Why is the JFK assassination research community so easy on Nixon?

[Paul Trejo]

...Post #84 leads me to make a prediction.

The individual who will be elected U.S. President in 2016 will serve the interests of very wealthy, powerful, mostly hidden individuals who control the U.S. (now world) financial system.

That eliminates Cruz, Rand, and Rubio. It plays to Hillary vs. Jeb. The financial masters don't care whichever of these shills win.

Well, Jon, I didn't think you'd become this cynical. Your life story so far has been of a profound individual -- so this caught me by surprise.

My position -- that Ex-General Edwin WALKER had JFK murdered in Dallas is paradoxically not a cynical position.

For one thing, I'm a minority on any CT forum because I'm not a Lone Nutter, and yet I still absolve J. Edgar Hoover, LBJ and the CIA of all wrongdoing in the JFK assassination.

They did what they had to do to prevent massive bloodshed in the USA and perhaps the world.

As for the Great Tragedy that was the Vietnam War -- I don't accuse LBJ of evil (though he may deserve most of the blame) but merely of incompetence. (We really needed a Catholic President to manage that War, because South Vietnam was officially Catholic, though it had a majority of Buddhists.)

Nor do I accuse Nixon -- who had to scratch and claw his way to the Top, where he belonged, so that he could chop the Communist Dragon in half.

The reality of the USA is neither the rich nor the poor -- but rather of Global Empire -- which is thrust upon Nations beyond their will to power.

It is absurd, IMHO, to imagine that a few rich and powerful individuals can control Human History just as they choose. That's a child's dream (or nightmare).

World Events are so huge and powerful, that it's a miracle that anybody can accomplish even ONE THING on the world stage before they die.

JFK saved the USA from Nuclear War by his pure genius in the Cuban Missile Crisis. And then he died.

LBJ saved the USA from Civil Catastrophe by his domestic "Great Society" genius -- although he had zero talent in Foreign Affairs. That's his eternal legacy.

Nixon -- well, I already praised him.

But no individual or even group of individuals is as powerful as your complaint makes them out to be.

The issue with Global Empire today -- but also during the British Empire -- has always been that that the Rich and Powerful no longer belong to one single nation -- but form a Global Class.

Although I might complain about GW Bush for Iraq, ultimately he removed the ancient legacy of Tariffs in Global Trade (more than any other leader has ever done) and so postponed World War 3, IMHO.

President Obama might be the only US politician living today who can prevent the USA from rushing into war with Iran.

In my view, God has a plan in all this -- but individuals play only the smallest roles -- and then we die.

Please don't be so cynical. Powerful people want to be rich in the USA because people in other nations are so filthy rich -- and we must keep our heads up on a Global level.

It doesn't hurt to be poor -- I know this personally -- and so does my most of my family for generations. Everybody suffers and dies. People can be happy with family and love -- money isn't the answer.

Stay loyal to the USA. Stay loyal to the civilization of your ancestors. Please change your mind about being cynical.

Whoever becomes US President in 2016 will face the most dangerous situation that the world has ever faced -- the final challenge of total Global Peace.

The British Empire tried and failed. The Middle East (along with India) was among the great causes of her failure.

We in the USA, as a nation, were spared by God all interaction with the Middle East for 500 years -- we let the British take all the blows. Now that the British Empire has fallen, and the USA now wears their global mantle, we are faced with exactly the same problems that brought the British down.

We need -- above all else -- a US President who is capable of navigating the Global Empire. This will take genius. More than money. It will take genius.

Even if that genius only lasts four years (or in JFK's case, only three years).

Pray for the next US President. The future of the USA -- and possibly the world -- hangs in the balance.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited May 9, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Kathleen Collins]

Here is my take on Nixon. Yes, Nixon knew Kennedy was going to be

assassinated. On that day Nixon was photographed crying in an airport.

He probably had some drinks. He was sorry for what had happened, but

what could he do? He would be killed or his wife and children.

Supposedly, there was a meeting at Murchison's house the night before.

Late. I have a long list of who was supposed to be there. Nixon was

there. He was a very troubled man. There were the wealthy oil barons

and the like who wanted him to get into politics again. However, I've read

that Murchison's home in Dallas was sold in 1959. Whether this is

accurate I don't know.

After Watergate, E. Howard Hunt and the CIA were blackmailing Nixon.

They threatened to tell the world how Nixon killed Kennedy.be shot. Mrs.

Hunt, doling out the money was killed in a suspicious airplane crash.

Nixon had to give the "plumbers" a vast amount of money because they

had to go to prison. Nixon began to drink more and he eventually

resigned. During his campaign, George Wallace was shot and if I

remember correctly, the publisher of Hustler Magazine was shot because

he said he'd pay a million dollars to anyone who could tell who committed

the Kennedy Assassination and was prosecuted.

George Wallace was a "spoiler." He would take votes away from Nixon.

Was Nixon behind this? Bobby Kennedy was also a spoiler too, in a way,

as I believe he would have won the Presidency so was shot and killed. I

don't believe Nixon was a part of this. The oil barons, the bankers, the

John Birchers and the ku klux klan mostly did these things. I can't

imagine Nixon saying, "Kill Bobby and George Wallace." These

right-wingers wanted Nixon in.

Kathy C

[Brian Schmidt]

45 years ago today: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/11/i-am-not-a-kook-richard-nixons-bizarre-visit-to-the-lincoln-memorial/248443/

[Jon G. Tidd]

Paul Trejo,

Here is a definition I've found online of "cynical":

1. distrusting or disparaging the motives of others; like or characteristicof a cynic.

2. showing contempt for accepted standards of honesty or morality by one's actions, especially by actions that exploit the scruples of others.

3. bitterly or sneeringly distrustful, contemptuous, or pessimistic.

Paul, I do distrust politicians, but not without reason based in experience. I believe I'm a realist, not a cynic.

An example -- the prosecution of many poor persons by state attorneys. In Illinois, for example, where I grew up, state's attorneys have won convictions against many relatively poor defendants based on falsified or withheld evidence. Same is true in your state of Texas. Same is true of the FBI in federal prosecutions. In almost all cases, a state's attorney is seeking higher office; and a good way to higher office is a high conviction rate (which includes plea deals by defendants who don't know what they're doing). My lack of respect for state's attorneys is based in

experience. It's not based on something I merely suspect.

As to the subject of this diary, Richard Nixon, I think nothing's gained by assuming Nixon was culpable in the JFK assassination simply because he was one weird S.O.B. I can grant all that Mark Valenti writes about Nixon and still not find in the record reason to believe Nixon had a hand in killing JFK. Exhibit A is that Nixon, according to what I've read, was solicited by aides to sue over the Illinois voting tallies in the 1960 election and decided against a challenge for the good of the country. Maybe I'm uninformed, but I'm not cynical about this.

If I am cynical, it's in ascribing self-serving motives to all politicians; and in believing just as there was a "magic hand" controlling free markets in Adam Smith's conception, there is a "magic hand" that controls U.S. politics.

Example, if not proof: JFK declared his independence from Wall Street. Every subsequent president has declared fealty to Wall Street. But this is fact, not cynicism. I'm a realist, Paul.

Edited May 9, 2015 by Jon G. Tidd

[Paul Brancato]

Cliff - the main point of Weird Scenes is not that Laurel Canyon was ground zero for the psychedelic movement, but for an intelligence operation to control that movement.

Btw, I've never seen your trading cards.

[Paul Brancato]

Praise the Lord, Trejo has finally come out. It's in God's hands, and US presidents are all part of the master plan.

Is it cynical to question authority? It's a hard concept to grasp when your belief system calls it hubris.

I'm with you Jon - next election is Bush v Clinton.

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff - the main point of Weird Scenes is not that Laurel Canyon was ground zero for the psychedelic movement, but for an intelligence operation to control that movement.

Btw, I've never seen your trading cards.

But the bands this operation purported to "control" did not ignite or "lead" the psychedelic movement.

Laurel Canyon was a year behind San Francisco, at least.

The most psychedelic band out of LC was Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention and Frank didn't do drugs.

Ken Kesey wasn't CIA.

Bill Graham wasn't CIA.

Owsley Stanley wasn't CIA.

The psychedelic explosion was a San Francisco-based phenomenon no one could "control."

If anything, the musical movement that came out of Laurel Canyon was MOR soft "adult rock."

Edited May 10, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Paul Trejo]

Paul Trejo,

Here is a definition I've found online of "cynical":

1. distrusting or disparaging the motives of others; like or characteristicof a cynic.

2. showing contempt for accepted standards of honesty or morality by one's actions, especially by actions that exploit the scruples of others.

3. bitterly or sneeringly distrustful, contemptuous, or pessimistic.

Paul, I do distrust politicians, but not without reason based in experience. I believe I'm a realist, not a cynic.

An example -- the prosecution of many poor persons by state attorneys. In Illinois, for example, where I grew up, state's attorneys have won convictions against many relatively poor defendants based on falsified or withheld evidence. Same is true in your state of Texas. Same is true of the FBI in federal prosecutions. In almost all cases, a state's attorney is seeking higher office; and a good way to higher office is a high conviction rate (which includes plea deals by defendants who don't know what they're doing). My lack of respect for state's attorneys is based in

experience. It's not based on something I merely suspect.

As to the subject of this diary, Richard Nixon, I think nothing's gained by assuming Nixon was culpable in the JFK assassination simply because he was one weird S.O.B. I can grant all that Mark Valenti writes about Nixon and still not find in the record reason to believe Nixon had a hand in killing JFK. Exhibit A is that Nixon, according to what I've read, was solicited by aides to sue over the Illinois voting tallies in the 1960 election and decided against a challenge for the good of the country. Maybe I'm uninformed, but I'm not cynical about this.

If I am cynical, it's in ascribing self-serving motives to all politicians; and in believing just as there was a "magic hand" controlling free markets in Adam Smith's conception, there is a "magic hand" that controls U.S. politics.

Example, if not proof: JFK declared his independence from Wall Street. Every subsequent president has declared fealty to Wall Street. But this is fact, not cynicism. I'm a realist, Paul.

Good to hear that you avoid cynicism, Jon. Surely human imperfection plays a role in politics, and its up to vigilant citizens to keep the Government honest. Godspeed to you.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Cliff Varnell]

Paul,

Yes, I'm a huge fan of Dave McGowan, who wrote Weird Scenes Inside the Canyon. Much of the book, along with a lot of other extremely controversial "extremist" stuff, can be found on his web site http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/ I'm sure many here will think him way too "far out" for public consumption.

I believe you have read my book (and I thank you for that). For others who may be interested, my thoughts on these subjects are detailed there far more clearly than I can do on a forum. http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-History-Conspiracies-Cover-Ups-American/dp/1629144843

As rocknroll history McGowan's work is bunk.

The rest of his material about intel operations in Laurel Canyon may be spot on, but the music stuff is nonsense.

Jim Morrison and Arthur Lee are now regarded more as proto-punk than hippie-psychedelic.

Frank Zappa's psychedelia was fueled by coffee, not LSD.

The Byrds, Mamas & Papas, the Monkees, Buffalo Springfield, Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young, Scott MacKenzie...they play this stuff on elevators!

In terms of acid rock there's San Francisco and there's Texas --13th Floor Elevators out of Austin and the Moving Sidewalks out of Houston.

McGowan:

“Perhaps Neil Young said it best when he told an interviewer that he couldn’t really say why he headed out to LA circa 1966; he and others “were just going like Lemmings.”

Because that's where the major record labels were. Duh...

Edited May 10, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Paul Brancato]

I don't disagree at all Cliff, with your assessment of the relative value of the two scenes. Have you read the book?

[Thomas Graves]

Paul,

Yes, I'm a huge fan of Dave McGowan, who wrote Weird Scenes Inside the Canyon. Much of the book, along with a lot of other extremely controversial "extremist" stuff, can be found on his web site http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/ I'm sure many here will think him way too "far out" for public consumption.

I believe you have read my book (and I thank you for that). For others who may be interested, my thoughts on these subjects are detailed there far more clearly than I can do on a forum. http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-History-Conspiracies-Cover-Ups-American/dp/1629144843

As rocknroll history McGowan's work is bunk.

The rest of his material about intel operations in Laurel Canyon may be spot on, but the music stuff is nonsense.

Jim Morrison and Arthur Lee are now regarded more as proto-punk than hippie-psychedelic.

Frank Zappa's psychedelia was fueled by coffee, not LSD.

The Byrds, Mamas & Papas, the Monkees, Buffalo Springfield, Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young, Scott MacKenzie...they play this stuff on elevators!

In terms of acid rock there's San Francisco and there's Texas --13th Floor Elevators out of Austin and the Moving Sidewalks out of Houston.

McGowan:

“Perhaps Neil Young said it best when he told an interviewer that he couldn’t really say why he headed out to LA circa 1966; he and others “were just going like Lemmings.”

Because that's where the major record labels were. Duh...

For what it's worth, I heard "For What It's Worth" (You know -- Something's happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear ?) in the lobby of the Hotel Del Charro other night.

In my dreams, in my dreams.

http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2011/jan/05/cover-oil-politics-la-jolla/#

--Tommy

Edited May 10, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Cliff Varnell]

I don't disagree at all Cliff, with your assessment of the relative value of the two scenes. Have you read the book?

I read parts of it posted on-line, got into a big discussion about it on Deep Politics some time ago.

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr93.html

Zappa, along with certain members of his sizable entourage (the ‘Log Cabin’ was run as an early commune, with numerous hangers-on occupying various rooms in the main house and the guest house, as well as in the peculiar caves and tunnels lacing the grounds of the home; far from the quaint homestead the name seems to imply, by the way, the ‘Log Cabin’ was a cavernous five-level home that featured a 2,000+ square-foot living room with three massive chandeliers and an enormous floor-to-ceiling stone fireplace), will also be instrumental in introducing the look and attitude that will define the ‘hippie’ counterculture (although the Zappa crew preferred the label ‘Freak’). Nevertheless, Zappa (born, curiously enough, on the Winter Solstice of 1940) never really made a secret of the fact that he had nothing but contempt for the ‘hippie’ culture that he helped create and that he surrounded himself with.

In the summer of 1966 the hippie phenomenon was in full bloom in the Haight-Ashbury without any help from Frank Zappa.

In fact, the only people who bought "Freak Out!" initially were folks who were already freaks.

[Guest Mark Valenti]

Zappa's office on Sunset Boulevard was the very picture of MOR business behavior. No hippies on the floor contemplating body parts.

[Paul Trejo]

To me, the interesting thing about Rock 'n' Roll in US History is ultimately how conservative it was and remains.

Elvis Presley was a good ol' boy from the South, and he made his millions presenting Black American music with a White Face.

In one sense it was an extension of Al Jolson's original 'Blackface' jazz routines -- but without the ridiculous blackface makeup.

Americans have been in love with Black American music since the 1800's. It's one of the keys that define America.

It was only a matter of time before it came out as mainstream -- and perhaps Elvis Presley was the first one to make it so.

After Elvis we had countless imitators. The Beatles, of course, had more conservative faces than Elvis -- and they imitated Little Richard as well as they could, but soon fell back on their British roots.

In the meantime, Mick Jagger sounded more African than Harry Belafonte. It was that Black sound that made everything sound so authentic -- so real -- so American.

Just because the US South tried to smash Rock 'n' Roll into the ground (as they smashed JFK into the ground) that didn't marginalize the Americanism of Rock -- on the contrary -- it enhanced its Americanism.

Look at Country Music today -- a half-century later -- it sounds more Rock 'n' Roll today than Buddy Holly.

Rock and Roll has always been Conservative American Art.

It was little surprise when in the wake of the JFK murder, the Hollywood old-school Elizabeth Taylor's CLEOPATRA bankrupted FOX Studios, clearing the way for Peter Fonda and Jack Nicholson's EASY RIDER before the 60's were over, pointing Hollywood in a whole new direction.

Rock 'n' Roll was NEVER counter-culture. It was always as American as apple pie.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited May 11, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Cliff Varnell]

To me, the interesting thing about Rock 'n' Roll in US History is ultimately how conservative it was and remains.

Rock and Roll has always been Conservative American Art.

Rock 'n' Roll was NEVER counter-culture. It was always as American as apple pie.

Paul, you and I have an entirely different notion of "rock & roll."

Here are two prime examples of truly subversive rock & roll, nearly 50 years apart.

Dylan goes electric, "Maggie's Farm" at the Newport Folk Festival spring '65 featuring San Francisco's Mike Bloomfield on switchblade sharp guitar.

Pussy Riot at the Winter Olympics at Sochi in '14 - "Putin will teach you how to love the Motherland"

We punks learned from the mistakes of the 60's counter-culture...All those fat hippie rock stars out of Laurel Canyon...bollocks...

The only true counter-culture is D.I.Y. culture. Do It Yourself.

Hardcore punk rock pioneered DIY culture and the movement has gone global.

Pussy Riot ain't gonna work on Putin's farm no more.

Edited May 11, 2015 by Cliff Varnell