Jump to content
The Education Forum

PREDICTION: LOTS OF LEFT-GATEKEEPING DISINFO articles coming up on JFK and Civil Rights.


Recommended Posts

This terribly bold prediction is based on an experience I had attending a forum that was advertised on Pacifica Radio, The New York Times, and which I atended. It was on MLK JFK and involved the wrong Blight on both their houses. It was at Schoenberg Center for African American culture and was pure Bankers Trust.

I am unsurprised that the crime against history that I witnessed that night is unavailable on youtube. Fingerprints like that cannot be left for ANYONE to parafin.

What I witnessed that night is the best example of a very important, and much more far-reaching disinformation strategy aimed at the left and lef-liberals: the "haircut" of JFK's policies from JFK, so that the assassination does not SEEM to matter for the left.

I will attempt to describe this event as objectively as possible when I am less flabbergasted at the niching of today's propaganda. For starters we might examine the WRONG BLIGHT's editorial in the NYT from February 2012.

I predict we will see a lot more of this habeus haircutting corpus. Unfortunately.

note the wording from Wrong Bights' editorial which the NYT so graciously awarded The Professor From Another Century..

"While he did issue an executive order banning discrimination in federal housing in November 1962, and introduced an omnibus civil rights bill a few months later, the demands of the second Emancipation Proclamation were not fulfilled until President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act."

Interesting word choices Professor Wrong- Blight.

http://www.nytimes.c...festo.html?_r=0

Edited by Nathaniel Heidenheimer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

"Civil rights" was used as a great cover up tool for the JFK assassination by Lyndon Johnson. LBJ (and friends) murdered the man John Kennedy who was promoting civil rights. Then post assassination the murderers quickly adopted that agenda as a way of innoculating themselves from the liberals, blacks, Northerners, and Kennedy supporters who justifiably suspected LBJ in the JFK assassination.

"Civil rights" was used as a magic talisman to ward off liberals from questioning the legitimacy of Lyndon Johnson or digging into the JFK assassination cover up. It worked fabulously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The intersection BETWEEN social movements and nominal political change is a between-world which has no scholars. It is the missing wedge of the grapefruit which must not be seen or understood.

Otherwise we will see that it has been blasted out with bullets.

e.g. The MLK and RFK assassinations and why it was absolutely necessary that these killing occur BEFORE the 1968 Democratic National Convention.

So what will it be good academics? Political History OR Social History?

Or. The Fact of a Doorframe.

Edited by Nathaniel Heidenheimer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len - you either completely miss the point or are just trying to obfuscate it. What are facts? So its a fact that the civil rights act was passed under LBJ. So what? Mr. Morrow's point is well taken - it was shrewd politics by LBJ. Being 'factually' accurate is not the same as being truthful. LBJ didn't issue a second emancipation, he got JFK's bill passed, something JFK would surely have accomplished had he lived, though surely his death made it much easier for LBJ to accomplish what JFK and MLK started.

Mr. Heidenheimer has made convincing arguments on several threads that one of the biggest problems we have faced over the decades has been the failure of the so-called left media to take a principled stand on the assassinations. Mr. Simkin has argued similarly. I live in Berkeley and am a long time listener to KPFA. They have the greatest archives, and believe me MLK day here is a real experience. But one subject they will never touch are the assassinations of JFK and RFK. My personal experience with this 'censorship' was that they covered my Iran Contra trading cards but had no interest in my Coup d'etat JFK cards. Of course if this was just based on my personal experience I wouldn't have more than one leg to stand on. Unfortunately its not. And this is self censorship, not Operation Mockingbird in operation. Its the old Noam Chomsky line - paraphrased - 'who gives a rats ass? What difference would it have made to US foreign or domestic policy had JFK lived'? Its pathetic, and has the effect of making all us good citizens feel doubly powerless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len - you either completely miss the point or are just trying to obfuscate it. What are facts? So its a fact that the civil rights act was passed under LBJ. So what? Mr. Morrow's point is well taken - it was shrewd politics by LBJ. Being 'factually' accurate is not the same as being truthful. LBJ didn't issue a second emancipation, he got JFK's bill passed, something JFK would surely have accomplished had he lived, though surely his death made it much easier for LBJ to accomplish what JFK and MLK started.

Mr. Heidenheimer has made convincing arguments on several threads that one of the biggest problems we have faced over the decades has been the failure of the so-called left media to take a principled stand on the assassinations. Mr. Simkin has argued similarly. I live in Berkeley and am a long time listener to KPFA. They have the greatest archives, and believe me MLK day here is a real experience. But one subject they will never touch are the assassinations of JFK and RFK. My personal experience with this 'censorship' was that they covered my Iran Contra trading cards but had no interest in my Coup d'etat JFK cards. Of course if this was just based on my personal experience I wouldn't have more than one leg to stand on. Unfortunately its not. And this is self censorship, not Operation Mockingbird in operation. Its the old Noam Chomsky line - paraphrased - 'who gives a rats ass? What difference would it have made to US foreign or domestic policy had JFK lived'? Its pathetic, and has the effect of making all us good citizens feel doubly powerless.

Len - you either completely miss the point or are just trying to obfuscate it. What are facts? So its a fact that the civil rights act was passed under LBJ. So what? Mr. Morrow's point is well taken - it was shrewd politics by LBJ. Being 'factually' accurate is not the same as being truthful. LBJ didn't issue a second emancipation, he got JFK's bill passed, something JFK would surely have accomplished had he lived, though surely his death made it much easier for LBJ to accomplish what JFK and MLK started.

Mr. Heidenheimer has made convincing arguments on several threads that one of the biggest problems we have faced over the decades has been the failure of the so-called left media to take a principled stand on the assassinations. Mr. Simkin has argued similarly. I live in Berkeley and am a long time listener to KPFA. They have the greatest archives, and believe me MLK day here is a real experience. But one subject they will never touch are the assassinations of JFK and RFK. My personal experience with this 'censorship' was that they covered my Iran Contra trading cards but had no interest in my Coup d'etat JFK cards. Of course if this was just based on my personal experience I wouldn't have more than one leg to stand on. Unfortunately its not. And this is self censorship, not Operation Mockingbird in operation. Its the old Noam Chomsky line - paraphrased - 'who gives a rats ass? What difference would it have made to US foreign or domestic policy had JFK lived'? Its pathetic, and has the effect of making all us good citizens feel doubly powerless.

Paul,

Your post was articulate and well considered; perhaps Nate and you are right and the media, especially the left-alternate media should be taken to task for avoiding coverage of the JFK assassination. But I asked Nate about Blight's Op-Ed which he classified as "disinfo", did you read it? If so do you agree with his assessment? Obviously if he had a better answer he wouldn't have responded with gibberish. He is a history teacher with a specific interest in this time period, if Blight was so wrong Nate should be able to point out at least one error.

Len

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len - I did read it before I posted, which is why I said what I did. Its factual - LBJ did get the Civil Rights Act passed, or rather he signed the bill that Congress passed. But I am just as sick as Nathaniel is at the constant reiteration that LBJ got done what JFK could not. Actually he finished what JFK started. I would add that it was MLK who was the real hero. I would have to do a whole lot of research in order to put the article in a complete historical perspective, but he may be right when he says that politics got in JFK's way. A second proclamation would have been great, and its too bad JFK didn't do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len - I did read it before I posted, which is why I said what I did. Its factual - LBJ did get the Civil Rights Act passed, or rather he signed the bill that Congress passed. But I am just as sick as Nathaniel is at the constant reiteration that LBJ got done what JFK could not. Actually he finished what JFK started. I would add that it was MLK who was the real hero. I would have to do a whole lot of research in order to put the article in a complete historical perspective, but he may be right when he says that politics got in JFK's way. A second proclamation would have been great, and its too bad JFK didn't do it.

Len - I did read it before I posted, which is why I said what I did. Its factual - LBJ did get the Civil Rights Act passed, or rather he signed the bill that Congress passed. But I am just as sick as Nathaniel is at the constant reiteration that LBJ got done what JFK could not. Actually he finished what JFK started. I would add that it was MLK who was the real hero. I would have to do a whole lot of research in order to put the article in a complete historical perspective, but he may be right when he says that politics got in JFK's way. A second proclamation would have been great, and its too bad JFK didn't do it.

Which was exactly the point of Blight's Op-Ed. It is pretty much undeniable JFK held back on Civil Rights because he was afraid of alienating the Dixiecrats; his death made passage of the Civil Rights Act possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len - surely you are correct - that was his major point. But in the course of making it he managed to portray JFK as not living up to the expectations of MLK and his movement, using the word 'balked' to characterize JFK's falling short of the mark. He didn't say that LBJ couldn't have gotten the act passed without JFK's death. In any case Heidenheimer is right about the liberal media generally, a point he has been posting about for a while, and he got my attention for sure, though it was Simkin that first opened my eyes to this. And he is also right that the liberals have consistently given LBJ credit for being able to get this important work done, and in the process have marginalized JFK's efforts. Perhaps this article is not the best place to see the insidious unwillingness of the left media to see the assassination as a coup against a liberal president by the right wing military industrial complex. Chomsky and others who deny this reality participate in this rewriting of history, and to the extent that it is the intellectual educated class that is their primary audience it has the effect of dividing the left and making it ineffectual. At this point in our history it seems as if the MIC has abandoned the Republican party to the crazies and is letting them self destruct because they are no longer needed to 'manufacture consent', to use Chomsky's phrase. We have always been the majority, and that is why the control of liberal media has been so effective. The majority is divided, and so busy arguing about social issues that should have been decided decades and centuries ago that they pay less and less attention to the crimes of state.

Edited by Paul Brancato
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len, your discourse is very typical of the vast oversimplification of both Blight--not an expert in this field by any means-- and recent drive by historians.

It is not devoid of "facts".

Stop pretending that you do not know that history can be incredibly distorted and still include "facts". Or are you writing with the goal of oversimplification?

Lets put it like this... FOR STARTERS...

Who was the President who wrote the Legislation that kissed the Jim Crow South goodbye for the Democratic Party that was lead, in the Legislative Branch, almost entirely by southerners?

Also perhaps it is time we look at the events of June 11th 1963? That was not fine print internet babble. It was not an internet world. It was a president using something called a Bully Pulpit at a particular time, and IN RELATION to a social movement that was rapidly evolving, and also in relation to a new medium that was creating new opportunities for the Civil Rights movement to be seen by a lot more people.

Today we see these images lumped together, 20/20. The mediation of these images was not nearly as widespread and constant as Len and the 19th Century historian conveniently assume.

What Len insists is very simple, is actually much, much more complex. Surprise. { I will TRY to respond every six and half respnses of Lens' responses. Moreover, I think that the motive of Blight become much more clear when his god-awful presentation is seen.

Fpr some strange reason it does not seem to be available on the internet. Nor does the so-called Second E.P. that the historians promised they would make available. I am still waiting for that blade... er paper cut to fall. Funny how JFK seems to represent the most open season ever for today's eternally vigilant.

Edited by Nathaniel Heidenheimer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps Blight should have explained that what became known as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced by JFK but his focus was on MLK's 1962 manifesto; and he was quite correct that JFK ignored it and was stand-offish towards civil rights till the last months of his presidency. Even authors from the Kennedy camp, like Schlesinger have acknowledged this. The problem is that Nate seems to view everything through the prism of the assassination. The notion that this 'omission' was intentional so as to defame Kennedy is silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len I am wondering if you would agree that it is a silly notion if you saw the presentation that i saw at Schoenberg Center in Harlem in January. It was an extremely unusual presentation.

Also we need to discuss this the events of 61-63 in much greater detail if we are to conclude anything at all regarding just how biased the article is. Will type more when I get time but right now i am using my limited time to SPREAD important aspects of US history OUTWARD, rather than waste a lot of time with someone intent on belittling the dead with opinions that are so very very widely spread anyway, by the billionaire's media.

Len can you find the talk at Shoenberg on youtube or anywhere? It was mentioned in NYT and on WBAI by Hugh Hamilton. It was filmed. But I can't find it ANYWHERE.

I can sure understand why the two historians involved would not want it be widely shown! And even more so the institutions that underwrote that disgrace to history, at least , if not our current profoundly domesticated academics.

Edited by Nathaniel Heidenheimer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len - I know you are smart and mean well. You are a good arguer. But its the classic forest and trees thing. As Salandria so eloquently said, we don't need to try to prove anything. We all know in our hearts what happened.

The left simply doesn't give JFK his due. Arguing about one particular article or one particular writer doesn't prove or disprove the larger point. At least that's my take. But if you and Nathaniel want to keep this up....

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...