2016 Election, Historical Amnesia, and Deep Politics

[James DiEugenio]

Gee Tommy, I wish I knew what your reference to Armstrong's book meant.  I read the whole giant volume and I don't get what you are talking about. (If it is an attempt at humor, its a dud.) 

As per your question, I answered that several times already.

Will you answer mine?

Edited January 5, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

On January 3, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Paul Brancato said:

Very smart article. I could share it on FB but few if any would read it - too long. Most of my well meaning liberal friends are actually quite ignorant on the subject of the Deep State. 

The number one referrer at Kennedyandking.com is FB, and its over this article Paul.

So maybe there is some hope for the masses?

[Thomas Graves]

On 1/5/2017 at 10:36 AM, Thomas Graves said:

Gee, Jim.

I thought that was what Harvey and Lee was all about.  You know, so we can (at least subconsciously) blame our mommies and daddies and all the authority figures in our lives and the whole freaking CIA and FBI, too.

Question:  Did you really think Hillary Clinton was an equally evil choice as Donald Trump?

--  Tommy

PS  Another question:  Do you think Trump is correct in saying that his and  Assange's mutual buddy, Vladimir Putin, did NOT hack the DNC and Podesta?  Do you think the CIA and the FBI are trying to mislead the American public on this?

PPS  When I want to get "the big picture," I just watch Alex Jones crying on youtube while following Rania Khalek on Twitter.

 

Edit:  

" Unless he changes course, Trump will take office having invested more credibility in the views of Russian President Vladimir Putin and WikiLeaks fugitive Julian Assange than in leading US intelligence agencies."  --  from CNN's  "US News" website page, 1/05/17

You do agree with Trump and Assange, don't you, Jim?  Seein' as how the US is such an evil, evil country?

Edited February 16, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Kirk Gallaway]

Yeah Jim, I'm sorry your Julian Assange write in campaign for 2016 Time's Man of the Year didn't work out. i can't imagine why. I agree, it must be rigged!

[James DiEugenio]

On January 3, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Paul Brancato said:

Paul, thanks for your acute comments.

As per Graves, what the heck does this reply about Assange mean?

This is the second time you have tried to to do this to me on this site.  In the first go round, you tried to say that I was somehow a 9-11 controlled demolition advocate etc.  I answered that I had no set opinion on that issue since I had never studied it in depth. I spend too much of my time on the four assassinations of the sixties, and JFK's foreign policy.  Therefore, I do not study that particular issue--and the others you tried to ascribe to me. So I do not comment on them at my site, or in written form anywhere else.  

Now you bring up Assange and Trump.  Again, I have no idea on that since I have not seen the CIA/NSA/ FBI evidence on it.  Have you?  How?  What is it then?  Once I see it, then I can form a logical opinion.  Please let us know where it is if you have seen it Tommy.

As per Assange, why anyone on this site should be against getting more exposure of documents--which tell us some of the unseemly things our Pentagon and intel services have done in relation to Iraq and the Middle East--that truly escapes me.  That Assange did that I think is salutary.  People like him and Snowden--and several others like Tom Drake and William Binney-- have helped us understand just how badly both our foreign policy has gone awry and how our civil liberties have been compromised.  If you wish to side with Dick Cheney and George W. Bush on this, then hey, its your choice. 

As per Tommy, have fun with Tracy Parnell going after Jim and John.  But just be reminded that Parnell is the guy who defended the atrocity that was Gerald Posner and Case Closed back then.  Unlike what you say about me, that is not imagined, its true. Maybe you didn't know that.  You do now.

[James DiEugenio]

Let me repost the subject since it may have gotten  lost by the above distractions:

 

https://kennedysandking.com/articles/the-2016-election-historical-amnesia-and-deep-politics

As I said, its the number one rated essay at the site right now.  

[Thomas Graves]

7 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

As per Graves, what the heck does this reply about Assange mean?

This is the second time you have tried to to do this to me on this site.  In the first go round, you tried to say that I was somehow a 9-11 controlled demolition advocate etc.  I answered that I had no set opinion on that issue since I had never studied it in depth. I spend too much of my time on the four assassinations of the sixties, and JFK's foreign policy.  Therefore, I do not study that particular issue--and the others you tried to ascribe to me. So I do not comment on them at my site, or in written form anywhere else.  

Now you bring up Assange and Trump.  Again, I have no idea on that since I have not seen the CIA/NSA/ FBI evidence on it.  Have you?  How?  What is it then?  Once I see it, then I can form a logical opinion.  Please let us know where it is if you have seen it Tommy.

As per Assange, why anyone on this site should be against getting more exposure of documents--which tell us some of the unseemly things our Pentagon and intel services have done in relation to Iraq and the Middle East--that truly escapes me.  That Assange did that I think is salutary.  People like him and Snowden--and several others like Tom Drake and William Binney-- have helped us understand just how badly both our foreign policy has gone awry and how our civil liberties have been compromised.  If you wish to side with Dick Cheney and George W. Bush on this, then hey, its your choice. 

As per Tommy, have fun with Tracy Parnell going after Jim and John.  But just be reminded that Parnell is the guy who defended the atrocity that was Gerald Posner and Case Closed back then.  Unlike what you say about me, that is not imagined, its true. Maybe you didn't know that.  You do now.

 

Dear Jim,

It's funny how the Russian-speaking "cut out" / third party "Guccifer 2.0" hasn't given Assange any "dirt" on Trump, don't you think?

--  Tommy

 

 

[James DiEugenio]

Let me repost the subject since it may have gotten  lost by the above distractions, which Tommy is now trying to continue, without answering any of my previous questions.

https://kennedysandking.com/articles/the-2016-election-historical-amnesia-and-deep-politics

As I said, its the number one rated essay at the site right now.  

Edited January 5, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Thomas Graves]

22 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

As per Graves, what the heck does this reply about Assange mean?

This is the second time you have tried to to do this to me on this site.  In the first go round, you tried to say that I was somehow a 9-11 controlled demolition advocate etc.  I answered that I had no set opinion on that issue since I had never studied it in depth. I spend too much of my time on the four assassinations of the sixties, and JFK's foreign policy.  Therefore, I do not study that particular issue--and the others you tried to ascribe to me. So I do not comment on them at my site, or in written form anywhere else.  

Now you bring up Assange and Trump.  Again, I have no idea on that since I have not seen the CIA/NSA/ FBI evidence on it.  Have you?  How?  What is it then?  Once I see it, then I can form a logical opinion.  Please let us know where it is if you have seen it Tommy.

As per Assange, why anyone on this site should be against getting more exposure of documents--which tell us some of the unseemly things our Pentagon and intel services have done in relation to Iraq and the Middle East--that truly escapes me.  That Assange did that I think is salutary.  People like him and Snowden--and several others like Tom Drake and William Binney-- have helped us understand just how badly both our foreign policy has gone awry and how our civil liberties have been compromised.  If you wish to side with Dick Cheney and George W. Bush on this, then hey, its your choice. 

As per Tommy, have fun with Tracy Parnell going after Jim and John.  But just be reminded that Parnell is the guy who defended the atrocity that was Gerald Posner and Case Closed back then.  Unlike what you say about me, that is not imagined, its true. Maybe you didn't know that.  You do now.

 

Dear Jim,

It's funny how the Russian-speaking "cut out" / third party "Guccifer 2.0" hasn't given Assange any "dirt" on Trump, don't you think?

--  Tommy

 

PS:  What, you don't think 9/11 was an inside job done by the evil, evil CIA?

 

[Thomas Graves]

1 minute ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

Dear Jim,

It's funny how the Russian-speaking "cut out" / third party "Guccifer 2.0" hasn't given Assange any "dirt" on Trump, don't you think?

--  Tommy

 

PS:  What?  You don't think 9/11 was an inside job done by the evil, evil CIA?

 

 

Bumped,  because ... well ...  isn't 9/11 a part of "Deep Politics"?

Edited January 5, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Michael Walton]

Dear Jim,

It's funny how the Russian-speaking...

Remember back in the day when you attended grade school?  You'd be paying attention to the teacher and then you'd feel a sting on your ear.  You'd look down, find a rubber band on the floor, look behind you and there'd be "Tommy" covering his mouth while stifling a laugh.  Remember those days?  There's always a "Tommy" out there, causing mischief, pestering people, doing borderline bully stuff.

The choice is either to ignore a "Tommy" or "tell the teacher."  In most cases, it's best to just ignore because then a "Tommy," when ignored, will just tuck tail and go on to harass the next party.

On the interwebs, there's actually a term for a "Tommy" -- it's a t-r-o-l-l.

I mean, did you ever notice "Tommy's" avatar?  I have sunglasses on too but I had them on because I was outdoors. Our "Tommy" is indoors and has sunglasses on.  That should tell you all you need to know about our "Tommy" here.

And here's something else. Here's how much our "Tommy" thinks of this forum.  I call it:

Tommy This is a Test Graves

Edited January 5, 2017 by Michael Walton

[Thomas Graves]

47 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

Dear Jim,

It's funny how the Russian-speaking...

Remember back in the day when you attended grade school?  You'd be paying attention to the teacher and then you'd feel a sting on your ear.  You'd look down, find a rubber band on the floor, look behind you and there'd be "Tommy" covering his mouth while stifling a laugh.  Remember those days?  There's always a "Tommy" out there, causing mischief, pestering people, doing borderline bully stuff.

The choice is either to ignore a "Tommy" or "tell the teacher."  In most cases, it's best to just ignore because then a "Tommy," when ignored, will just tuck tail and go on to harass the next party.

On the interwebs, there's actually a term for a "Tommy" -- it's a t-r-o-l-l.

I mean, did you ever notice "Tommy's" avatar?  I have sunglasses on too but I had them on because I was outdoors. Our "Tommy" is indoors and has sunglasses on.  That should tell you all you need to know about our "Tommy" here.

And here's something else. Here's how much our "Tommy" thinks of this forum.  I call it:

Tommy This is a Test Graves

Dear Michael,

Boy-oh-boy, you've really "outed" me this time.

Truth-be-told, The Agency pays me a lot of money to pretend that I'm a JFK Assassination Conspiracy Theorist here,  and to have the gall to cast doubt on Putin's "useful, gullible idiot," Julian Assange.

Yep, the jig is up.

I mean, I mean, I mean.

--  Tommy

But not nearly as much as they must have had to pay the notorious PBS to portray Trump's multi-billionaire, mobbed-up buddy, Vladimir Putin, as negatively as it did in this Frontline report.  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/putins-way/

 

Edited January 6, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Kirk Gallaway]

Ok I get it. Hillary Clinton lost by 2.86 million votes because of...globalism? Oh I'm.sorry I got mixed up, wrong metric, or ....whatever it is!

  Would somebody like to define what a "globalist 'is? Is it any corporation or business or individual that wants to make money in another country? Is being anti globalist just mean you want to keep jobs in the USA, or bring jobs back or  what else?

We lost 5 million manufacturing jobs in the Great Recession, was this all due to bad trade treaties? Ok, if you're a Democrat and you were going to have to blame one Democrat figure, it would be Bill Clinton's Presidency. But it's sort of a complex issue, isn't it?  I think the more you understand it the more you realize that Trump with his token  tweets and  taxpayer payoffs isn't  going to get back 5 million jobs. And none of his appointments give confidence that there will be any appreciable difference either. You have to wonder right now if he's going to earnestly handle this problem without inciting a major trade war. My guess is that he'll  stop short and  try to jive his way out with high profile tweets.

.If we were to bring jobs back from overseas . It would be uplifting to think that Americans would choose to pay say 15% more for American made consumer electronics, my  bet is that they wouldn't and they won't be asked to.

Jim, I know it's been a hard road for you. Just 9 months ago you preferred Hillary over Bernie. Then you learned about the global trade agreements and then found out that Hillary was the very face of globalism!  I'm sure it was quite a betrayal. She did try to make it up to you Jim, and reversed her support on the TTP. You have to appreciate how hard it was her, she literally had to remake herself from years of relentless programming from those vicious globalists.  But I understand, you were too hurt, and it was too late.

Ok, I'm being a bit dramatic but your sense of betrayal and vengeance toward the Clinton's only stokes my embellishment!

 

Of course Trump despite his high profile tweets, has his ties made in China, has 144 businesses in 25 countries all over the globe and is by any definition a globalist. Is he only going to be tough on industries he's not in?

Trump's s nominee for head cop on Wall Street, that is the head of the Securities Exchange Commission is Jay Clayton. He'll instigate Trump's plan to deregulate Wall Street and make his own job easier. Clayton was an exchange lawyer for the law firm Sullivan and Cromwell. Gee, where I have heard about them before? They were the firm that Allen Dulles got his start , and joined his brother John Foster. This firm has represented the founding members of the world globalist community. I think that might qualify! And he'll certainly use a lot of government money to protect his interests at home and abroad because after all, he's quite a target.

Trumps treasure Secretary appointment Steve Mnuchin made a killing from buying out the distressed mortgages from Indymac under the name One West. Is anyone the least concerned about a Kleptocracy? They've now found the majority of their notes were backdated which is against the law in the State of California. For some reason the California Attorney General department chose not to prosecute. The Attorney General was Kamala Harris who is now the Senator from California and I believe will be in the committee to approve Mnuchin's appointment. Wow, that should be interesting!

 

 

Edited January 6, 2017 by Kirk Gallaway

[Thomas Graves]

7 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Ok I get it. Hillary Clinton lost by 2.86 million votes because of...globalism?

[...]

 

Hillary Clinton lost by 2.86 million votes?  I thought that was Trump, instead.

Oh well, I guess I must have read some Mark Zukerberg-approved fake news.

--  Tommy

The big question, though, is how soon will The (evil, evil) National Security Establishment take Trump out.  To dinner, I mean.

Edited January 6, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[James DiEugenio]

Kirk:

Step One:  When an article does not have my name on it, that means I did not write it.  I only edited it.  I guess you missed that one.

Step Two:  I favored HRC over Sanders?  Then why did I vote for Sanders in the primary?

Step Three: your screed is aimed at me, but you used some bits from Alex' piece to try and smear me.  First, as even Tommy noticed:  HRC did not lose the popular vote.  She won it. But see, we have the electoral college so it does not mean anything if you win the popular vote.  You have to get 270 electoral votes.  

Second, the article itself precisely quotes Michael Moore as pinpointing where HRC lost the electoral votes. These were in the so called Blue Wall area which extends about from Pennsylvania out to Iowa and Minnesota.  Trump concentrated on those states.  He spent about 35% more visits there than HRC did.  The day after the election his tactician, Bannon, went on the radio and said that they had two key goals: 1.) Do not let HRC take Florida and North Carolina, and 2.) They had to take some of those Mideast states from the Democrats to get to 270.  They specifically targeted Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and Iowa.  They achieved both of their goals--and more-- through a very targeted campaign.  

Now, what do you think Trump did in those states in the mideast?  Did he talk about LGBT?  Women's rights?  Machado?  No, he did not.  As Moore says in that excerpt, which apparently you did not listen to, he talked about job loss and restoring fair trade, and how he would hurt manufacturers if they shipped jobs to Mexico etc.  I mean, you did watch a bit of TV did you not?  That is all the result of globalism.  I mean you are aware of this aren't you?  Now it doesn't matter if he means it.  It does not matter if he has his line of shirts manufactured in China.  As Moore says:  He was the only guy who went there and said those things.  And when I saw some focus group interviews after, with middle aged working women, I was shocked.  Elisa Machado did not matter.  They said they voted for Trump because of the loss of American jobs and he was going to help them on that issue.  

Were all these women lying?  Or as Tommy may say:  Did the CIA put them up to it?  I don't think so.  HRC and Podesta and Mook got outflanked on this. Globalism and its attendant anti immigrant bias--which Alex also talked about--is a very real force in America.  Now, maybe you have not read Don GIbson's excellent book, Battling Wall Street, the only book length examination I know of about Kenendy's economic policies. JFK was clearly a nationalist on this issue.  Which is the underlying theme of Alex' work in this regard.  Therefore, the Democratic party has lost its moorings. On many other things, but also this issue.  I have often said that David Rockefeller could not get his one world agenda through JFK.  But he did get it through the Clintons. (Alex mentions these also as examples of Trump outflanking HRC.)  This is why they hang out with Rockefeller's hit man on foreign policy: Henry Kissinger.  (Also in the article)

All of this is in there.  If you missed it, fine.  Read it again. As I said, a lot of people--thousands of them-- are finding it fascinating. The Big Picture is important. Its how we live today.

Edited January 6, 2017 by James DiEugenio