Vince Salandria's views on JFK case applied to the world today

[Richard Booth]

I've been reading Vince Salandria's writings again recently and find there is much value in these writings that we can apply to the world today.

Most specifically I see that Salandria's views on the Kennedy case are almost entirely a template that can be lifted away from the JFK case and applied to the 9/11 case and the template matches perfect:

1) An obvious, public and violent execution

2) A false mystery: it's obvious, but we argue the minutiae

3) Immediately controlled opposition critics appear from the woodwork

4) All the citizens compliantly abide by the official story, they're good little citizens who can easily set aside what their eyes and ears see and hear in order to believe in a fake story

With JFK, we see quite clearly the president was hit by crossfire, was struck from the front-right yet we're all supposed to believe it was Oswald firing from behind, violating physics. Newton's 3rd Law of Motion is not as universal as cognitive dissonance among a feeble minded populace.

With 9/11, the entire world watched as three buildings feel into their own footprints, hundreds of floors came crashing down into their own footprint and we are to believe that two of these buildings fell because of aircraft crashes and one of them fell because of "falling debris" or "fire, or something"

It was the exact same sort of attack as JFK, very overt, very public, very arrogant, with clues everywhere that the people who carried it out don't seem to care are quite obviously there because they know they will remain in power and their narrative will be accepted by the public.

The only thing about Salandria's writings I don't quite agree with or understand are what he says about the Soviets. Salandria asks, essentially, "how did the conspirators get away with it, without being called out by the Soviets for what they did?"

I think the same thing about JFK, and 9/11: why didn't the Soviets and then later Vladimir Putin call us out for what we did?

In the case of the Soviets I don't know the answer. What I can tell happened is that somehow, Khrushchev fell out of favor and he was forced out of office by 1968. Perhaps he was viewed as not cunning enough to handle the enemy they faced, and too ready to make peace against an opponent who would kill it's own President for making the same mistake so they needed someone else. Whatever the case may be, the Soviets were silent, they got rid of Nikita, and their press and KGB kept silent about the coup. Salandria argues that there must have been some kind of agreement. I simply can't fathom an agreement between hardline Soviet cold warriors and U.S. intelligence. 

I suppose it was pragmatism: the Soviets knew if they said anything about the conspiracy the world would say they were just spreading conspiracy theories. Maybe.

How about Putin and 9/11, why didn't he say or do anything?  Maybe because we have not called him out for the 1999 apartment bombings, or the murders of all the journalists and dissidents that he's carried out? Some sort of tactic quid-pro-quo. 

 

Edited August 31, 2020 by Richard Booth
clarity

[Steve Cearfoss]

‘4) All the citizens compliantly abide by the official story,they're good little citizens who can easily set aside what theireyes and ears see to believe in a fake story.’

Nicely put. And this is precisely why we find ourselves in this predicament – – a mild word – – today: Proto-fascist monocracy lurking in the wings: one with a grimace and one with a smile. 

[Richard Booth]

People will say and believe anything in order to "fit in" - when I tell people that the coroner in RFK's autopsy said that RFK was shot at point blank range from behind and he proved this with forensic science, demonstrating the blast pattern of gunpowder on the ear using a real gun with real pig ears their eyes roll back into their had and they say "but Sirhan was shooting at him"

Notice I never said Sirhan wasn't shooting, but they don't see that.

The obvious answer here is that yes Sirhan was firing a gun and that someone else shot RFK in the back of the head at point blank range. 

I suppose believing that means a person has to risk sounding crazy. What a world we live in where the obvious is considered crazy and the ridiculous is considered obvious.

[Pete Mellor]

1 hour ago, Richard Booth said:

In the case of the Soviets I don't know the answer. What I can tell happened is that somehow, Khrushchev fell out of favor and he was forced out of office by 1968.

 

1964.  Swift & deadly like Dallas, but no bloodshed.

[W. Niederhut]

Richard,

Indeed, there are many, many parallels between the JFK assassination and 9/11, as described well in Laurent Guyenot's From JFK to 9/11-- 50 Years of Deep State.

In both black ops, the false narrative (i.e., Lee Harvey Oswald, "Al Qaeda," etc.) was immediately broadcast (L. Paul Bremer, Ehud Barak, Henry Kissinger) throughout the U.S., UK, and EU mainstream media.  Col. L. Fletcher Prouty saw newspaper headlines and photos in New Zealand about Lee Harvey Oswald killing JFK before Oswald had even been charged with a crime on the evening of 11/22/63.  He said it had all the hallmarks of a well-organized Lansdale psychological op.

Evidence contrary to the official narrative was carefully suppressed-- e.g., the Zapruder film, the explosive demolition of WTC7, arrests of the five "dancing Israeli" Mossad agents at the Holland Tunnel, etc.

Both black ops resulted directly in major U.S. wars (Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and the phony "War on Terror.")

Your question about Putin and 9/11 is a good one.  I don't have an answer.

Putin openly questioned Bush and Cheney's Iraq WMD scam, but he never openly questioned the 9/11 op.

One possible explanation (per the Oliver Stone Putin interviews) is that, at the time, he sincerely wanted U.S. assistance in combating Islamic militants in Chechnya.

[Steve Cearfoss]

I've often wondered – – and I'm striving mightily to keep my paranoia index subdued – – whether RFK could've been shot after being transported from the hotel. In other words between the hotel and hospital. It's true that he was hit at close range from behind, yet I wonder why no one saw the other shooter . . . at least nobody came forth with information. Even during the chaos of the moment you would think someone would have seen the other shooter. Also, why would the perpetrators take a chance on a gambit like that? Surely it would have been a high-risk line of action with a distinct possibly of quick apprehension. I don't remember whether all the surviving bullets were ever matched solely to Sirhan's gun; doubtful, though, considering the ineptitude/deceit of the investigators. 

Edited August 31, 2020 by Steve Cearfoss

[Richard Booth]

42 minutes ago, Pete Mellor said:

1964.  Swift & deadly like Dallas, but no bloodshed.

Right -- must have been typing too quickly to notice the error. 

It seems that the Soviets must have decided that he was tainted or somehow not adequate. It is rather mystifying.

There is another thing I think about: the 1983 Soviet war scare, where the Soviets thought that the United States was preparing for a nuclear first-strike on the USSR.

All the people from the U.S. who talk about this always express the idea "I don't see how they could have thought we would do that"

However, I see how they would have thought we would do that: our country blew our own President's head off in broad daylight in 1963. To them, we were a ruthless and cold-blooded national security state with a dumb populace who would believe any of their propaganda. If we're a nation-state who will execute our own leader in front of everyone then why wouldn't we also be capable of a nuclear first strike? Besides, look what we did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 

I can see how the Soviets thought we were going to do that, regardless of how paranoid and suspicious Vladimir Kryuchkov and Andropov were, their suspicions were probably based in part on knowing what we did to JFK, RFK, and MLK. Seeing how violent we were and how placated and propagandized our populace was, it wasn't beyond reason to suspect we might try it. 

 

[Joe Bauer]

22 minutes ago, Steve Cearfoss said:

I've often wondered – – and I'm striving mightily to keep my paranoia index subdued – – whether RFK could've been shot after being transported from the hotel. In other words between the hotel and hospital. It's true that he was hit at close range from behind, yet I wonder why no one saw the other shooter . . . at least nobody came forth with information. Even during the chaos of the moment you would think someone would have seen the other shooter. Also, wh

RFK JR. thinks Thane Eugene Cesar may have killed his father

www.irishcentral.com › News

 

1.  

Sep 13, 2019 - Thane Eugene Cesar died today in the Philippines. Compelling evidence suggests that Cesar murdered my father. On June 5, 1968, Cesar, an ...

 

 

y would the perpetrators take a chance on a gambit like that? Surely it would have been a high-risk line of action with a distinct possibly of quick apprehension. I don't remember whether all the surviving bullets were ever matched solely to Sirhan's gun; doubtful, though, considering the ineptitude/deceit of the investigators. 

 

Edited August 31, 2020 by Joe Bauer

[Richard Booth]

47 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

 

One possible explanation (per the Oliver Stone Putin interviews) is that, at the time, he sincerely wanted U.S. assistance in combating Islamic militants in Chechnya.

Similar to the Salandria position: a deal of sorts.

I can see that. Note that most people in positions of power here since 2001 have not ever questioned Vladimir Putin's government. Not Bush, not Obama (see the hot mic exchange between Obama and Medvedev), and certainly not Trump.

He plays along, and in return we don't question them on their clandestine operations. Vladimir Putin build his rise to power on bombing Russian apartment buildings and blaming that on Chechan terrorists. Then he poisoned and killed the chief whistleblower in that case, and it seems only the Brits were willing to call him out on that.

Still, we are mostly hands off on that regime and their operations. Probably because in return, the Russians are largely hands-off in calling the U.S. out on our activities. 

An understanding of sorts. 

[Richard Booth]

3 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

 

Dan Moldea figured it out, then at the last minute switched his position and became the killer's agent of sorts, negotiating $10,000 payoffs from anyone who wants an interview, communicating with the guy who was hiding in the Philippines, and defending him in the press. It's pretty obvious what happened there with Moldea and Cesar. 

 

[Richard Booth]

This essay is especially timely right now. 

The Promotion of Domestic Discord

Original Copy published in Computers and Automation, Volume 21, No.1, January 1972, pp. 37-39, 47.

https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/FalseMystery/PromotionOfDomesticDiscord.html

 

All domestic movements become infiltrated and then usurped by provocateurs. 

What is now called Antifa is a good example. During the Bush administration, these people regularly made appearances at things like economic summits where they would dress in all-black and foment violence in the streets. They were provocateurs, and I have absolutely no doubt that there are people now within BLM and Antifa who are there for the explicit purpose of sowing chaos, violence and division.

I have a friend who worked very hard to raise awareness for the murders of Tamir Rice and other young innocent victims of police violence and when I spoke to him yesterday he told me that the movement has been "hijacked" - he says these new people running the show are not focused on police violence and are instead focused on creating dissent and violence between people.

Vince Salandria noted this phenomenon in 1972 and there are parallels between the social movements then, and the ones we see today. Not only are there some shared ideological similarities, but undoubtedly the movements then and now share the presence of bad actors.

[Ron Bulman]

On 8/31/2020 at 5:30 PM, Steve Cearfoss said:

I've often wondered – – and I'm striving mightily to keep my paranoia index subdued – – whether RFK could've been shot after being transported from the hotel. In other words between the hotel and hospital. It's true that he was hit at close range from behind, yet I wonder why no one saw the other shooter . . . at least nobody came forth with information. Even during the chaos of the moment you would think someone would have seen the other shooter. Also, why would the perpetrators take a chance on a gambit like that? Surely it would have been a high-risk line of action with a distinct possibly of quick apprehension. I don't remember whether all the surviving bullets were ever matched solely to Sirhan's gun; doubtful, though, considering the ineptitude/deceit of the investigators. 

Steve, it is a large tome but if your interested Lisa Pease "A Lie To Big To Fail" is the magnum opus on the RFK assassination.  Thane Eugen Cesar working for Robert Maheu, holding RFK's right arm with his left hand shot RFK twice behind/below his right ear.

[Cliff Varnell]

On 8/31/2020 at 5:50 PM, Richard Booth said:

This essay is especially timely right now. 

The Promotion of Domestic Discord

Original Copy published in Computers and Automation, Volume 21, No.1, January 1972, pp. 37-39, 47.

https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/FalseMystery/PromotionOfDomesticDiscord.html

 

All domestic movements become infiltrated and then usurped by provocateurs. 

What is now called Antifa is a good example. During the Bush administration, these people regularly made appearances at things like economic summits where they would dress in all-black and foment violence in the streets. They were provocateurs, and I have absolutely no doubt that there are people now within BLM and Antifa who are there for the explicit purpose of sowing chaos, violence and division.

I have a friend who worked very hard to raise awareness for the murders of Tamir Rice and other young innocent victims of police violence and when I spoke to him yesterday he told me that the movement has been "hijacked" - he says these new people running the show are not focused on police violence and are instead focused on creating dissent and violence between people.

Vince Salandria noted this phenomenon in 1972 and there are parallels between the social movements then, and the ones we see today. Not only are there some shared ideological similarities, but undoubtedly the movements then and now share the presence of bad actors.

Former DHS official Elizabeth Neumann was on MSNBC today saying that during the 3 years she worked in the Trump Administration she never received any intelligence identifying Antifa as a domestic terror threat.

The fake revolutionaries are the QAnon Trumpers.

Antifa is a convenient bogeyman reactionaries employ to distract from right-wing violence, which is far more prevalent.

Edited September 2, 2020 by Cliff Varnell

[Paul Brancato]

On 8/31/2020 at 5:50 PM, Richard Booth said:

This essay is especially timely right now. 

The Promotion of Domestic Discord

Original Copy published in Computers and Automation, Volume 21, No.1, January 1972, pp. 37-39, 47.

https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/FalseMystery/PromotionOfDomesticDiscord.html

 

All domestic movements become infiltrated and then usurped by provocateurs. 

What is now called Antifa is a good example. During the Bush administration, these people regularly made appearances at things like economic summits where they would dress in all-black and foment violence in the streets. They were provocateurs, and I have absolutely no doubt that there are people now within BLM and Antifa who are there for the explicit purpose of sowing chaos, violence and division.

I have a friend who worked very hard to raise awareness for the murders of Tamir Rice and other young innocent victims of police violence and when I spoke to him yesterday he told me that the movement has been "hijacked" - he says these new people running the show are not focused on police violence and are instead focused on creating dissent and violence between people.

Vince Salandria noted this phenomenon in 1972 and there are parallels between the social movements then, and the ones we see today. Not only are there some shared ideological similarities, but undoubtedly the movements then and now share the presence of bad actors.

Yesterday David Talbot posted on FB- subject line Agent Provocateurs

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

Yesterday David Talbot posted on FB- subject line Agent Provocateurs

Anything about the Agent-Provocateur-in-Chief?

Or the Boogaloo Boy who gunned down the security guard in Oakland, which Pence blamed on Antifa?

Or the 60 vehicles right-wingers have driven into crowds of peaceful protesters?

Or all the mass shootings by right wingers from New Zealand to Norway to South Carolina?

Or maybe this?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/27/white-supremacists-militias-infiltrate-us-police-report

Nothing about this, I’m sure...

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/09/trumps-campaign-government-corruption-justice-homeland-security-department-vaccine-fda-hhs-slush-fund.html

Edited September 2, 2020 by Cliff Varnell