District Attorney Jim Garrison's Case For A Conspiracy

[Kirk Gallaway]

Paul said; Kirk - What media outlets do you consider free from propaganda? 

None.

Jim, Maybe you got flustered at my first paragraph, couldn't see straight  and didn't bother to read the second, (below) which is a much more articulate defense of RT than I've seen you make.

But on the other hand,  you do get guests that seriously question the neocon American adventurism that aren't ever allowed on the American political pundit shows on the major networks and cable networks. We still have Bill Krystol actually on MSNBC no less, despite the fact that his cabal initiated the most destructive foreign policy, wasteful of lives and displacement to this day, and from just a selfish American viewpoint draining of our treasury to the point that some in our government can plausibly deny that the government  can''t fulfill basic rights to their citizens. Yet he's still allowed to opine about foreign policy,and  some other pundits are centrist but there's no equal time to the opposite side. There's not a shortage of responsible spokesman for the other side and you can see some of them on RT.

I hope you have read this now.

Kirk said: I do think people should check it out for themselves.

Jim said:"Just remember what the first amendment is all about. What's next with you and Kirk? Joe McCarthy bumper stickers? "

Oh! Invoking MC Carthy no less at so little provocation, Jim? That reinforces my view that I've never found you particularly tolerant of dissent at all.

Jim says:  Its about the survival of ideas in a fair marketplace.  

Agreed, if you put something out there, it's fair game. You resort to name calling, you lose! Or maybe I should say have lost.

Honestly Jim, I didn't think I was attacking you at all, but giving my review.

 

 

•  

Edited November 12, 2017 by Kirk Gallaway

[Michael Clark]

@ 4:45: "President Kennnedy was assassinated by men who sought a radical change in our foreign policy, particularly, with regard to Cuba."

There are so many prescient words in Jim Garrisons television presentation. It is a shame that this thread gets sidetracked and diverted to 2016 election rabbit holes..

 

You can't say that I did not try:

 

 

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

On 11/11/2017 at 1:55 PM, Paul Brancato said:

Kirk - What media outlets do you consider free from propaganda? 

I have seen little on RT, other than Sean Stone for a few episodes. But I am struck by how much more interesting their programming is than our major media. So I have avoided RT for the most part, but I'm beginning to wonder whether the bad rap and accusations that it is in some way anti-American (because it's Russian controlled) is in itself a bit of propaganda. I wish more US media would be critical of our foreign policies, and more willing to look at history when examining current events. The networks here that I do tune into - MSNBC and CNN - have many good commentators and anchors (when I say 'good' I mean that they are not rabid pushers of fake news and seem to really care about the plight of the average citizen). But behind them are the editors and owners who make advertising revenue by having them on the air, and who cooperate when necessary with the national security state (that's my opinion - same for NPR). Their collective coverage of the document release is a case in point. There is little effort at truth in that case. In fact the best reportage I heard was from Rick Santelli on CNBC, clearly a right winger. So if it takes a Russian controlled network to hear a bit of truth in a sea of lies, maybe we should get over our nationalistic pride and give it a listen. 

Paul said:

So if it takes a Russian controlled network to hear a bit of truth in a sea of lies, maybe we should get over our nationalistic pride and give it a listen. 

Agreed, Paul, and besides it's not the same old sh-t

Paul said:

Larry - I do, always, treat all media with as much care as possible. So if there is a Putin agenda at work in RT it won't work on me any more than NBC or CNN or the NYT.

Again agreed Paul , Certainly you, Larry  and I are in no danger of being "brainwashed" and can sense the slant in any media we might expose ourselves. But we're not everybody.  For individuals who are addled, ADD ridden so as to not be able to read 2 paragraphs, mud slinging, then unable to apologize, like  Di Eugenio and our President, any forays into such media is clearly detrimental, as evidenced.

 

Heh heh

 

Paul said:

In fact the best reportage I heard was from Rick Santelli on CNBC, clearly a right winger.

 

That was a curious choice Paul, Rick Santelli? I'm familiar with him. A TV financial analyst, bond trader, color commentator. And often as  other color commentators, unfiltered , says what he thinks. There are really a lot of such commentators in media. But you might be shocked if the right questions were asked of him, as I know he thinks that the only eventual answer to our debt woes is the complete disassembling of the nations safety net. However, I have my doubts if he'd employ such Draconian cuts on the National Security State, but I don't know for sure. But I think it is true, if cornered, he would be truthful and tell you that. Keep in mind, the man who approached Smedley Butler in 1933 about a coup to overthrow FDR in reaction to his New Deal policies was also a bond trader.

I don't think Santelli has any interest in treason, like some in government.

 

Santelli's a very vocal voice against the policies of the Fed, but is not against the Fed per se. The existence of the Federal Reserve  of course, to a few CTer's  is probably the most Deep State Deep State conspiracy going on. How did we get this institution?,and how did they get  the immense power they have over our government, and what are it's ties to an international financial conspiracy? I'm sure those in the loose conspiracy of financiers are just thrilled that most CTer's are diverting themselves on U.S.government "Deep State" CIA,  FBI conspiracies,and  have a hand in promoting such diversions on the unwitting public, because after all, the disbanding of the government, and the gutting of many government agencies that has already been instigated by the Trump administration is just music to their ears! They want a good size military though, so they can keep order if they have to.

 

Isn't that incredible, to think that the Deep State actually went private or corporate?? Actually some have been saying it all along.You have much more control over your government then you'll ever have over them!

 

But to throw another curve, the reason Santelli doesn't like the Fed, is because of the control they've taken  since the Great Recession has smoothed out the interest rate curve that is his bread and butter. The Fed during the Obama administration intentionally put the economy on trainer wheels just to ensure the economy didn't tumble into the abyss, which was a real danger! In so doing they took the speculative power out of the market because it was that speculation in the U.S.market that destroyed the world markets! Santelli over 5 years ago, was in essence saying, "when is the government and the Fed going to get off our backs and let us make money again?" At that time, IMO it was very irresponsible.And time has proven that right, as the economy has speeded up,  there has been less unemployment and there has been no shortage of people making money in the stock market in the last 5 years, (not that it's equitable, by any sense!) .There are certainly excesses now, but they would have been a lot more advanced in the boom and bust cycle that could occur if Santelli had had his way. But the whole issue is actually a conflict between new and old money.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 14, 2017 by Kirk Gallaway

[Douglas Caddy]

On ‎11‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 11:56 AM, James DiEugenio said:

Do you believe this stuff?

Chris Hedges and Jesse Ventura, foreign agents?  What does one call Voice of America then?

 

https://www.thenation.com/article/registering-the-cable-channel-rt-a-foreign-agent-is-a-threat-to-press-freedom/

[James DiEugenio]

Nice article, thanks Doug.

 

Michael, that was also a good comment.  Garrison was so far ahead of the curve with that speech, that it would have required a quantum leap in the general public to understand his ideas.  And the problem was that there were very few media sources that gave anyone information of this kind on the JFK case at that time.

[Paul Brancato]

Agree - nice article

[Paz Marverde]

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Garrison was so far ahead of the curve with that speech, that it would have required a quantum leap in the general public to understand his ideas.  And the problem was that there were very few media sources that gave anyone information of this kind on the JFK case at that time

Very well said, Jim

About that:

 

[George Sawtelle]

Larry

Before you shut up, please provide documentation that indicates RT is Russian propaganda.

If evidence isn't documented or researched to the ultimate degree then it can't be true, or it shouldn't be believed. That's your belief. To a certain extent I understand your logic.

So if there exists documentation that proves RT is a Russian propaganda tool it can be provided by you easily I'm sure. Thanks in advance.

[Larry Hancock]

George,  my intent was simply to provide a warning to consider it as a source. As you can see by the post above, certainly the American intelligence community and the current administration consider it as representing foreign interests. As to sources I would refer you to the US study on Russian influence messaging, in particular Annex A which has a lot to say about RT:

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

Of course since that comes from our own government and our own intelligence community that will be challenged here I'm sure.  There are some good reasons to challenge the actual reach of RT as far as broadcast television, its internet reach, especially including tweets and retweets is much broader. You might also want to search out the commentary from some of its employees such as RT editor in chief Margarita Simonyan.

Everybody needs to do their own homework and certainly RT does offer some interesting content, some of it very factual and very solid - programs on fracking, on voting fraud, on vote hacking etc.  But it also spends a lot of time on negative stories, even including coverage of various state succession movements such as in Texas and California.  As with any media outlet it needs to appear to show some level of balance - it may actually appear more balanced than Fox for example. But it does have its own editorial objectives and as President Putin has clearly stated in public, he expects any State funded media (and any media owned by patriotic Russians) to reflect the interest of the State. 

In any event, whatever impact RT may or may not have, its only a very small part of a much larger history of both US and Russian messaging and it might best be compared to other state funded outlets, such as Radio Free America.  Both the US and Russia have a long history in information warfare, the US used to have better tools but Russia has caught up very quickly and given the US funded democracy initiative (funded out of the State Dept) which irritates them no end, they have no intention of not responding in kind.

If you want to chat more about it email or message me, I've already diverted this thread to much already.

 

 

Edited November 16, 2017 by Larry Hancock