example of deciding the desired outcome first and constructing a somewhat tortured legal argument to support it. In this case, Roberts sought to uphold the health care reform law, which the predominant faction of the ruling class wants to maintain, while at the same time advancing right-wing interpretations of the Constitution that can be used to undermine existing corporate regulations.

It is this that accounts for the “verbal wizardry,” in the words of Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent, of Roberts’ ruling. Roberts sided with Scalia and the other extreme right-wing justices in declaring that the individual mandate—which penalizes individuals for not purchasing private insurance—was not valid under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. There has been a longstanding right-wing campaign against the Commerce Clause, which has been used as the constitutional basis for much of the New Deal and post-war corporate regulations and social reform measures. Roberts’ ruling introduces a number of specious arguments to call into question its broader legal interpretation.

While establishing this thoroughly right-wing precedent, Roberts was nevertheless determined to uphold the law itself. The “reform” is part of a coordinated effort to cut health care costs for governments and corporations, and shift these costs onto the backs of individuals.

Thus we have the conclusion that the law is constitutional on the basis of the government’s ability to tax. Roberts practically pulled this argument out of thin air, as the Obama administration has insisted, and indeed continues to insist after the ruling, that the penalty for not buying health insurance is not a tax.

In fact, to argue that the penalty is a tax, Roberts had to contradict his own ruling. In order to justify hearing the case, Roberts had to rule that the penalty is not a tax, since according to the Anti-Injunction Act, an individual cannot bring suit against a tax until after it has been paid—and the health care mandate does not go into effect until 2014. So the mandate is a tax and is not a tax in the same ruling.

If Roberts is exquisitely delicate, Obama is “historic,” also according to the Times. The passage and upholding of Obama’s health care reform leaves intact Obama’s “hopes of joining the ranks of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson and Ronald Reagan as presidents who fundamentally altered the course of the country,” writes Mark Landler under the headline, “A Vindication, With a Legacy Still Unwritten.”

The Supreme Court decision preserves “Mr. Obama’s status as the president who did more to expand the nation’s safety net than any since Johnson. It preserves a bill intended to push back against rapidly rising income inequality.”

A number of historians are brought in to argue this case, including Douglas G. Brinkley, who asserts that the health care overhaul is “the cornerstone of what could turn out to be one of the most extraordinary two-term presidencies in American history.”

Obama’s presidency has been about establishing “a view of government as a force for good, a great leveler and a protector of the middle class,” Landler continues. As for the challenge to the health care law, this is likened to the court challenges to Roosevelt’s New Deal in the early 1930s. “The lesson for this president, said David M. Kennedy, a historian at Stanford, is to forge a coalition robust enough to change the political landscape. Roosevelt was elected to a second term in a landslide in 1936, cementing the New Deal.”

Reality and history are placed on their heads. Obama’s health care law has nothing in common with the social reforms of the 1930s (including Social Security and major public works programs), or the Great Society reforms of the 1960s (including Medicare and Medicaid). In fact, it is part of a campaign to undermine and eliminate these social programs.

Led by Obama, the ruling class has responded to the economic crisis by slashing hundreds of billions from health care programs at the state and federal level—including a $500 billion cut in Medicare included in the health care law. To the extent that federal health care programs exist, they will provide the most minimal care. To this end, the Democratic administration, in close cooperation with the Times, has launched a campaign against “unnecessary” tests and procedures. This campaign will escalate now that the law has been upheld.

At the same time, corporations are cutting or eliminating their own health care programs, as part of a general attack on wages and benefits. Again, this has been encouraged by the Obama administration—including through the forced bankruptcy of the auto companies. The health care bill includes a special tax on health care plans that provide better coverage (disparaged as “Cadillac” plans), explicitly intended to encourage companies to eliminate them.

The American people—or at least all those who can’t afford to pay for the best coverage—will be left to the mercy of private insurance companies. The entire content of the health care “reform” bill is to encourage this process. It is not a significant reform, but part of a giant step backwards in health care. Again, it is telling that in the same decision, Chief Justice Roberts both upholds Obama’s law and calls into question the constitutional basis of much of the New Deal—the expansive reading of the Commerce Clause.

The Times—and the wealthy liberal milieu for which it speaks—is entirely in favor of this attack on the working class. This, combined with their increasingly desperate efforts to maintain the political stranglehold of the Democratic Party, accounts for the nauseating mendacity of its coverage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently read an article that makes this point (topic). It is on the Fourth International web site. It's

about a current event many are probably aware of. Here's a different way to look at it.

<snip>

John, the Fourth International is too extreme for my taste -- they portray President Obama as right-wing! IMHO, the extreme left-wing has given liberal policies a bad reputation, and that has delayed progress. Marx was the first extremist -- and IMHO without his sensationalist extremism (e.g. his Communist Manifesto) the great liberal causes would have made tremendous progress in the 19th and 20th century.

Instead, most political energy of the 20th century seems to have been wasted on Marx's extremism and on the extreme reaction to it, which has spawned the worst monsters of the modern world, starting with Hitler.

IMHO, President Obama is under tremendous pressure from the radical right-wing that cannot wait for Obama to disappear. Yet without Obama the most reactionary oligarchy in US history will probably win the White House. Once again -- the extreme left-wing is not helping, IMHO.

Now - does this advance our understanding of the JFK assassination 49 years ago? Only marginally, I suspect. The clash between the extreme left and the extreme right in 1963 caused a climate so dangerous that reactionary forces could act with impunity in Dallas -- and never see prosecution.

I personally find it amazing that although ex-General Edwin Walker's name was mentioned over 700 times in the Warren Commission volumes, Walker was not (to my knowledge) mentioned even once in the HSCA Hearings. Nor was Walker even mentioned in Oliver Stone's movie, JFK.

People are forgetting history -- we are forgetting about one of the most important right-wing demogogues. I think we should focus on that.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

.......

John, the Fourth International is too extreme for my taste -- they portray President Obama as right-wing!

People are forgetting history -- we are forgetting about one of the most important right-wing demogogues. I think we should focus on that.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul, if you are not at least open to the idea that Obama is a right wing extremist if appraised by what he has primarily, actually practiced and accomplished compared to Dwight Eisenhower in social, foreign policy, and adherence to anything close to constitutional governance, and even more extreme than some of the worst extra-constitutional, foreign policy, Wall Street financier and banking accountability, respect for individual rights as practiced by his DOJ, DOD, CIA, NSA, DHS, FBI, to name even a few, Bush-Cheney excesses, then how can you hope to be equipped to meaningfully participate as much as you are, in the latter part of this thread?

If I take you at your word, aren't you talking of oranges while some of us are talking of rotten apples?

I hope you are troubled by the reality that Obama is probably the most deceptive president, vs. presidential campaigner, anyone alive has ever witnessed. Before Obama, Bush/Cheney were probably the worst we've been subjected to, but at least they did not pretend to be anything other than right wing neocons. Obama has taken the corruption and sell out of the constitution to a new level, and even the most resistant to the idea that we live under the political control of a one party system with two right wing branches, must reconsider their resistance.

The competition you write of Paul,

.....IMHO, President Obama is under tremendous pressure from the radical right-wing that cannot wait for Obama to disappear. Yet without Obama the most reactionary oligarchy in US history will probably win the White House. Once again -- the extreme left-wing is not helping, IMHO.....

...is in fact, the opposite of the political dynamic. The most powerful corporatists are indifferent to who wins the presidency in November. You are taken in by "the appearance of opposition where none actually exists". Obama has done nothing during his presidency to disappoint his most powerful sponsors. He still adequately fills their intended purpose, persuading near center right sheeple that he represents their interests and is "opposed" in some meaningful way to the corporatist militarist wing of the one party. Obama exists to keep the one party from being criticized, Paul.

Post one example of Obama deviating meaningfully from this right wing definition. Even the right wing oriented U.S. Chamber of Commerce did not take a stand against the ACA which SCOTUS Chief Roberts legitimized a few days ago. The insurance and pharma lobbyists wrote that bill, Paul.:

CORPORATISM

: the organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction

(I keep reposting these snippets from a 2007 oped in the NY Times because the core of my appraisal of the U.S. "system" is clearly described.)

http://www.nytimes.c....4.6900205.html

The peril of valuing celebrity over history

....Yet, speaking of history, this conjuring of the appearance of opposition where none actually exists has been mandated by the American political system since the onset of the Cold War......

.....A minimal acquaintance with history, including dissections of American culture already performed by both Sinclairs, would undermine our national complacency. Upton Sinclair, for example, showed the rapaciousness of capitalism, the vampire-like appetite with which it feeds on the blood of human beings. Even with "reforms" ("The Jungle" led to the establishment of the Food and Drug Administration), the profit-worshipping economy to this day eludes controls that would protect majorities of citizens in this country and across the world. Sinclair Lewis, for his part, showed how the simultaneously banalizing methods of capitalist enterprise (false advertising, consumerism, pieties of affluence, amoral bureaucracy) are exactly what that enterprise created to keep from being criticized. ......

http://www.villagevo...-great-shark/3/

Matt Taibbi, like many journalists, grew up idolizing Hunter S. Thompson. But Taibbi, unlike many journalists, got Hunter S. Thompson's job......

By Eric Sundermann Wednesday, Jun 27 2012

....There's a tremendous cynicism embedded in mainstream American politics right now, where people who are in Washington and live on Capitol Hill really don't think they have any obligation to be truly honest. They think that everything is a compromise. They've lost touch with what people actually want. And they really do want somebody who is idealistic.

That's how Obama seemed to win the last election.

Exactly. People have this image of him as somebody who had beliefs and, more than anything, stood for a certain kind of decency and intellectual sincerity, and it turned out that he mostly wasn't that. I think that's a lot of what prompted Occupy. That, and the continuing corruption and financial mess. But more than anything, it was that. Because a lot of those same people were out there in 2008, you see the same faces now.....

....What's been so disappointing about these guys is that they don't even try. It's one thing to fail, but they didn't particularly try very hard. Somebody like Obama who had such an incredible opportunity to be that person, and he wasn't him.

Does that fall more on Obama or the political climate?

Ah, well, it's probably both. But I just always think about things where people say, on the finance front, "Oh, he doesn't understand this material. He has to trust his advisors. So that's why he's doing this and that." On the other hand, he's a constitutional lawyer and, with the Guantanamo Bay stuff, the rendition policies, drone attacks, all those things, he knows the difference between what's legal and what's not legal, what's constitutional and what's not constitutional, and he never put up a fight about it and he expressly said he would when he was campaigning. It's not like, you know, he tried to fight the good fight and he couldn't overcome the bureaucracy in Washington. There just was never a fight. He never tried. That's got to be on him.

...... Edited by Tom Scully
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

If you are posting about the history of JFK v CIA in Vietnam, Laos, Washington DC, Brazil, Congo, Indonesia, China or USSR you are 15 times more likely to be censored by Democratic Underground or Huffington Post than if you post on a neutral, libertarian or other right wing site. This is not an accident. The fumbled football is only made available to those who will run with it.. in the wrong direction. Censorship that scrambles is a far more effective censorship than is blanket censorship.

The NET EFFECT of this sort of scrambleship is to have 75% of left liberals not even bothering to read more than one book if that on this period of history. It is a misdirectional forplay designed to prevent any interest among that particular audience for whom the assassination and JFK's policies would have the most significance.

Edited by Nathaniel Heidenheimer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was talking with a friend last night about the Vietnam War. I did not realize that China did not have a nuclear weapon at that time. We both agreed that probably the Vietnam War caused China to accelerate its development.

I tread lightly in your space because I am very impressed with the way you and several others are able to string words together in such an elegant way, even if I do not always agree with the points being made.

Edited by Mike Rago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for starting this thread, Nate. The "left" is primarily responsible for suppressing the truth about the JFK assassination. Prominent "radical" leftists such as I.F. Stone, like his later day peer Noam Chomsky, stubbornly maintained Oswald was the lone assassin. In researching my present book, I've been astounded at how almost all the counterculture leaders stayed away from the topic of the assassination, even during the Garrison investigation. What kind of "radicals" were they?

If Vietnam was the primary issue the "radicals" were protesting, then why didn't they grasp the significant changes that occurred in our policy there upon JFK's death? Even if they weren't aware of NSAMs 263 and 273, the contrast between the two administrations should have been obvious to them, especially when JFK's brother became a leading, anti-war presidential candidate. But then, no Kennedy family member dared to touch the subject, either.

Certainly, Carl Oglesby was one radical who devoted much attention to the JFK assassination. Sid Blumenthal was another. However, when Blumenthal became a member of the Clinton administration, he appears not to have made this an issue. While the '60s radicals lambasted LBJ, without factoring in the death of his predecessor, by the '90s any discussion of the Kennedys revolved around their supposed personal scandals.

The response to Oliver Stone's JFK showed us, once again, that the "left" doesn't want to see the assassination examined in any meaningful way. If you haven't done so, read JFK: The Book of the Film by Stone and Zachary Sklar. It documents the disdain that most of the "left," along with most of the "right," held for his movie. Chris Matthews is the most visible example in the mainstream media today, but he merely exemplifies how "liberal" Democrats view this issue in near unanimity.

It's a sobering thought, but there are probably more members of the John Birch Society and other far right groups that doubt the official story of the assassination than there are prominent "leftist" leaders. It's also sobering to consider how much more receptive the "liberal" establishment press was to the fanciful tales of Exner and co. than they were to any and all "conspiracy theorists." No one can say the press treats the Kennedys favorably any more.

We used to have lots of leftist civil libertarians. Now there are practically none who have a substantial public voice. The "left" in America has become a laughingstock of political correctness, of condescending to the special interest groups that form the basis for the Democratic party coalition. Most "liberals" now want to suppress the rights of others to speak their minds. They worship the police nearly as much as the "right" does, and they clearly have learned to love war.

Even the best of the "liberals" today, like Dennis Kucinich, don't ever broach this subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The so-called liberal left entered it's death throes in 1963 even before Kennedy's assassination

as explained in the 1990 manuscript/book CROSSTRAILS, chapter two, page 37. The Liberal,

Johnson resigned after one term as President as he could no longer serve the 'new masters'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for starting this thread, Nate. The "left" is primarily responsible for suppressing the truth about the JFK assassination. Prominent "radical" leftists such as I.F. Stone, like his later day peer Noam Chomsky, stubbornly maintained Oswald was the lone assassin. In researching my present book, I've been astounded at how almost all the counterculture leaders stayed away from the topic of the assassination, even during the Garrison investigation. What kind of "radicals" were they?

If Vietnam was the primary issue the "radicals" were protesting, then why didn't they grasp the significant changes that occurred in our policy there upon JFK's death? Even if they weren't aware of NSAMs 263 and 273, the contrast between the two administrations should have been obvious to them, especially when JFK's brother became a leading, anti-war presidential candidate. But then, no Kennedy family member dared to touch the subject, either.

Certainly, Carl Oglesby was one radical who devoted much attention to the JFK assassination. Sid Blumenthal was another. However, when Blumenthal became a member of the Clinton administration, he appears not to have made this an issue. While the '60s radicals lambasted LBJ, without factoring in the death of his predecessor, by the '90s any discussion of the Kennedys revolved around their supposed personal scandals.

The response to Oliver Stone's JFK showed us, once again, that the "left" doesn't want to see the assassination examined in any meaningful way. If you haven't done so, read JFK: The Book of the Film by Stone and Zachary Sklar. It documents the disdain that most of the "left," along with most of the "right," held for his movie. Chris Matthews is the most visible example in the mainstream media today, but he merely exemplifies how "liberal" Democrats view this issue in near unanimity.

It's a sobering thought, but there are probably more members of the John Birch Society and other far right groups that doubt the official story of the assassination than there are prominent "leftist" leaders. It's also sobering to consider how much more receptive the "liberal" establishment press was to the fanciful tales of Exner and co. than they were to any and all "conspiracy theorists." No one can say the press treats the Kennedys favorably any more.

We used to have lots of leftist civil libertarians. Now there are practically none who have a substantial public voice. The "left" in America has become a laughingstock of political correctness, of condescending to the special interest groups that form the basis for the Democratic party coalition. Most "liberals" now want to suppress the rights of others to speak their minds. They worship the police nearly as much as the "right" does, and they clearly have learned to love war.

Even the best of the "liberals" today, like Dennis Kucinich, don't ever broach this subject.

----

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don, You raise a number of key points an examples.

First, let me isolate one of them because I am not sure whether it is one of the key points of my argument (which could be wrong anyway).

Re specific points about 263 273 etc. re Vietnam, how much of the details about the very real, significant differences-- and also differences between the draft of 273 and its final version-- were available to the US public during the 1960's? Some yes, but very important documents revealing these differences were not released until much later. Now, one could go too far here, because certainly the 1,000 troop withdrawal had been discussed, but ambiguities about whether the US was winning or losing the war-- which were not real conditions for JFK's plans for getting out of Vietnam, but rather were only conditions for how he would market his plan during the upcoming election year until he could go full airwave in 1965 -- could definitely have been seized upon to manipulate public opinion into supporting The Official Continuity myth that was so pivotal in diverting the public, and especially the left [ notice that when I type diverting the left I do not use quotation marks around left, but I do when it comes to how "the left" is mediated, i.e. becomes aware of itself through its 3 and half magazines.]

And this gets me to my badly explained point, ifn I got one: just how difficult would it be --given the media topography of the 1960s, 70,80, 90s, and after 9/11 , and.... there are some very very different phases here... i.e. 70's limited hangout phase is very different-- but perhaps chronologically logical?-- phase from the 1992- right now phase of just mix jfk with flying saucers, Bill O' Reilly [just don't mention channel 6 in 1977, or maybe do because our readers won't know the difference because they are so.. sophisticated yeah thats it.. SOPHISTICATES!!...just how difficult would it be to splice and control the left, given these limited number of faucets for thirsty leftists to drink from?

Not very.

So if there is an uninsured point here, it is that the quotation marks around "leftists" are far more significant than the word inside. This is because of Cold War history and the CIA's awareness of just where the greatest threat to the MIC would logically come from, and their subsequent planning to control this left dissent and turn it into "left" McDissent.

So when we complain of "the left" and their blatant pig headed idiocy regarding the assassinations, it is ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL TO keep in mind that 1) it is this group that has had the highest percentage of disinfo added to their media diet about the assassination

2) it is this group that has had the most sophisticatedly targeted and specialized bs added to their media diet about the assassination

3) the disinfo added to the very inorganic media diet of the US "left" is not in the least left but is rightist, mostly -CIA lies with the expressed purpose of neutralizing the left on the area of JFK and RFK and their policies SO THAT THE NET EFFECT of this Officially Mediated """""leftism"""" is right when it really matters, i.e. dissuading those who would most naturally be interested in how the Vietnam war got so big, how genocide in Indonesia happened, how the economy was changed from industrial to finance capitalism etc from ever connecting these developments with the assassinations. Then , devoid of policy implications, it is a short step to Guru's shoulder shrugging "Who Cares?" and more funding from the Ford Foundation for Pacifier Radio Network.

Now at this point the logical question becomes "who the xxxx cares what those organic asswholistics think?" So often I share this sense of frustration. But then I remember: that cog dis I feel as The Last True Leftist [did you hear that Ford Foundation?] who dares brave the Slings and Arrows of the Licensed Crunchy is exactly the cog dis that is the true aim all CIA left gatekeeping of which Encounter Magazine is the prime example.

After botched Yoga and abscessed meditation, I shall return to enlighten you with why it matters lots and lots what "the left" reads and communicates about the assassination EVEN IF ONE IS NOT A "LEFTIST", A LEFTIST, A PINKO OR EVEN IF YOU ARE A FIFTY SHADED GRAYO. Ohmmmmalready.

Edited by Nathaniel Heidenheimer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The so-called liberal left entered it's death throes in 1963 even before Kennedy's assassination

as explained in the 1990 manuscript/book CROSSTRAILS, chapter two, page 37. The Liberal,

Johnson resigned after one term as President as he could no longer serve the 'new masters'.

Harry, this is close to my own perceptions. There have been left-leaning Presidents, i.e. Obama, Clinton, LBJ, JFK, before him FDR, and before him, Lincoln and before him, Jefferson. Still, despite a tendency to represent the interests of Labor by the 19th century Republicans and the 20th century Democrats, the USA has never had a LABOR PARTY. Perhaps this is what Tom Scully and John Dolva decry.

We approximate this with various mock-ups that vary reforms promised (but rarely provided). Yet beginning with George Bush Sr. and his self-proclaimed, "New World Order", the USA seems to have embarked on an international platform of Globalism -- not for the Workers of the World - but for the Investors of the World.

Gone are the days of industry Protectionism, as the days of a Global Labor Pool have befallen the USA Workers. That 'giant sucking sound' of jobs leaving the USA in the past three decades was PLANNED. As for the Investor class, it was that great conservative theorist, Adam Smith, who said that "the interest of the dealers is often opposed to the interests of the public." The interests of the majority is the modern political concern.

I realize that we are living in a world that is far removed from anything that a USA Labor Party might envision -- yet the closest we have today is the Obama vision of Universal Health Care. I also agree that this is far from a Labor Party vision, but the USA has never had a Labor Party, and there are no viable prospects for a USA Labor Party in the immediate future. So we must compromise.

To beat up a Democratic President because he falls short of the Labor Party ideal is merely to give power to the more reactionary Party. That remains my point. I firmly disagree that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans today.

To return to your point, Harry, your manuscript, CROSSROADS, gives the account of extreme right-wing reactionaries in 1963 plotting to assassinate JFK mainly because of his leftist policies. It wasn't only the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty that enraged the rightists, but the Civil Rights Movement that JFK began to espouse shortly before his assassination -- this was high on the reactionary hit-list.

Now, in your theory, Harry, based on your own eye-witness of events in Southern California in which ex-General Edwin Walker was in attendance, the John BIrch Society was the principal player. (That is, it was not the KKK and it was not the ANP - it was specifically the JBS).

In addition, your book suggests that there was an even older, more sinister movement behind the JBS. This is probably what you refer to in your post above.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
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...