Jump to content
The Education Forum

Kamala Harris and the RFK assassination


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Kirk Gallaway said:
Kishan, Of course, we all don't all think the same. We all have our different points of emphasis. And  there are greater issues at stake than if the government reopens an investigation into the JFKA assassination. There are just too many  other more pressing priorities for that to happen any time soon. There are some here that believe there's been an ongoing conspiracy for 50 years passed on secretly from generation to generation. So the JFKA assassination is attracting a lot of johnny -come- lately Trump "any conspiracy goes" theorists, with no knowledge of the JFKA conspiracy,  like Wheeler spamming the site with endless innuendos about skull and crossbones and upper crust family conspiracy. Still many people who have put a lot of research into the JFKA are  now decrying  how the movement is being lumped in with Wheeler's Q Anon and other crazy theories. But I've been telling them now for years this was bound to happen.
 
Di Eugenio and Jeff Carter have perpetuated this idea of a 60 year old Deep state MIC  with  a big media cabal that is to this day stonewalling the JFKA  conspiracy. And this position has a strong lure among many conspiracy theorists, including some here and I noticed particularly from new graduates who come on the forum from Jim's K&K website. For the first 20-30 years I think that was true. As far as William's assertion that there's so much disinformation in the media, the BBC would actually be a good improvement, but I think W, would agree that this has been taken to a whole other level now, and it's a false equivalency to assume the disinformation is equal on both sides. And there are numerous egregious examples in broadcast media that have cost a toll in human lives that I show in video clips in the "Journals in the Plague Year"thread.
 
You guys are younger, did any of your teachers or professors spent a lot of time in history classes teaching you their JFK conspiracy theories? I think not. Contrary to hopes, The subject is not approached with any fear by the MSM, as if they are protecting multi generational long held secrets. None of the people brought up in the schools and institutions of the last 30 years who are holding power or positions of influence are "threatened" by this discussion. They earnestly think the people advancing the theories are probably wackos.

But as I think you're saying,I always find it curious that the people who assume this  "deep state"  government conspiracy passed on through generations are sometimes the ones who espouse reopening a big government investigation into who killed JFK? Do you believe your government is as hopelessly sinister as you say or don't you?

I believe probably  all the 60's assassinations were conspiracies. And this is not to say that I don't believe there aren't more modern day conspiracies. But there will always be a ongoing struggle between intelligence and law enforcement agencies infringing on individual rights, particularly in the modern communication age where many people have now come to give up their privacy to an extent that 30 years ago, many of us would have thought to be a 1984 totalitarian surveillance state. Yes I think there's a greater danger of mass manipulation,  subtle or otherwise. But I hardly believe the MSM is "fair", whatever that subjectively means to any number of people here, who decry that MSM is covering up this valuable story they have, but never seem to realize that they got the story from the MSM!

Chris, yes it is a terrible choice. I personally thought Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren would have been excellent candidates. But socialism is quite a bugaboo word in the rather unsophisticated American voter constituency. At a point along the way. After a lot of sort of hidden deliberation a majority of the opposition decided that maybe the urgency to get Trump out of office was so great, that it was no time for wishful thinking and they went with a milquetoast centrist candidate with some experience.

Of course keeping in mind in the UK, the response to the covid crisis has hardly been stellar, as your PM was very lax initially and your resultant death rate per 100k is fifth highest in the world among countries of any size, and higher than the U.S. Maybe it took your PM going to his deathbed to assign the priorities that you're in remarkably better shape now than the U.S.  I thought his tribute to the people who helped save him was very sincere and eloquent, so much more sincerity and eloquence than our President is capable of. I find it interesting that his last name is Johnson, as he looks like a member of a Swedish knock off Beatle band!

heh heh

 
 
 
 
 
 

Wasn't there some kind of fix that went on in the democrat party where Bernie was a more popular candidate than Hilary, yet she got the nod for the 2016 campaign as candidate. I watched Bernie on Joe Rogan in 2018 I think, he means well and seems a nice person but, he is showing the signs of age. Why do the candidates have to be 70+ now? When they have lost their energy?

That's how I read it, the moment the word socialism is used it means 'RED' in the Joe McCarthy sense. 🙂 
I actually liked Tulsi Gabbard just based on the way she spoke and conducted herself publicly in the interviews I saw, though I am sure some of you will pick at her policies. She was also on Joe Rogan, but she could never go far as she believes in the 'military industrial complex' right? 
What puzzles me is strategy of the dems, surely you put a rational, statesman like candidate, with centrist views who doesn't have a past mixed up in wars and corruption, or failed past administrations and the result would be all those voters sat on the fence between Trump's rudeness and AOC madness, might think, i'll go blue this time. Surely it's the moderates that will define the election, not the hardcore lot.

P.S. I'll leave the Covid topic alone on here, i'll only upset some people. I don't buy into the bungling governance in the UK. Was it Churchill who said 'Never let a good crisis go to waste'? It was someone like that. 


 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 296
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I was for Bernie, Yes, Wasserman Schultz the DNC chair,tried to cheat Bernie.  A lot of people got upset. But Hilary was leading in delegates, unfortunately.

Yeah the candidates are too old, but Biden faced a lot of candidates who were younger. unfortunately, the millenials (in 2016 and 2018) have never showed up yet. 

As you can see with Joe's comment,there are many who think the press favors Trump, which Trump people would find laughable. In the 2016 campaign, Trump got hours and hours of free time in all major outlets as no candidate ha ever got before. The reason for that is simple. Trump is a novelty with big ratings.  Everyone wanted to talk about him. During the campaign none of the major networks really vetted him, because for many months, they never thought he could win. By the time he got the nomination when they started asking harder questions, it was too late, as Trump had gained so much momentum, there became a groundswell of Trump cultists.Trump then called their questions unfair, accused them of picking on him because he's not a mainstream candidate, called them fake news, and his followers embraced that attitude as well. He had won the battle, and was spared  accountability.

IMO, In essence the MSM are just like the campaigns themselves. Scurrying for the undecided voters or a few points in their ratings. The anti Trump press knows  now that there are certain types of anti Trump issues, such as emoluments and Trumps taxes that without hard proof, are like pushing a boulder up hill with the public opposition. So without any new revelations. They end up shutting up about it. Which of course is abnegating their responsibility.               

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

I was for Bernie, Yes, Wasserman Schultz the DNC chair,tried to cheat Bernie.  A lot of people got upset. But Hilary was leading in delegates, unfortunately.

Yeah the candidates are too old, but Biden faced a lot of candidates who were younger. unfortunately, the millenials (in 2016 and 2018) have never showed up yet. 

As you can see with Joe's comment,there are many who think the press favors Trump, which Trump people would find laughable. In the 2016 campaign, Trump got hours and hours of free time in all major outlets as no candidate ha ever got before. The reason for that is simple. Trump is a novelty with big ratings.  Everyone wanted to talk about him. During the campaign none of the major networks really vetted him, because for many months, they never thought he could win. By the time he got the nomination when they started asking harder questions, it was too late, as Trump had gained so much momentum, there became a groundswell of Trump cultists.Trump then called their questions unfair, accused them of picking on him because he's not a mainstream candidate, called them fake news, and his followers embraced that attitude as well. He had won the battle, and was spared  accountability.

IMO, In essence the MSM are just like the campaigns themselves. Scurrying for the undecided voters or a few points in their ratings. The anti Trump press knows  now that there are certain types of anti Trump issues, such as emoluments and Trumps taxes that without hard proof, are like pushing a boulder up hill with the public opposition. So without any new revelations. They end up shutting up about it. Which of course is abnegating their responsibility.               

I am not very familiar with it but, is the delegate system flawed? I mean is it always going to favour the powerful as opposed to the virtuous in the party? Is it another area where the say is taken away from the public voter? You have something called super-delegates too don’t you, who have more sway? 
 

I wouldn’t hold your breath on millennials turning up, they are all waiting to be asked to be president, heaven forbid they’d have to fight for the right. 🙂 

From what I can see, I don’t agree with Joe’s comments in regard to the media (I am trying to be agreeable). If you look at White House press briefings, how many of the news networks are pro-Trump and how many are attacking Trump? It you say pick the top 10 networks, the majority are pro Dems at the moment? At least thats the way it looks. I understand Fox are most popular but, some of the others have fallen hard in ratings. What is the true reason for that? Perhaps its their output, what they are covering and how. 

I am not saying Britain is perfect, it probably has all the same flaws but, US politics has seemed utterly shameless for this 4 years, you can say Trump has dragged that level down but, it takes two to tango. I watched those Ukraine ‘quid pro quo’ hearings and it was embarrassing. It appears to me as an outsider that there have been various attempts to oust a sitting president, attempts that were doomed to failure and only carried out with this coming election in mind, a smear campaign. I understand any die hard Dem will say, Trump brought corruption to the White House. But, putting things in perspective, which president hasn’t performed ‘quid pro quo’s? Thats the way America has operated from inception. Were Obama’s people surveilling Trumps 2016 campaign?   
How many politicians out there in congress would be cleaner than Trump if a smear campaign were to take place on them? Truth doesn’t seem to matter, only winning at any cost. 
Before anyone bites my head off here with he said, she said, stop and think about JFK, the democrat we are all interested in here, look at the corruption that took place in the 60’s, its plain for us to see how democracy was subverted, do we think things have got better? With time things have improved? Or that things will be the same or worse? 

 


 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some good points.Actually the parties use to have much more control than they do now, and nominees were often settled with horse trading in smoke filled rooms.

Things have gotten worse, the power of money is everywhere.The political system is corrupt to the core. That was once a matter of greater agreement of both political parties, before Trump. But Trump is so overt, hes brought it out in the open and dared his party to take a stand against it, and they won't.

"Were Obama’s people surveilling Trumps 2016 campaign?"   The FBI was, with good reason. So you can snarkily say, the whole system is so corrupt why pick on Trump? Trump is a complete loose canon. The spectacle of the current week is Trump hiring a Postal inspector with ties to the USPS's competitors to sabotage the mail in voting necessary in the current pandemic in the coming election because it's well known that the greater the voter turnout, the more likely Trump will lose.  So in essence,tampering with the election. As lax as it may seem rightly seem, that the American public would allow great  corruption in the political process, there are still people who uphold a cherished right to vote. On the positive side, you can point out  Trump's corruptions are just part  of the natural outgrowth of a  corrupt system and maybe lead to a movement when we finally get the money out of  politics. I'm not holding my breathe, but that's more a possibility than it was 4 years ago..

Another silver lining from the Trump experience is those of us who rail against massive amounts of taxpayer going to fund the American War machine, to the point that we concoct huge narratives  of hopelessness before the almighty "deep state" should be encouraged by Trump's election, that we can simply throw these people out. There was the stubbornly held view by Trump supporters that Trump was a peacenik. Now most of those die hards concede he's been co opted by the system. But historic statements from Trump reaffirm he was never a peacenik anyway.

Nobody says it's going to be easy. People should take heart now that it is possible to overthrow  the system , but with a person with some geopolitical knowledge, some underlying philosophy rather than being lead around by the nose by a news organization in a time of national crisis, some knowledge of political philosophy in part utilized by reading as to assess the proper people to have around him to initiate policy,some threadbare knowledge the world around him,  and the concerns of others, whose not quite so inept and corrupt, blah blah blah.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Some good points.Actually the parties use to have much more control than they do now, and nominees were often settled with horse trading in smoke filled rooms.

Things have gotten worse, the power of money is everywhere.The political system is corrupt to the core. That was once a matter of greater agreement of both political parties, before Trump. But Trump is so overt, hes brought it out in the open and dared his party to take a stand against it, and they won't.

"Were Obama’s people surveilling Trumps 2016 campaign?"   The FBI was, with good reason. So you can snarkily say, the whole system is so corrupt why pick on Trump? Trump is a complete loose canon. The spectacle of the current week is Trump hiring a Postal inspector with ties to the USPS's competitors to sabotage the mail in voting necessary in the current pandemic in the coming election because it's well known that the greater the voter turnout, the more likely Trump will lose.  So in essence,tampering with the election. As lax as it may seem rightly seem, that the American public would allow great  corruption in the political process, there are still people who uphold a cherished right to vote. On the positive side, you can point out  Trump's corruptions are just part  of the natural outgrowth of a  corrupt system and maybe lead to a movement when we finally get the money out of  politics. I'm not holding my breathe, but that's more a possibility than it was 4 years ago..

Another silver lining from the Trump experience is those of us who rail against massive amounts of taxpayer going to fund the American War machine, to the point that we concoct huge narratives  of hopelessness before the almighty "deep state" should be encouraged by Trump's election, that we can simply throw these people out. There was the stubbornly held view by Trump supporters that Trump was a peacenik. Now most of those die hards concede he's been co opted by the system. But historic statements from Trump reaffirm he was never a peacenik anyway.

Nobody says it's going to be easy. People should take heart now that it is possible to overthrow  the system , but with a person with some geopolitical knowledge, some underlying philosophy rather than being lead around by the nose by a news organization in a time of national crisis, some knowledge of political philosophy in part utilized by reading as to assess the proper people to have around him to initiate policy,some threadbare knowledge the world around him,  and the concerns of others, whose not quite so inept and corrupt, blah blah blah.

Some interesting points there too. How will we measure Trumps presidency when it is complete? Unstatesmanlike, that we can all agree on, not the inspiration figure like JFK was globally, not a beacon of hope at all but, if we delve into some other shades of his tenure. Economically, he can’t be blames for the pandemic, unless he specifically gave the order for the virus to go from a lab to the population. From his POV the pandemic has been very inconvenient as I believed he planned to campaign for re-election based on economics, which looked pretty good. I did see the % increase in debt vs Obama, W, Clinton GHW Bush and prior to the pandemic he had increased the national debt at a slower rate than his predecessors. How many wars has he drawn America in to vs his predecessors? If anything it looks like he has tried to bring troops home. I remember one quip he made about Syria and the military industrial complex wanting to keep troops there for 100 years, it seemed a brave remark. In terms if Civil rights, which are being used as a tool by the Democrats, appealing to peoples compassions, since JFK/LBJ’s bill was passed, what have the Dems or Republicans done for that in 55 years? Are we to believe Trump’s election suddenly resurrected the racism in Americans after being asleep for decades? I notice at almost exactly the same point in 2016 before the election that BLM was suddenly all over the media, given maximum airspace. Then in 2020, the same month BLM is all over the media again. What is puzzling is all of the black people and white people that have died in police custody in the last few decades, completely neglected by news networks. Where is the outrage for all of those victims? White, black, asian etc? This is where I bet to the media and how deplorable they are, picking and choosing when to use these issues for political gain. If you believe in human rights, you should be consistent throughout. If you are a news network you should be giving context, in terms of statistics. I am in no way defending the disgraceful scenes earlier this year or saying that every life doesn’t matter, as it does but, as a news network or a politician, its your job to give context. Personally, I think if you are using a weapon and entrusted with upholding the law, and protecting the public, you should be highly trained and tested to see you are suitable to be in that role. If anything, tax payers funding should be increased for police forces, not reduced. Defunding was he police in no way on earth makes sense unless you would like anarchy. I have grave reservations about politicians advocating that, it can only go one way. Unless the state is ready to roll out robot cops and use very advances tech to stop most crimes (which is the future). 
The wall topic is a very interesting topic that I believe masquerades as something else and I can draw a parallel with Britain. As a compassionate person, it fills me with sadness thinking about people in war zones, children growing up crying with bombs going off left right and centre. Thats heartbreaking and it makes you think how lucky many of us were growing up the way we did. Slightly off topic but I believe the spread of Dem/Rep presidents responsible for that are relatively equal. But, so much of the news portrays the scenario of illegal border crossing as refugee or asylum situations, fleeing a conflict or persecution (the reason the very laws were setup). It’s not actually true and media from the left will never admit that. I completely understand everyone is seeking a better life and environment to raise children and live (in JFK’s words “we all cherish our childrens futures”). But, what nobody talks about is the economics, any drain on the state is at the tax payers expense (which you may say fine) and any benefit is to big corporations. As what this does is provides a labour surplus, keeping wages at the bare minimum and you don’t offer pay rises to the existing labour force. Long and the short is, big corporations reap the benefits of mass migration and existing people in a country suffer and that includes nationalised Mexicans in the USA’s southern states. You might say its fine, its for the greater good, but, then are we talking about open borders? A lot of people on the left believe that is the way forward. I personally would worry what would or could happen if you do a ‘Germany’ and say ‘everyone is welcome’, something Merkel has gone back on, realising her mistake. 
What about all of these people going through legal immigration to come to the USA and remain, is people pouring in borders fair on them? 
Are Trump voters desperately hanging on to the America they love that they are nostalgic about (perhaps remembering it better than it indeed was) and are the Democrats embracing what they see as a better world coming under the stewardship of Biden. Besides having a decent statesman in the job, who appears with more dignity on the world stage, how will America be improved or better? 
 

My compatriots may disagree with me, I didn’t vote in the Brexit referendum but, If I had my principal reasons wouldn’t have been because I had some deluded fantasy about the British Empire returning and redcoats marching the earth (a ridiculous misconception) but, I would have voted for the reasons many did; a concern that being ruled by a federalist EU government, may not be in the interests of British people, we have survived ok without being part of larger block and the EU infiltration in media / academia has been astounding in the last two decades of my life, its no wonder millennials grew up largely wanting to stay in the EU, its all they knew. The other major reason was immigration, a different issue to US border issues, we have a very good benefits / social security system / free healthcare for those who can’t pay for it, the Scandinavian countries have the same setup almost. I understand completely when I see scores in migrants in Lampugea (the Italian island which is one of the gateways between north Africa and Europe) and they are interviewed in French and despite French being their lingua Franca with France, they day they want to come to Britain. For the most part these are not people at war, fleeing persecution, they are economic migrants. We have migrants marching right the way through Europe (they should claim asylum in the first safe county they come to and choose not to). At which point they cease to become a refugee or asylum seeker, they are an economic migrant. Big corporations love this, its great as we have the labour stimulus which helps profits and the tax payer picks up any tab. It is the poor and middle class that suffer, we don’t presently have the infrastructure to support this. People voted for Brexit based on border controls, that was one of the key factors, we don’t think integration has been done as well as it should have in past decades and societal problems are the result. 
So, the people voted to leave the EU, not by a big margin, regardless of the above and how you feel about it, if you are a democracy you implement the wishes of the people as per the terms voted on. 4 years later we have boats coming across from France every day with migrants from as far away as Pakistan. The government and border patrol have been almost entirely absent until last week, turning a blind eye. 
Why are people bothering to apply for asylum properly or a right to remain in Britain if you can just come illegally with a dingy. Our government completely ignored voters, subverted democracy. Some lad drowned last week, every news network blasts from the rooftops that a 16 year old boy has died, its sensationalised and we find out two days later that he is 28 and barely a news outlet mentions it. 
As aforementioned, government interest is in the profit of corporations, not serving its voters, they are using compassion as the tool to get their way. There is a bigger picture here having an influx in such large numbers, as covered extensively in Douglas Murray’s “The strange death of Europe” and that is voting demographics, they’re changing fast. 

I digress but, my question would be is are the Democratic party hierarchy just that avenue for big corporations and an authoritarian state coming? And is Trump kicking agains that on any level. I think understanding Republican voters will give you the answers, not shouting them down whenever they wish to speak. News networks do a great job of finding the a tiny enclave of klu klux clan types with barely a tooth in their head to speak on behalf of the party but, its not the reality of Rep voters out there. Its the equivalent of finding that green hairs screaming dem at a protest who shuts down free speech. 
Even with all of the efforts to stop Trump, you may well get him again as a country because lessons were not learned in 2016. I don’t see that Trump count have beaten any other candidate than Hilary. That in itself tells a story about the disenfranchisement of American people with the Dems at the end of Obama’s 8 years. As James Eugenio quoted the other night on here, to Obama; “what happened to hope and change”, answer: “you saw what happened to Dr King didn’t you?”. They may or may not be true, it’s 3rd party info for me but, it is plausible. I just think Trump offered more hope in 2016 to your average guy. I have just thought of one more way we can measure his presidency when he leaves office, we can see how much his net worth increases from being in office, which is a good measure of corruption.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

 During the campaign none of the major networks really vetted him, because for many months, they never thought he could win.

All of us who went to bed on election night, 2016, resigned to a Hillary victory should have understood one thing: If the GOP was going to run such a dick, the dick was going to win, one way or another.  Worked for George W. Bush.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yikes!, Chris, Some monster paragraphs there!  I see you're a very unassuming  guy who has a million opinions about everything, and actually makes a lot of assumptions. As far as being opinionated, that's fine, I have a few myself, but I haven't got the time.

Let historians say what they will about Trump. I'm sure it will just be those egghead all over again. Right? I've thought they've gotten some  things wrong in the past. I don't know why you'd care.

Sort of with you generally on economic issues.

Let's see the emphasis, BLM, police  defunding, (though you don't know what the opposition means). the left and "free borders". KKK-, what me worry? All sort of Fox boiler plate stuff.

I find your thoughts more thorough about Brexit, (though you were an undecided voter) not working. You apparently have given it more thought now. I enjoy hearing it , and I'd  like to hear other Brits opinions about their current situations, maybe a few here will chime in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Yikes!, Chris, Some monster paragraphs there!  I see you're a very unassuming  guy who has a million opinions about everything, and actually makes a lot of assumptions. As far as being opinionated, that's fine, I have a few myself, but I haven't got the time.

Let historians say what they will about Trump. I'm sure it will just be those egghead all over again. Right? I've thought they've gotten some  things wrong in the past. I don't know why you'd care.

Sort of with you generally on economic issues.

Let's see the emphasis, BLM, police  defunding, (though you don't know what the opposition means). the left and "free borders". KKK-, what me worry? All sort of Fox boiler plate stuff.

I find your thoughts more thorough about Brexit, (though you were an undecided voter) not working. You apparently have given it more thought now. I enjoy hearing it , and I'd  like to hear other Brits opinions about their current situations, maybe a few here will chime in.

I can only base opinions on experience Kirk, as well as reading and deeply thinking, and like anyone I can be wrong, and I can admit it. My chief faux pas was the war in Iraq, I bought right in to Sadams past as a narrative and reason for regime change etc and I was proved wrong, I was probably 22 at the time. I don’t think its any wonder we buy into those narratives though, Holywood is one of the most powerful propaganda tools and since we are tiny kids this good vs evil plot plays out in every walk of life, particularly in films, doesn’t matter if its cowboys and indians (native Americans), cops and robbers or your latest CIA film saving the world. We buy into it subconsciously and in reality its so seldom that, its not reality but, it makes us feel good.

I think I am playing devils advocate in some respects, if I didn’t then there only be comments like “Trumps awful” and no discourse, I think its much less simple. I don’t have a level of certainty on the US stuff, as probably few of us can do, only in the fact that history usually repeats itself, Machiavelli’s The Prince and Bernay’s Propaganda just seems to keep playing out in different forms. After we’ve read through 60’s US history, and seen the dystopia in regard to JFK and so on, am I a pessimist to believe its still going on? Maybe. I feel I have gone down this route mainly reading psychology, my profession is marketing/PR, we saw some horrific stuff in the first half of the 20th Century, that we hope we’ll (humanity, I wasn’t alive) never see again. When someone like Jordan Peterson breaks down communism or even the third reich and the way societies slipped into very undemocratic governance, and hellish societies, I wonder why that isn’t pointed out more in modern academic curriculums. There are some policies coming from the political left that are potentially worrying, in my opinion. 
 

On Brexit, I can say I would have voted to leave, at the time, more than anything else, I just didn’t like that we were being lied to. I am sure you’ll hear the opposite side of the debate; which may well mirror critique thats pointed at Trump. Racially motivated, EU has stopped us having a major war in 60 years, we’re better together, etc etc. It played out through Brits social media pages forever and many ‘remainers’ refused to accept the result. I mentioned it to yiou mainly in context to the US southern border, not to rouse Brits as any Brexit/Remainer argument will be just as boring as a Trump/Biden one and resultless. 
 

i’ll try to be less wordy and more succinct going forward. ;) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/23/2020 at 5:41 PM, W. Niederhut said:

Kishan,

     Interesting that you mentioned Gary Hart in this context.  I was present at Union Station here in Denver when he announced his 1984 bid for the U.S. Presidency, and donated to his campaign.

    I don't know if we've ever had a thread here about Gary Hart and the JFK assassination.

   He was involved in the Church Committee investigations, but never spilled the beans about the classified material on Oswald and the JFK assassination, other than saying that the Warren Commission had not been forthcoming about Oswald's history.

    Hart went to Yale, and I have often wondered about his possible relationship with the CIA.

    He published a spy novel in the 80s (co-written by Senator William Cohen) called The Double Man, which shed no light at all on Oswald or the JFK assassination.  (The villain was a rogue Russian military official who was sponsoring acts of international terrorism behind the Kremlin's back.)

    As for our American plutocracy, you are correct to point out that JFK was last American President who stood up to the CIA and the military-industrial complex.

    In my opinion, the biggest crisis for American democracy today is Orwellian-- mass media disinformation, and unlimited funding for false political advertising, in the aftermath of the 2014 Citizen's United SCOTUS ruling.

    Many people in the UK probably don't realize how utterly awash the United States is in mass media disinformation and false political advertising.  We don't have anything comparable to the BBC on television here-- at least based on my experiences watching the daily BBC news during my previous travels in the UK.

I watched the Favourite with Hugh Jackman before I read The Last Investigation, so was surprised to see his name pop up in the book. I’ve read he was quite open about his concerns surrounding the Warren Commission. 
 

In the film some of the reporters speculate that the photos they received may have been sent by the CIA. This was obviously after the congressional hearings of the 1970s, so when I found out he was involved it did seem likely someone higher up made sure his infidelities were broadcast publicly. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/23/2020 at 6:49 PM, Kirk Gallaway said:
Kishan, Of course, we all don't all think the same. We all have our different points of emphasis. And  there are greater issues at stake than if the government reopens an investigation into the JFKA assassination. There are just too many  other more pressing priorities for that to happen any time soon. There are some here that believe there's been an ongoing conspiracy for 50 years passed on secretly from generation to generation. So the JFKA assassination is attracting a lot of johnny -come- lately Trump "any conspiracy goes" theorists, with no knowledge of the JFKA conspiracy,  like Wheeler spamming the site with endless innuendos about skull and crossbones and upper crust family conspiracy. Still many people who have put a lot of research into the JFKA are  now decrying  how the movement is being lumped in with Wheeler's Q Anon and other crazy theories. But I've been telling them now for years this was bound to happen.
 
Di Eugenio and Jeff Carter have perpetuated this idea of a 60 year old Deep state MIC  with  a big media cabal that is to this day stonewalling the JFKA  conspiracy. And this position has a strong lure among many conspiracy theorists, including some here and I noticed particularly from new graduates who come on the forum from Jim's K&K website. For the first 20-30 years I think that was true. As far as William's assertion that there's so much disinformation in the media, the BBC would actually be a good improvement, but I think W, would agree that this has been taken to a whole other level now, and it's a false equivalency to assume the disinformation is equal on both sides. And there are numerous egregious examples in broadcast media that have cost a toll in human lives that I show in video clips in the "Journals in the Plague Year"thread.
 
You guys are younger, did any of your teachers or professors spent a lot of time in history classes teaching you their JFK conspiracy theories? I think not. Contrary to hopes, The subject is not approached with any fear by the MSM, as if they are protecting multi generational long held secrets. None of the people brought up in the schools and institutions of the last 30 years who are holding power or positions of influence are "threatened" by this discussion. They earnestly think the people advancing the theories are probably wackos.

But as I think you're saying,I always find it curious that the people who assume this  "deep state"  government conspiracy passed on through generations are sometimes the ones who espouse reopening a big government investigation into who killed JFK? Do you believe your government is as hopelessly sinister as you say or don't you?

I believe probably  all the 60's assassinations were conspiracies. And this is not to say that I don't believe there aren't more modern day conspiracies. But there will always be a ongoing struggle between intelligence and law enforcement agencies infringing on individual rights, particularly in the modern communication age where many people have now come to give up their privacy to an extent that 30 years ago, many of us would have thought to be a 1984 totalitarian surveillance state. Yes I think there's a greater danger of mass manipulation,  subtle or otherwise. But I hardly believe the MSM is "fair", whatever that subjectively means to any number of people here, who decry that MSM is covering up this valuable story they have, but never seem to realize that they got the story from the MSM!

Chris, yes it is a terrible choice. I personally thought Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren would have been excellent candidates. But socialism is quite a bugaboo word in the rather unsophisticated American voter constituency. At a point along the way. After a lot of sort of hidden deliberation a majority of the opposition decided that maybe the urgency to get Trump out of office was so great, that it was no time for wishful thinking and they went with a milquetoast centrist candidate with some experience.

Of course keeping in mind in the UK, the response to the covid crisis has hardly been stellar, as your PM was very lax initially and your resultant death rate per 100k is fifth highest in the world among countries of any size, and higher than the U.S. Maybe it took your PM going to his deathbed to assign the priorities that you're in remarkably better shape now than the U.S.  I thought his tribute to the people who helped save him was very sincere and eloquent, so much more sincerity and eloquence than our President is capable of. I find it interesting that his last name is Johnson, as he looks like a member of a Swedish knock off Beatle band!

heh heh

 
 
 
 
 
 

Sorry but I have to disagree on your 20-30 years line. Oliver Stone is still getting grief today in major publications for a film he made in 1991, that alone proves that much of the establishment media does not want this to get out. I find it fascinating that despite a majority of the country believing in there being a conspiracy, mainstream media does not reflect this. News anchors, late night hosts, print journalists, film producers etc all still promote the official story, and mock those who don’t believe in it. The only section of American entertainment who openly share the public’s view are comedians (Bill Hicks, Bill Burr, Joe Rogan, Tim Dillon and Dave Chappelle have all openly said they believe in a cover up). That says it all. To say the mainstream media don’t fear this topic is simply not true. 

Did I get taught this in school? Of course not, because if I tried to write about this topic at my university I’d either be marked down or failed. That’s why I think it’s so important to keep up the discussion, because in 30 years most people won’t think there was anything dodgy about the assassination. There very much is a secrecy within those in power now, Trump was blocked from releasing all the files he wanted to. 

I don’t believe the government as a whole is inherently sinister, and I certainly don’t think there should ever be another government run investigation. The ship has long sailed but it should have been a privately funded investigation. I’m in the Tanenbaum/Fonzi/Sprague camp: there was a major opportunity in the 1970s to conduct an actual investigation with some talented researchers and detectives, but governmental bureaucracy and CIA interference ruined it.

Edited by Kishan Dandiker
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Kishan Dandiker said:

I watched the Favourite with Hugh Jackman before I read The Last Investigation, so was surprised to see his name pop up in the book. I’ve read he was quite open about his concerns surrounding the Warren Commission. 
 

In the film some of the reporters speculate that the photos they received may have been sent by the CIA. This was obviously after the congressional hearings of the 1970s, so when I found out he was involved it did seem likely someone higher up made sure his infidelities were broadcast publicly. 

Gary Hart had a very realistic shot at being elected POTUS in 1988, before his Donna Rice/Monkey Business scandal.

Hart has no one but himself to blame for that Monkey Business disaster, but I have often wondered about how it was all set up, especially after learning (more recently) that his 1988 opponent, George Herbert Walker Bush, was Mr. CIA.  (There are also some very strange untold stories about GHWB and John Hinckley Jr.'s attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan-- but that is another story entirely.)

Of course, GHWB didn't require the services of his CIA colleagues in that Gary Hart/Monkey Business escapade.  He had Lee Atwater and other dirty tricksters working for his campaign.  ( I think GHWB had even employed the services of young Republican Karl Rove for some dirty tricks back in the 1980s.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Gary Hart had a very realistic shot at being elected POTUS in 1988, before his Donna Rice/Monkey Business scandal.

Hart has no one but himself to blame for that Monkey Business disaster, but I have often wondered about how it was all set up, especially after learning (more recently) that his 1988 opponent, George Herbert Walker Bush, was Mr. CIA.  (There are also some very strange untold stories about GHWB and John Hinckley Jr.'s attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan-- but that is another story entirely.)

Of course, GHWB didn't require the services of his CIA colleagues in that Gary Hart/Monkey Business escapade.  He had Lee Atwater and other dirty tricksters working for his campaign.  ( I think GHWB had even employed the services of young Republican Karl Rove for some dirty tricks back in the 1980s.)

The GHWB Hinckley connection is another one of those ‘coincidences’ that almost defy mathematics when you look at him being VP, knowing the person who tries to kill Reagan which if successful means he becomes president. Russ Baker makes a big scene in his book ‘Family of secrets’ about Iran-Contra and GHWB and having the issue almost completely ignored in his run for president. You just shrug your shoulders ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Gary Hart had a very realistic shot at being elected POTUS in 1988, before his Donna Rice/Monkey Business scandal.

Hart has no one but himself to blame for that Monkey Business disaster, but I have often wondered about how it was all set up, especially after learning (more recently) that his 1988 opponent, George Herbert Walker Bush, was Mr. CIA.  (There are also some very strange untold stories about GHWB and John Hinckley Jr.'s attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan-- but that is another story entirely.)

Of course, GHWB didn't require the services of his CIA colleagues in that Gary Hart/Monkey Business escapade.  He had Lee Atwater and other dirty tricksters working for his campaign.  ( I think GHWB had even employed the services of young Republican Karl Rove for some dirty tricks back in the 1980s.)

I remember wondering at the time if he wasn't set up in some respect.  In spite of People and the Miami Herald there never was any proof of an affair to my knowledge.  The monkey business shirt photo of her sitting on his lap is incriminating and the Herald reporters snooping in Washington said she spent the night at his house.  But neither one ever admitted to anything?

https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2018/11/217222/donna-rice-now-gary-hart-sex-scandal-front-runner-story

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kishan Dandiker said:

Sorry but I have to disagree on your 20-30 years line. Oliver Stone is still getting grief today in major publications for a film he made in 1991, that alone proves that much of the establishment media does not want this to get out. I find it fascinating that despite a majority of the country believing in there being a conspiracy, mainstream media does not reflect this. News anchors, late night hosts, print journalists, film producers etc all still promote the official story, and mock those who don’t believe in it. The only section of American entertainment who openly share the public’s view are comedians (Bill Hicks, Bill Burr, Joe Rogan, Tim Dillon and Dave Chappelle have all openly said they believe in a cover up). That says it all. To say the mainstream media don’t fear this topic is simply not true. 

Did I get taught this in school? Of course not, because if I tried to write about this topic at my university I’d either be marked down or failed. That’s why I think it’s so important to keep up the discussion, because in 30 years most people won’t think there was anything dodgy about the assassination. There very much is a secrecy within those in power now, Trump was blocked from releasing all the files he wanted to. 

I don’t believe the government as a whole is inherently sinister, and I certainly don’t think there should ever be another government run investigation. The ship has long sailed but it should have been a privately funded investigation. I’m in the Tanenbaum/Fonzi/Sprague camp: there was a major opportunity in the 1970s to conduct an actual investigation with some talented researchers and detectives, but governmental bureaucracy and CIA interference ruined it.

I agree with you Kishan. I think Oliver Stone comes across has very honest and disappointed or even sad with parts of American history, which comes across in his film making and series “The untold history of the USA”, he is definitely blacklisted for being a conspiracy theorist for JFK and it has probably damaged his earning potential dramatically.  If you look at Pepper the guy who spent his life uncovering the truth behind MLK’s death, he openly points out that certain news networks won’t even mention his name. 
Even almost 60 years later I see the JFK thing as very damaging to government, not because so many people alive today care about JFK or know about him but, because it puts the CIA/FBI and the legal framework under scrutiny. How can it be trusted again after a president is removed via assassination/coup and the public was lied to. Even worse the alleged death trail in the aftermath of the assassination, it’s so bad. 
If you accept the JFK situation for what it is, you have to consider all events that followed it, right up until present day, some of those are much more sensitive in this decade and have huge implications for people who are still alive today. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...