JFK, 9/11 and Open Source Software

[John Simkin]

I am gratified that so many people are still following the JFK assassination case. The truth is out there as we speak. But, if anyone is waiting for a formal government pronouncement of the truth, they are in for a long wait. I feel today we need to turn our investigative efforts to the 9/11 conspiracy. This is bigger than the JFK case because more than one man died and the evidence of conspiracy is emerging much faster than in the 1960s. Plus, we all know that 9/11 is the foundation of everything that has occurred since -- Patriot Act, Homeland Security, tighter government control, invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, even the 2004 elections.

Jim is of course right, 9/11 is more important than the assassination of JFK. However, I would justify this research with the claim that they are both part of the same conspiracy. By discovering what happened in 1963 will help us understand what is going on now. The only real reason for the study of history is that it is really about finding out about the present. The role of the historian is to show the connections between these events.

The start of this worldwide conspiracy began in the 17th century. It was at this time that people began demanding universal suffrage. They were only a small minority but they were highly dangerous people. Their ideas were based on something Aristotle said: “When quarrels and complaints arise, it is when people who are equal have not got equal shares.”

Inequality is the source of all conflict. It became clear to a few individuals that they only way you were going to obtain an harmonious society was to create one based on equal rights. The ruling elites were horrified by this idea. It posed a direct threat to the wealth and privileges they enjoyed. They knew that any truly egalitarian society would redistribute wealth and power. Therefore it was decided by ruling elites throughout the world that they would have to use this power to suppress this desire for equality. For hundreds of years they had distorted the teaching of Jesus Christ to justify inequality. Only occasionally had religious figures like John Ball and George Fox emerged to question this philosophy. However, it had not been too difficult to suppress the ideas of these people.

The 17th century caused particular problems for the ruling elites. The reason for this was the development of mass produced forms of communication. It was now possible for just a few to communicate with a very large number. Those few divergent thinkers who obtained an understanding of how the system worked, naturally became interested in communicating this to a wide audience. They became writers and publishers. Therefore, to maintain control, the ruling elite had to take control of all forms of mass communications. Those who refused to be censored (or bribed) had to be punished severely.

The desire for democracy became very closely linked to the struggle for freedom of expression. The radical journalist became a key figure in this struggle. One man who was involved in this battle was Henry Hetherington. His name has been airbrushed out of history but when he died thousands of people attended his funeral. In 1831 Hetherington began publishing a newspaper called The Poor Man’s Guardian. Above the title was the words: “Knowledge is Power”. It became the slogan adopted by all those fighting for democracy. People like Hetherington realised that for their dreams to be realised, they had to compete with the ruling elites for the minds of the people.

Those in favour of democracy and freedom of expression had many victories but the ruling elite always won the war. They were always had the power to adapt the reforms that took place to their own advantage.

Some countries even had revolutions. Most notably in France and Russia. These were only short-lived affairs and in essence involved one ruling elite replacing another ruling elite. These revolutions were then used to prevent the emergence of true democracy in other countries. Those seeking radical reform were accused of being followers of foreign revolutionaries. The examples of these revolutions inspired some but frightened a great deal more. Not surprisingly, most people questioned the wisdom of revolutionary action when they always resulted in a great deal of bloodshed followed by the betrayal of the ideas that had inspired the revolution. Understandably, the idea of gradual reform was considered to be a far better option.

The problem was that these reforms were always undermined by the unequal distribution of power and wealth that continued to exist in these societies. Money was therefore used to corrupt political leaders. This eventually became built into the system. To gain political power you had to raise a considerable amount of money. The people who provided this money wanted something back in return. This meant control of party policy. In some cases, this money was linked to government action that favoured a particular company or industry.

In 1937 a new development emerged. It all started with a meeting between Lyndon Johnson and two brothers, George and Herman Brown. As a result Brown & Root won the Marshall Ford Dam contract. This was worth $27,000,000. It is not known how much profit the company made from the deal. However, in a letter written to LBJ, George Brown, admitted the company was set to make a $2m profit out of just a small part of the deal worth only $5m.

During the Second World War this corrupt network made millions. In 1942 the Brown brothers established the Brown Shipbuilding Company. Over the next three years the company built 359 ships and employed 25,000 people. This was worth $27,000,000. This contract was eventually worth $357,000,000. Yet until they got the contract, Brown & Root had never built a single ship of any type.

Another key player in this was John McCone. He established the California Shipbuilding Company. This was a successful move and in 1946 it was recorded that the company made $44 million in wartime profits on an investment of $100,000.

McCone went on to serve in Eisenhower’s government (Deputy to the Secretary of Defense and Under Secretary of the Air Force. He was of course head of the CIA when JFK was assassinated.

After the Second World War this network became known as the Military Industrial Congressional Complex (MICC). Other countries had other names for this new phenomena. In some countries in the western world it never even acquired a name but it always took place.

The basic idea behind the MICC is that the country is threatened by an ideology. For most of the 20th century this ideology was communism. The actual ideology is not in itself important as long it can be associated with a foreign power. To defend yourself against this ideology you need to spend a great deal of money on armaments. This money should be given to particular companies in the form of government contracts. To ensure they got these contracts these companies paid large sums of money to the politicians and the political parties responsible for granting these contracts.

In a true democracy this corrupt system would never have survived. Although in theory every adult in the western world has the vote, that does not matter as long as the ruling elite kept control of the means of communication. In some countries they used crude methods such as the state control of the television industry. In the west more sophisticated methods of shaping the minds of electorate were used.

This system worked very well until the election of John F. Kennedy. Not that he was elected with a commitment to destroying the MICC. He might not have been aware of it in 1960 and was probably confused by Dwight Eisenhower’s last speech as president when the term Military Industrial Complex for the first time (Eisenhower dropped the word Congressional from the original speech written by Malcolm Moos).

In 1960 JFK was a Cold War warrior who was fully convinced by the need to spend a large sum of money defending the “free world” from communism. In fact, during his presidential campaign he criticised Eisenhower and the Republican Party for not spending enough on armaments.

No, JFK was a problem because he was independently wealthy. He had not been one of those drawn into the MICC network of corruption. Therefore there was the danger that JFK might want to dismantle this system once he found out about it. However, this was considered to be highly unlikely. Lyndon Johnson, the central figure in the MICC, was confident that JFK could be dissuaded from taking such action. It would not have been an issue if it had not been for Cuba. It was the conflict with this small island that revealed to JFK the problems of the MICC. The key event was the Cuban Missile Crisis. As far as the public was concerned this event had resulted in a diplomatic triumph for JFK. He had emerged from the crisis as a heroic cold war warrior. JFK knew differently. He was aware of just how close the world had come to nuclear war. JFK had come to the conclusion that the MICC and the Cold War had brought the world to the edge of extinction.

This in itself would not have changed most politicians. But JFK was not a typical politician. He was an intellectual (very unusual in an politician). He thought deeply about things. He decided it was his responsibility to bring an end to the Cold War. However, he could not do this openly. JFK knew he would be destroyed by the media if he made it clear what he was doing. He was also aware that the MICC would never allow him to openly enter into such negotiations. If he was going to do this, it would have to be in secret. During the summer of 1963 JFK began to use a few key figures such as William Attwood and Lisa Howard, to set up these secret negotiations. Unfortunately, JFK did not know about the key role played by the CIA in the MICC. It soon became clear that JFK would have to be removed from office.

The conspiracy was a great success. The MICC had virtually full control over all forms of mass communication in America. There were some brave people, mainly journalists, who tried to explain to the people what had taken place. However, it was not too difficult to portray them as communist agents or from suffering from some form of mental illness. When that failed, as in the case of Dorothy Kilgallen and Lisa Howard, these people had to be murdered.

The MICC emerged from the JFK crisis virtually unscathed. The next crisis for them came in 1989. The collapse of communism in Eastern Europe caused serious problems for the MICC. Surely the people would start demanding a reduction in military spending now that the main enemy had lost its power base. Most people would now realise that these obscene sums of money should be spent on improving the quality of life of the less fortunate members of society. Was it not to logically to spend most of this money on education, health care, pensions, etc.?

If the power of the MICC was to continue, a new enemy had to be discovered. However, this was a problem. The military power of the United States was such that no country would take them on. It took them some time before they realised who this new enemy would be. Eventually they came up with the idea of the Muslim Fundamentalists. This was ideal as they did not think in the same ways as previous enemies had. They were willing to die for the cause. They were the only ones who would be willing to physically attack America. This had to happen because otherwise people would have begun to question the need to spend so much on defending the country.

I am not saying that 9/11 was organized by the MICC. In fact, I believe this is highly unlikely. However, it was not in their interests to stop it happening. It is for this reason that the CIA missed all those clues. As with the JFK assassination, the intelligence services pleaded guilty to incompetence rather than complicity.

The main link between the assassination of JFK and 9/11 is that it was the MICC who benefited. That could be a coincidence. Or it could be evidence that they were both events in the same conspiracy. The conspiracy to prevent the world from achieving democracy.

The MICC is now heavily involved in computer software. They are able to use their power and influence to win lucrative government contracts to provide software. These systems are not only expensive, but are usually deeply flawed and end up costing the taxpayers a great deal more than was originally contracted for.

It should be fairly obvious that governments should be making use of open source software. However, they can’t do that as it is free. How are they to get individual bribes and large donations to the party without giving contracts to multinational software companies?