Jump to content
The Education Forum

Donald Jeffries is interviewed on Inforwars Nightly News


Douglas Caddy
 Share

Recommended Posts

The part of the interview that's most telling IMO is the discussion of how the MSM works with the string pullers and the corrupt politicians ("corrupt" is redundant, I know) to pull the wool over the eyes of the public.

Disclosure: I loathe most journalists. In my experience, they get the facts wrong lots of times; write or say ignorant things about the law; harbor biases that make them less than honest reporters; conduct interviews and misrepresent what the person interviewed said; are in bed figuratively with government officials; and are all too willing to hew to the party line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The part of the interview that's most telling IMO is the discussion of how the MSM works with the string pullers and the corrupt politicians ("corrupt" is redundant, I know) to pull the wool over the eyes of the public.

Disclosure: I loathe most journalists. In my experience, they get the facts wrong lots of times; write or say ignorant things about the law; harbor biases that make them less than honest reporters; conduct interviews and misrepresent what the person interviewed said; are in bed figuratively with government officials; and are all too willing to hew to the party line.

But thank god we have journalists, right? Like Woodward and Bernstein back in the day (for example), or were they working for the bad guys, too?

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thomas Graves,

IMO, Woodward and Bernstein (Woodward mainly) were part of an effort to "assassinate politically" Richard Nixon.

Nixon produces a knee-jerk reaction: he was corrupt, evil. etc.

But listen to the Don Jeffries interview. Nixon isn't mentioned, I believe. The Bushes are discussed. Bill and Hillary are discussed. Reagan, Ford, and LBJ are discussed. There's a reason Nixon isn't mentioned in the interview.

It's not that Nixon was Prince Charming. It's that Nixon went off the reservation on the JFK assassination and became an outcast, a pariah. Not just for the Left. But for the Right. And for the Libertarians who don't know where Nixon fits in the cast of characters. He doesn't fit. He was the Republican counterpart to JFK. Neither he nor JFK fit within the limits set by the Establishment.

Woodward and Bernstein played the central role in taking down Nixon. An effort ostensibly rooted in Mark Felt's whispers to Woodward.

I don't need Woodward to tell me someone is worse than he is or better than I think she is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thomas Graves,

IMO, Woodward and Bernstein (Woodward mainly) were part of an effort to "assassinate politically" Richard Nixon.

Nixon produces a knee-jerk reaction: he was corrupt, evil. etc.

But listen to the Don Jeffries interview. Nixon isn't mentioned, I believe. The Bushes are discussed. Bill and Hillary are discussed. Reagan, Ford, and LBJ are discussed. There's a reason Nixon isn't mentioned in the interview.

It's not that Nixon was Prince Charming. It's that Nixon went off the reservation on the JFK assassination and became an outcast, a pariah. Not just for the Left. But for the Right. And for the Libertarians who don't know where Nixon fits in the cast of characters. He doesn't fit. He was the Republican counterpart to JFK. Neither he nor JFK fit within the limits set by the Establishment.

Woodward and Bernstein played the central role in taking down Nixon. An effort ostensibly rooted in Mark Felt's whispers to Woodward.

I don't need Woodward to tell me someone is worse than he is or better than I think she is.

Sounds like you were / are a very politically-aware dude, Mr. Tidd. Kudos to you for that.

Unfortunately, many Americans were not as astute as you were, so Woodward and Bernstein kinda educated them about how "good" or "bad" Nixon was, didn't they. You know, kinda "opened dem people's eyes."

I mean, those who were willing to "see?"

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, Tommy.

I'm not particularly astute, in terms of ability.

There are and have been plenty of astute persons in the U.S. I think at times of my math, physics, electrical engineering, and law professors. They were capable of knowing the deal. But chose not to know the deal.

It's all about perception and willingness to express one's thoughts. IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, Tommy.

I'm not particularly astute, in terms of ability.

There are and have been plenty of astute persons in the U.S. I think at times of my math, physics, electrical engineering, and law professors. They were capable of knowing the deal. But chose not to know the deal.

It's all about perception and willingness to express one's thoughts. IMO.

OK, Jon.

Instead of "politically astute back in the day," then how about "politically aware?"

PS All you gotta say is, "Thank you."

LOL

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldnt lump Bernstein and Woodward together like that. Bernstein is a real journalist, Woodward a CIA asset. Simplistic I know, but what I generally believe about the two. I'm not disputing their cumulative effect in bringing down the renegade Nixon, just suggesting one of them may have been working for the national security state while the other thought he was just trying to bring down a corrupt president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And for the Libertarians who don't know where Nixon fits in the cast of characters. He doesn't fit. He was the Republican counterpart to JFK. Neither he nor JFK fit within the limits set by the Establishment.

Could you enlarge on this? Outside of the China detente, Nixon seems to have kept the Vietnam moneymaker going as was desired from above. What were the unpardonable sins that cancelled his second term as soon as it had begun? Was the expansion of war into Cambodia and Laos among them?

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean Nixon threatening Helms with fodder for the press or Congress to open a future investigation? Watergate was already unstoppable at that time. I'm not aware of Nixon ordering any serious JFK investigation.

Nixon tried to get the CIA files on the Bay of Pigs, the overthrow of Diem in So Viet Nam, and the assassination of Rafael Trujillo in the Dominican Rep.

Some might consider that a "serious investigation" into JFK's murder.

CIA head Richard Helms refused to give the chief executive sensitive government files, oh my...

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...