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

[Paul Trejo]

...Now you might argue, why would the liberals, right and center care if the left think that JFK was, in essence a Cold War rightist ? Sometimes left opinion IS allowed to matter. If what they are typing confirms the belief that the right and establishment want the public to know then the Non-truth e.g. that JFK was JUST ANOTHER Cold Warrior will be cited by the right and corporate "Center" in such a way as to say "look even that leftist Chomsky says JFK was hugely responsible for Vietnam therefore etc...."

...

Nathaniel, I'll bypass your cryptic metaphor of horse and rider and stick to your cogent paragraph above.

If JFK was a leftist -- even a covert leftist -- then the ultra-right wing in the USA correctly perceived him for what he really was.

Insofar as JFK issued directives to bring American soldiers back from Vietnam by 1964, Chomsky must be regarded as mistaken -- although the ultra-left will not tolerate anything less than an immediate satisfaction of their policy demands. So perhaps Chomsky is attempting to position himself to the left of JFK -- that is how it appears to me.

In any case, insofar as JFK was leftist, then we should consider that any rightist group that consistently called JFK a Communist Traitor (i.e. the John BIrch Society) was always to some degree responsible for the climate of hate and violence against JFK.

Where there is smoke there is fire. We have a few theorists who are willing to dig into the JBS history -- but sadly very few.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 29, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Paul I am certainly not suggesting that JFK was "a leftist".

I think he was a liberal, but a real liberal, not {not a classical liberal, not a neo liberal not a liberal as the term is used today, which really means de facto far rightist... gee isn't it great how political terms are always cut with such surgical precision} ok if you want a model loosely say FDR between 1934-37. Of course this was a different historical context than those years.

To be a liberal-- and to be a president who refused to accept just being nominally in control of the very steroided National Security State when it was 13 years old and... kinda impulsive-- to be a liberal in that unique historical moment when the presidency was becoming either dashboard or engine and would have to make up its mind or have it brusquely removed-- was to rock the boat of the post War US government far more than any "leftist" might from any streetcurb, podium or editorial board.

The disinformationists want us to look only at the weight of the kids on the see saw. That is how they dismiss, and get people never to open that first or second book and they do it with group-identiy-centered magazines. We know that it is also kind of important where, on the see saw, they are sitting.

As to Chomsky positioning himself to the left of JFK, yes that is exactly what he is doing: key word POSITIONING. Of course the strategy is to play individual -judging, and take the question of the National Security State out of the picture, which goes with his ridiculous notion that said National Security Sate was cut and dried by 1950. Again, it cannot be overemphasized just how ironic and perverse he is when he writes to the "left" that the JFK assassination is unimportant because of its lack of structural importance. Nothing could be further than the truth. Nothing offers a cleared picture of the President becoming dashboard sans engine or dead. [Nixon was a gradual learner on this one.] Nothing is more relavent for all US politics right now in illuminating the complete irrelevance of party politics except as diversion and scrambling op.

However the biggest mistake we could make for in all of this is to cede the "left" to their paid pipers. To do that means the pipers have won, and the policy implications will forever be separated from the assassination itself. It will remain a crypt of trivial pursuit, as the narrators of state and big media have designed. However much we become frustrated with the mistatements of the left, we must remember that , in an ultra-right state like the US they are subject to the easiest kind of media manipulation, and all of the best lies have been aimed at them. We must not allow the wrong implications to be drawn from the assassination, because of our disgust with the media representations of the completely caged and gelded US left. Because that left is a fake-left created with rightward ends in mind.

That is why, as the 50th approaches , the misrepresentations of most widely published fake left must be addressed very directly.

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Gee I wonder how Democracy Now covered the Death of Arlen Spector? Which events in his career were seen as more magical: the Coke challenge or the Gravity challenged? This is a bigger deal than just the effects on DN listeners. DN listeners will have the reputation as the most informed cynics besides the Turkey this november. People will hate them but secretly listen to them when it comes to JFK's policies which come from Guru Noam. They will listen to them when disciples of the Noam say it is not worthwhile reading about the Assassination because JFK's policies were essentially LBJ's. This is pure BS, but it will be taken for the opinion of "the left" Then Bill O'Reilly will even use The Noam as a source on the only topic it is imaginable for him to source The Noam: JFK's Cold War policies. (see also NPR) For it will help set the parameters for what is seen as acceptable viewpoints for the entire discussion.

Want to know why we keep moving right?

Look """""left"""""" !

[Paul Trejo]

Gee I wonder how Democracy Now covered the Death of Arlen Spector? Which events in his career were seen as more magical: the Coke challenge or the Gravity challenge? ...

Nathaniel, Democracy Now covered the death of former Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter (who died last week at the age of 82) by recollecting his role in the early 1990s during the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Specter's role in those hearings was to harshly question Anita Hill, the law professor who accused Thomas of sexual harassment. Specter directly accused Hill of "perjury" and helped to push through Thomas’ controversial appointment.

Democracy Now modestly avoided recollecting Specter's role in the Warren Commission hearings, in which he radically promoted the "magic bullet theory" to defend J. Edgar Hoover's bizarre claim that only three bullets were fired at the JFK limo on 22 November 1963, where one bullet missed the vehicle, and one bullet killed JFK, and therefore only one bullet caused eight different wounds in JFK and Governor John Connally combined. Stubbornly insisting that one bullet could do this feat, and also leave shards inside John Connally's body, but still emerge from that ordeal in nearly pristine condition, Senator Arlen Specter proved to rational people that he was capable of going to any lengths to bootlick people in power.

Democracy Now did recollect that Specter, a longtime Republican, made headlines in 2009 when he crossed the aisle to join the Democratic Party, because his own Party could no longer stomach his brown nose. Receiving a cool reception from the Democrats, Specter finally retired from politics.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 26, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

The erasing of the magic bullet from the vocabulary of those under 45 is a bigger deal than most realize. Soon only rightists will know it , and then foundation funded decoupling machine will have been successful.

On the other hand more on the left are now seemingly more aware of left-gatekeeping. If you look at sites such as Common Dreams, which is almost exclusively inhabited by foundation funded quid pro quosters, the comments section about Gatekeepers lies , such as those of Chomsky, veers on 4 to one against the gatekeepers. So there has also been some progress. Four years ago it would have been four to one the other way around. I think there is growing awareness on the left that they have been manipulated.

PIVOTAL MOMENTS IN MANAGING THE US LEFT TO KEEP THE UNITED STATES RIGHT

1. Walter Lippmann the Straights New Republic 1918-20

2. The CIA's "left" magazine called Encounter Magazine keeping transatlantic liberals tastefully discreet during t

he formative years of the Cold War and Vietnam War (1950-1964)

3. Fred Cook, lead investigative Reporter for The Nation is sent to Finishing School by Cary McWilliams of the Nation as he naively attempts to write about the Warren Commission for the audience that was most necessary to keep tasteful with publications like the key Cold War liberal book The Paranoid Style of American Politics (published in January 1964) http://www.amazon.com/Nervous-Liberals-Brett-Gary/dp/023111365X

Edited October 29, 2012 by Nathaniel Heidenheimer

[William O'Neil]

Paul, You probably won't find any copies of 'Life Line' during that period. Most, if not all of these relevant collections were purged long before they became available to the "public". We have run into that in almost everey case, It's as if 1963 never happened.

Nathaniel, you are correct... it's teach them not to care.

-Bill

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, You probably won't find any copies of 'Life Line' during that period. Most, if not all of these relevant collections were purged long before they became available to the "public". We have run into that in almost everey case, It's as if 1963 never happened.

Nathaniel, you are correct... it's teach them not to care.

-Bill

Bill, it is chilling to imagine you might be correct about this. For several days I've been searching for documents, magazines, publications, newsletters, ads or anything at all from 1962-1963 by the White Citizens' Council (a.k.a. Citizens' Council) organization that began in Mississippi in 1954 (two months after the "Brown" decision, in direct response to it).

I seek these issues because ex-General Edwin Walker was a well-known speaker at their gatherings, all over the South. I'm making another push for anything in print by this man.

I've found nothing at all so far. It's surprising, actually. The University of Texas has one of the largest and best equipped libraries in the Western Hemisphere, and while it has issues of their official journal, "The Citizen", these exist from 1954-1961, and then from 1964-1975, as I recall. Nothing in my target zone.

It really appears as though a massive, concerted censorship actually took place in the past 50 years.

But I'm not giving up. As time goes by, garage sales in the South can turn up some pretty interesting material.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited January 17, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[David Boylan]

http://spencer.lib.ku.edu/collections/kc/wilcox.shtml

http://spencer.lib.ku.edu/exhibits/wilcox/

[Paul Trejo]

http://spencer.lib.k...kc/wilcox.shtml

http://spencer.lib.k...xhibits/wilcox/

Thanks, David, for posting a link to the Spencer Library web site associated with the University of Kansas. It is the home of the Wilcox Collection of Contemporary Political Movements, one of the largest assemblages of USA left-wing and right-wing political literature in America.

Established in 1965, their collection now covers more than 10,000 individuals and organizations. The bulk of the collection covers 1960 to the present (more than a half-century) with 73 feet of manuscript materials and more than 100,000 printed articles.

I entered the keywords: White Citizens' Council, and did receive one hit -- a match for the White CItizens' Council of Lawrence, Kansas in 1960.

I entered the keywords: General Edwin Walker, and received two hits -- an ad for the Midnight Ride rally of Edwin Walker and Billy James Hargis in 1963, and a hit on the personal papers of Wayne A. Morse, which contains one item about Edwin Walker - which I am looking into.

Now, this directly speaks to my point. I mean, with 100,000 printed articles, I can find exactly ONE item about the White Citizens' Council, and it's only for Lawrence, Kansas.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited January 18, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Nathaniel - this is a hugely important thread - thanks for starting it.

Too bad we couldn't have a debate between Chomsky and Salandria. They so clearly embody the two poles of the left.

We Americans continually find ourselves debating social issues to the exclusion of political ones. We are engaged in one now - gun control. While I admit it is in some respects a hugely important issue, it is not for the reasons we are debating. The political history of guns and gun control is far more important to me than whether we can make our kids safer with more regulations. But we as a nation are going to waste a lot of time on this issue without really examining it from a historical point of view. The two sides - as if there are ever just two sides - will engage in this mock debate to the exclusion of any other issues. Hell, cokes kill more people than guns in this country. And while we debate this 'social' issue we continue to arm the rest of the world with truly dangerous weaponry, and to use our own weapons to kill and control populations globally.

I am not sure when exactly our military truly took control of our government, but they surely have. I have totally stopped paying attention to our election politics because the two parties are a huge joke, and its not even amusing anymore. And the Left, Democracy Now etc., just doesn't get that we citizens have no control, and that really is the only issue worth discussing. And what better place to start that discussion but with Arlen Spector?

Edited January 20, 2013 by Paul Brancato

[Paul Brancato]

Deleted

Edited January 20, 2013 by Paul Brancato

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

I posted this on today's (Thursday's Common Dreams article by Amy Goodman. I would urge all informed citizens to post into the ""left"" with the truth about the JFK assassination, the history of the National Security State the Corporate Media and it's foundation funded cowcatcher, the "Alternative Press" (I am generalizing, some great stuff has been published too). The left is way way way more important than you think it is, in terms of how it functions in the OVERALL FULL SPECTRUM MECHANICS of disinformation about the history of the National Security State and the best historical milepost of that State, the Assassination of JFK.

Think about it. Bill O'Reilly's book has zero footnotes, yet quotes Drive-By-Noam from Clevel... er Philly re his "research" about JFK's foreign policy. That's right, folks, for about 30 years now the US ""Left"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" has been sourcing the key event in the ossification of the National Security State from the top aid to Richard Helms. Alf said "problem". THOSE ARE THE ONLY SNOWFLAKES allowed to drift full spectrum from "our friends on the ""left""""""""""""""""""""""".

Alf said "problem"

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

Now the Drones are the CIA's baby no less than the U-2 was their child in the 1950's. How can we tell if elected officials are calling any shots at all? Amy your show is great but it's gaping bald spot is growing more apparent every day: a complete failure to integrate the most recent scholarship of the National Security State with other politics. Increasingly, in the word of the Alternative media it seems as if there is a quid pro quo: great stuff on the sculpting of our corporate now in exchange for selling a hollow ahistorical two dimensionalism re the history of our National Security State. Ray McGovern has had some very, very interesting things to say about when the CIA was in it's teeny bopper years, 13-16. This coincided with some guy who--according to all academic scholarship published since 2000 was a president who was getting out of Vietnam, resisting CIA policies in Brazil, Israel, Indonesia, Cuba, Laos, Congo and towards the Soviet Union over the very basis of the Cold War which served as the ostensible raison d'etre of the emerging US Garrison State. Isn't it time we take a closer look at the Coup of 1963 in this its 50th anniversary? Isn't it time we look at the MEDIA IMPLICATIONS of that coup?

Hows bout asking Ray on to talk about this topic? Or are we ONLY allowed to hear Noam's completely decontexturalized drive by assertions in which he quotes Richard Helms' top aid. Again.

There was a time when the US left was different. There was a time when this comment could not be so easily put in the ash tray so conveniently labelled "Alex Jones". The US left now recognizes that shows such as those on MSNBC play a strategic niching role in fragmenting US political communication. Create a channel for the would-be-critics of the Corporate Democrats and the corporations can lower the volume of dissent that the full spectrum hears. Do you think that strategy might be going on ... elsewhere on the political spectrum? Mere speculation? Try history. See the history of Encounter Magazine 1950-64. See the great book by Frances Saunders called The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters. In England it was called Who Paid The Piper?

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

The fake dichotomy between "institutional" v. alleged "great man theory of history," used by Chomsky and other writers published by the fake-left is a decoy to dress up 3rd grade deliberate oversimplification. i.e. the decisions of someone romanticized by middle class whites by their targeted corporate "alternative" media as "Mc3rd world Guerilla leader" have the same magnitude- in-the moment" as elected pols, when it still mattered to some extent, or at least way more than now. The CIA was 16 in 1963, and right now it is 65. Those are two very different animals and propagandists job #1 is to cover up the fight between presidents and the CIA that had been going on since 1947. Once that history is connected to the assassination, it could well present our corporate rulers with a richly deserved legitimation crisis, provided enough people share the historical framework.

When sitting on a see saw it doesn't ONLY matter how much you weigh but WHERE on the fulcrum you sit. Che was not in the White House during the CMC. He did not have the ability to make decisions that would have either 1) prevented WWIII or 2) Guaranteed it.

Same with Vietnam etc. Now the so-called Marxists [God save Marx from 'em} will perhaps say.." yeah but he was killed and Vietnam happened anyway"

Yes, that's one of the points.

The individual that was resisting the massive land war in Asia was shot in the head and the INSTITUTIONAL WILL OF CAPITALISM PREVAILED. But the entire purpose of left gatekeeping is to deprive MILLIONS, not merely a magazined 10,000, from realizing " Oh the elections do not matter. The elected dude who resisted Wall Street's Sullivan and Cromwell born CIA was shot in the head, and the Ground War was on before Johnson's ink was dry on NSC 273. {Here I am talking real Vietnam history not the pap served up in left-gatekeeping magazines } yes, maybe NOW they don't , now that elected pols are mere Wall paper. But the whole purpose of left-gatekeeping is to keep the eyes that really matter away from the precise moment when the politicians were wallpaper and everyone knew it. In all relationships-- such as the relationship between elected presidents and the CIA-- there are moments of ambiguity, where "Constitutional" flow charts do not quite match the pulse of systems e.g. Military, Industrial and Complex ones.

The tension between presidents and the CIA (which lasted longer, and was more institutional than the shooting of one pol might suggest) became most discernible. If you own the cameras, you can make that indiscernible, cheating that institutional struggle of its most teachable moment. So-Called- left (not really) publications do this with yellow mental police tape and magazines mostly.

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

I would like to recommend that everyone give a close reading to pages 21-33 of Destiny Betrayed 2nd edition.

That is because there is something all too rare on those pages.

It is a presentation of just WHY THE LEFT SHOULD BE LOUDEST ABOUT THE JFK ASSASSINATION and why far more ink an airwave has been spent on preventing the left from ever picking up that fumble, than has been spent on any other disinformation out there. Why do not as many realize this tremendous effort spent of preventing the CORRECT players from picking up the fumble? Because these publications are niche marketed toward small but very influential audiences, just like Frances Saunders says. But they are pricy and their impact bleeds full spectrum from the "left" and the net effect is to make JFK seem like "just another Cold Warrior so why bother, and that MURDERS MOMENTUM for all of us who want the truth about the JFK assassination known widely enough to matter.

Jim is there any way I could get copies of pages 21-33 to post around by the publisher? If I could get these I can guarantee the payoff will be exponential. These sections are called

1951: KENNEDY, COLONIALISM, AND THE COLD WAR

1961: KENNEDY BREAKS WITH THE COLD WAR CONSENSUS

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

7 UNIQUE BREAKS FROM THE US COLD WAR CONSENSUS: WHY DO WE NEVER HEAR ABOUT THIS ON THE SO CALLED LEFT? BECAUSE THEN THE ASSASSINATION WOULD BE FREIGHTED WITH POLICY IMPLICATIONS, AND THE CORRECT AUDIENCE WOULD "GO THERE".

Some people on the left have asked why I post so much about the JFK assassination. Aren't there more pressing issues now? etc. Well I have been watching US politics for a good while. Also watching changes on the so called left. (I say so-called left because there are only a few publications and they can have a vastly disproportionate effect, as Frances Saunders pointed out on her key book on CIA left-gatekeeping, The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and World Of Arts and Letters* ) What really stands out is that, over time, the left has become completely detatched from electoral politics. Hold on, I am not blaming the left for that. It makes sense, given that the Democrats have become More Bush than Bush Could Get Away with.

But why has the left not done more to call the bluff of the Democrats? Why have there been no protests on the doorsteps of the Democratic Senators of high finance?

Why instead are all efforts channeled into endless tributaries of social movements which make no claim whatsoever upon the broader body politic? Why, in a nutshell did Occupy Wall Street not point the finger at the Enabling Democrats? Why does The Nation or Common Dreams never ever publish protests at the doors of the party that has become, in effect , the cowcatcher of the Republican locomotive? What Now Dead Sen. Wellstone once called The Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party has been completely exterminated. But the history of HOW THE DEMOCRATS GOT THIS FAR RIGHT is almost non-existant on the Foundation Funded Left. The word Liberal is used on both Obama and RFK, JFK and FDR. This is ahistorical and more profoundly misleading than most people realize.

Why, in short must so much of the Foundation Funded Left offer diversion rather than challenge to our competely corrupt public institutions and Democrats. It sure is a great way of taking pressure off our new Robber Barons. These Rober Barrons are now not even inconvenienced by real muckrakers, because the internet cannot provide critical mass large enough to matter in terms of real reform that can become law. Thus, so much of our Foundation Funded Left only leads the country, and because of the US' role as leading imperialist, the world, further right.

In this context might it make sense to look at the last time politicians DID actually try swimming upstream, against the corporate money, and against the will of the dominant corporate institutions. Now we must be careful here. Because if these examples exist, we have to have the correct searching image. It is unlikely that we are going to find a socialist Senator or president in Cold War America. In fact a snowball has more chance in 2016. In other words the pol would not even be in the river to swim at all were he not essentially a capitalist and in agreement on with the consenses on many issues. But if we seek to determine how the US now has the greatest economic inequality than in any year since 1917, and if we seek to determine why and how the Democratic Party has become , in effect the cowcatcher on the Republican locomotive, a party that prevents opposition to right wing policies rather than defuses the opposition to those policies, we do have some explaining to do in terms of the party that once had a consistent record of lowering inequality rather than aiding and abetting it.

In this context-- of the last President who tried swimming upstream, against the direction that major US capital was trending-- it is worth noting that there is no president in US history that receives more hostile coverage than JFK. The kitchen sink is regularly hurled. And what really stands out is that, on the real stuff, actual policies, the worst distortions over the last 20 years have been published by alleged left writers such as Noam Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn, Seymour Hersh, and these writers have all been syndicated and given lots of airtime on the so called "left" airwaves of Pacifica.

The central claim of these writers is that JFK was "just another Cold Warrior", and that no major policy changes resulted from his assassination, so why bother even looking into his assassination. Given than 80% of academic historians writing since 2000 have concluded that the JFK Assassination was, indeed, a conspiracy, this allegation about JFK's policies is important in preventing the left from "going there."

Anyone who reads any real history on the topic of the Cold War, however, soon reaches the conclusion that this is exactly where the left should be. For the assassination is not about the death of any one liberal. It actually shows what happened the last time a president tried swimming upsream. And nothing shows illuminates the institutional nature of power-- as opposed to the the view that decisions are based on human reason in a world with a free press--more than the JFK assassination and the strikingly abrupt policy changes that immediately ensued

Bellow are 7 key examples of JFK's challenging the Foreign Policy consensus on 3rd World Nationalism. Why are readers of Foundation Funded Left publications so unfamiliar with them? For those familiar with US politics in the 1950's these statements stand out as truly unique. These examples are taken from the excellent new book by James DiEugenio called Destiny Betrayed: JFK Cuba, and The Garrison Case (2nd Edition)** I cannot recommend this book highly enough. However all of these observations can be cross-referecned with numberous other academic studeis.

1. "This is an area of human conflict between civilizations striving to be born and those desperately trying to retain what they have held for so long... the fires of nationalism so long dormant have been kindled and are now ablaze.... Here colonialism is not a topic fo tea-talk discussions; it is the daily fare for millions of men" -- Representative JFK upon returning from a fact finding trip to French Indochina, 1951

2. "It is worth noting here that Kennedy also took time to criticize his own State Department for what he thought was its lackidasical approach to the true issues in the area. He pointed out that too many of our diplomats spent too much time socializing with and then serving the short-term goals of our Ruropean allies instead of "trying to undersand the real hopes and desires of the people to which they are accredited." What makes that last remark ususual is that young Kennedy was criticizing both a Secratary of State and a sitting president from his own party -- Dean Acheson and Harry Truman. He then went even further and questioned the widom of the USA in allying itself with "the desperate effort of a French regime to hang on to the remnants of empire"-- Destiny Betrayed 2nd edition page 22.

3. "On July 1, 1953-- A year before the fall of the French empire in Vietnam-- Kennedy spoke on the floor of hte senate about why France would not win the war: "the war can never be won, unless the people are won from sullen neutrality and open hostility to support it. And they never can be, unless they are assured beyond a doubt that complete independence will be theirs... at the war's end" (29) The following year, Kennedy tried to explain that Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh were popular because they were seen as conducting an epic battle against French colonialism. Whether they were communists or not was not the point. For, in Vietnam, they were first seen as liberators." -- Desitny Betrayed 2nd edition, page 23.

4. Upon learning of the Dulles' proposal to use tactical nukes at Dien Bien Phu, "Senator Kennedy got wind of this... (and) he again took to the floor of the senate and had what was perhaps his first defining national moment. He wanted to know how 'the new Dulles policy and its dependence upon the threat of atomic realiation will fare in these areas of guerrilla warfare." Then, during the actual siege, he again took the floor and said, "To pour money , materieal, and men into the jungles of Indochina without at least a remote prosepect of victory would be dangerously futile.... No amount of American military assistance in Indochina can conquer an enemy of the people which has the sympathy and covert support of the people."(33)-- Destiny Betrayed, 2nd Edition, p. 23.

5. In 1956, Senator Kennedy attempted to make some speeches for hte campaign of Democratic presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson. By this time he hadseen that both parties were missing the opint about independence for the Third World. Kennedy was now even more convinced that the nationalistic yearning for independence was not to be so quickly linked to the 'international communist conspiracy.'(38) When Kennedy made some speeches for Stevenson, he used the opportunity to attack the Manichean world view of the Eisenhower-Dulles administration. But he also alluded to the fact that the Democrats were not that much better on the issue:

The Afro-Asian revolution in nationalism, the revolt against colonialism, the deter-mination

of people to control their national destinies... in my opinion the tragic failure of both Republican

Democratic administrations since World War II to comprehend the nature of this revolution, and

its potentialities for good and evil, has reaped a bitter harvest today-- and it is by rights and by

necessity a major foreign policy campaign issue that has nothing to do with anti-Communism (39)

Again, Kennedy was not playing political favorites. But the content of thei message was too much for even that liberal paragon Sevenson. His office now requested that Senator Kennedy make no further foreign policy comments associated with the candidate's campaign. (40)."-- (emphasis N. H.) Destiny Betrayed 2nd Edition.

6. Kennedy Attacks Eisenhower on Algeria

"On July 2, 1957, Senator Kennedy rose to speak in the Senate chamger and delivered what the New York Times was to call the next day, "the most comprehensive and outspoken arraignment of Western policy toward Algeria yet presented by an American in public office" (42).. Kennedy assailed the administration, especially John Foster Dulles and Nixon, for not urging France into negotiations, and therefore not being its true friend. He began the speech by saying that the most powerful force in international affairs at the time was not the H-bomb, but the desire fo independence from imperialism. If not, America would lose the trust of millions in Asia and Africa. He then pointed out specific instances where the USA had aided the French effort there both militarily (through the use of weapons sales) and diplomatically (by voting to table the issue at the United Nations). He attacked both the administration and France for not seeing in Algeria a reprise of the 1954 Indochina crisis:

Yet did we not learn in Indochina... that we might have served both the French and our own

causes infinitely better had we taken a more firm stand much earlier than we did? Did that tragic

episode not teach us that whether France like sit or not admits it or not, their overseas territories

are sooner or later, one by one, inevitably going to break free and look with suspicion on the

Western nations who impeded their steps to independence. (44)

... Eisenhower complained about "young men getting up and shouting about things." (48) John Foster Dulles pointed out that if the senator wanted to tilt against colonialism, perhaps he might concentrate on the communist variety(49) Jackie Kennedy was so angry with Acheson's disparaging remarks abou the speech that she berated him in public while they were waiting for a train at New York's Penn Central. (50) Kennedy's staff clipped newspaper and magazine responses ot the speech. OF 138 editorials, 90 were negative. Again Stevenson was one of Kennedy's critics. -- Destiny Betrayed 2nd edition, page 26

7. Kennedy now became the man to see for visiting African diplomats, especially those seeking from nations breaking free from the bonds of European colonialism. ... Rebuffed by Eisenhower (Patrice Lamumba, leader of Congo) now turned to the Russians for help in expelling the Belgians from Katanga. This sealed his fate inn the eyes of Eisnehower and Allen Dulles. The president now authorized a series of assassination plots by the CIA to kill Lumumba(57) These plots finally succeeded on January 17, 196a, three days before Kennedy was inaugurated.

His first week in office, Kennedy requested a full review of the Eisenhower/Dulles policy in Congo. The American ambassador to that important African nation heard of this review and phoned Allen Dulles to alert him that President Kennedy was about to overturn previous policy there. (58) Kennedy did overturn this policy on February 2, 1961. Unlike Eisenhower and Allen Dulles, Kennedy announced he would begin full cooperation with Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold at the united Nations on this thorny issue in order to bring all the armies in that war-torn nation under control. He would also attempt to neutralize the country so there would be no East/West Cold War competition. Third, all political prisoners being held should be freed. Not knowing he was dead, this part was aimed at former prime minister Lubumba, who had been captured by his enemies. (There is evidence that, knowing Kennedy would favor Lumumba, Dulles had him klled before JFK was inaugurated. (59) Finally. Kennedy opposed the secession for the mineral-rich Katanga province. The secession fo Katanga was a move very much favored by the former colonizers, Belgium, and their British allies. Thus began Kennedy's nearly three year long struggle to see Congo not fall back under the claw of European Imperialism. This story is well captured by Richard Mahoney in his milestone book JFK: Ordeal in Africa. As we shall see, whatever Kennedy achieved there, and it was estimable, was lost when Lyndon Johsnon became president.

Consider these pre-presidency track record on the question of JFK and decolonization. Is there any other Senator who made such strong statements against the dominant foreign policy consensus in the McCarthy Era? If you can find even one statement like these from another Senator, please let me know.

Now consider that every single academic historian writing on Vietnam in the JFK-LBJ transition years since 1992 has concluded that there is no question that JFK would not have escalated to a major US land war. This was also the view of contemporary journalists. It was a myth largely developed after the publication of the key disinformation book The Best and The Brightest*** Moreover, the newer academic publications, with the benefit of the newly released declassified documents since Congress was pressured into passing the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) have shown that JFK was, in fact, getting out of Vietnam at the time of his assassination. This is an idea that was roundly ridiculed by Time, Newsweek and the New York Times at the time of the JFK movie in the early 90s. How funny that our so-called left has never taken note that all of the recent academic works have born out the pioneering work of University of Maryland History Professor John Newman. But then, when it comes to JFK, our Official "Leftists" (not really left IMO) have a predictable way of suddenly lining up with footnoteless Bill O'Reilly and the Paper of Record they love to hate on all the small, crunchy issues, that only a tiny percentage of the population could related to. Just so the hot house Foundation Funded Left serves to detatch social history from political history, convincing the young that it has always been the case.

After Vietnam, look at JFK's policies v those of the CIA on Laos, Indonesia, the USSR, Brazil, and Cuba in 1963. Don't forget JFK v. CIA on Israel's attempt to bring nuclear weapons into the Middle East!

By studying the last predent who tried to swim upsteam and what subsequently happened to his head

one can learn a lot about the river, and its big media minders. One can also learn a lot about how a Fake Foundation Funded "left" (not really left) played a key role in making the today's left politically irrelevant. This knowledge offers lots of clues about how to fix this situation.

*http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Cold-War-World-Letters/dp/1565846648/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1362267671&sr=1-1&keywords=the+cultural+cold+war+the+cia+and+the+world+of+arts+and+letters

**http://www.amazon.com/Destiny-Betrayed-Garrison-Second-Edition/dp/1620870568

***http://www.amazon.com/JFK-Ordeal-Richard-D-Mahoney/dp/0195033418/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0