Destiny Betrayed, Second Edition - Jim DiEugenio

[Guest]

Just thought I'd write a few words about this book, which i've just finished reading. I suspect most of you have read it already but, for those who haven't. in my opinion it's an absolute masterpiece. I've probably only read around 12 or 13 JFK assassination books and this one makes a very convincing case, for any reader. I listened to the audiobook version, it reads very well, didn't drag at all and considering the wealth of information, it's very well organised. I am also glad the Ruth Paine and Freeport Sulphur threads make a lot more sense now. 

[David Andrews]

53 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

 Freeport Sulphur threads make a lot more sense now. 

FYI, there's tons of Freeport Sulphur research in the back threads.

[Ron Bulman]

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

Just thought I'd write a few words about this book, which i've just finished reading. I suspect most of you have read it already but, for those who haven't. in my opinion it's an absolute masterpiece. I've probably only read around 12 or 13 JFK assassination books and this one makes a very convincing case, for any reader. I listened to the audiobook version, it reads very well, didn't drag at all and considering the wealth of information, it's very well organised. I am also glad the Ruth Paine and Freeport Sulphur threads make a lot more sense now. 

"The question then seems to be:  Why did it appear that Ruth was trying to conceal the true nature of her relationship with George DeMohrenschildt?".  Pg. 194. 

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks so much for that Chris. 

And, to all,  I did not put him up to that one either.

Freeport Sulphur/ Freeport McMoran is really interesting.  It wad discovered by Garrison, furthered by Fonzi, and then Lisa Pease did a nice job on it in her two part article for Probe, connecting it to to Cuba and then Indonesia.  Greg Poulrgrain's new book has some interesting stuff on it, JFK Vs Allen Dulles:Battleground Indonesia.  And I addressed it in my Afterword again.

Destiny Betrayed  could not have been done without the ARRB.  And anyone can see that by comparing it to the first version.There was so much hidden about Garrison and New Orleans. And I also had to have the contributions of so many writers from Probe magazine.

BTW, its still pouring out about Garrison and New Orleans.  Thanks to Malcolm Blunt I have some of it.  It will be in my upcoming five part review of Litwin.

Edited February 6, 2021 by James DiEugenio

[Guest]

10 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Thanks so much for that Chris. 

And, to all,  I did not put him up to that one either.

 

You're welcome. I guess you have to put that on here, as the JFK topic has us questioning everything. I did leave a brief review on Amazon beforehand. 
The evaluation of Garrisons struggle and how he was undone at many turns was particularly interesting. Along with the mainstream media in the US, the legal system is another illusion that people believe blindly, the public thinks it's almost unfallible but, the reality is very different, particularly when security agencies are involved. People should be acutely aware of this 'destruction of reputation' tactic by now, we see it all the time in present day, highlighting the situation Sprague found himself in was particularly poignant. 

[James DiEugenio]

Very nice parallel with Sprague.

The more I studied what happened to the HSCA, the more I understood that the whole JFK assassination was a bete noire of the system. It was just something that the Establishment could not handle, and tried to shove under the rug. This is the same thing that then happened to Oliver Stone in 1991.  I mean attacking a movie seven months before its released?  That was unprecedented.  Roger Feinman counted 34 stories that the NY TImes printed about the film before it opened.

Its really sad about the HSCA, because they had so much mojo at the start.  And with Sprague and Tanenbaum?  By the way, not only did those two think that the WR was full of it, so did the third man in charge, Al Lewis, another former DA.  When I interviewed Al in his office in Lancaster PA, he said he was utterly shocked when he reviewed the autopsy materials at NARA.  See, these guys were all practicing lawyers in  District Attorney's offices. So they dealt with homicide cases and they understood how autopsies were done.  What happened in the JFK case stunned them.

BTW, let me add one more.  Henry Lee said the same to me and Oliver Stone.  The JFK autopsy was out of left field.  

This is the real world of professionals.  And it points out that when you come to the JFK case you are not in the real world: you are in the Bermuda Triangle.

Edited February 6, 2021 by James DiEugenio

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Very nice parallel with Sprague.

The more I studied what happened to the HSCA, the more I understood that the whole JFK assassination was a bete noire of the system. It was just something that the Establishment could not handle, and tried to shove under the rug. This is the same thing that then happened to Oliver Stone in 1991.  I mean attacking a movie seven months before its released?  That was unprecedented.  Roger Feinman counted 34 stories that the NY TImes printed about the film before it opened.

It's really sad about the HSCA, because they had so much mojo at the start.  And with Sprague and Tanenbaum?  By the way, not only did those two think that the WR was full of it, so did the third man in charge, Al Lewis, another former DA.  When I interviewed Al in his office in Lancaster PA, he said he was utterly shocked when he reviewed the autopsy materials at NARA.  See, these guys were all practicing lawyers in  District Attorney's offices. So they dealt with homicide cases and they understood how autopsies were done.  What happened in the JFK case stunned them.

BTW, let me add one more.  Henry Lee said the same to me and Oliver Stone.  The JFK autopsy was out of left field.  

This is the real world of professionals.  And it points out that when you come to the JFK case you are not in the real world: you are in the Bermuda Triangle.

Have you read Oliver Stones new book "Chasing the light" ? The book builds to the point where Oliver Stone is on top of the world, he has just got his second Oscar for the film Platoon and despite his earlier struggles, he has risen to meteoric fame and everyone wants to work with him. Earlier in the book he describes how difficult it was to get Platoon made, as it portrayed the USA in a less than heroic light. People were getting him to try and change endings, rewrite the story and all sorts. He also has laid little hints about the direction his career would later take and the decision to take on JFK. I really enjoyed the book but, I was left with the distinct impression that a follow up book will come that really highlights the Garrison-style character assassination that we're discussing here, that Sprague and many other lower key individuals experienced, Abraham Bolden included. 

I am not close to any of these industries, other than marketing and there is no difference in the psychology of marketing products and marketing ideas (propaganda). It occurred to me that the JFK assassination hasn't become less important to cover up, it's become more so. The murder of John F. Kennedy is like the thread on your cotton shirt that your mother tells you not to pull when you're a small child. If this thread is pulled and the fabric unravels, so does the public perception of the constitution of the USA. If we accept this was covered up, as fact, then we must assume this wasn't a one off and starting with Lyndon Johnson's presidency, right through to present day, we must look at all of the other policy decisions and big events with equal scrutiny and diligent examination. If a commission can be put together to decide the JFK thing and it was a contrived deception, then why couldn't the 9/11 commission be the same, initially headed up by Heinz Kissinger (he stepped down after public pressure). Was he about as suitable as Allen Dulles in terms of honest and integrity? Probably.  It's just one example of many, but, there is a cloud over some events, people would demand proper investigations and that people found guilty are prosecuted. Whether you believe the JFK assassination is a one off conspiracy or, that here are others, if one is proven, then the public will demand scrutiny of them all. Where does that stop? From reading a fair bit of US history, it seems like a networking event, full of quid pro quos, some are small ones that impact the few and others impact many. What percentage of those in congress are 100% pure? It seems a very grey domain, and I struggle to think how many politicians have been prosecuted in 50 years for improper conduct or corruption. If that is indeed the status quo, then when such an event as the JFK assassination happens, the corrupt politicians, thick as thieves, all close ranks, with this web or network able to compromise one another. It may seem surprising that so many colluded in this JFK case but, if you knew all of their histories, it may not be surprising at all. It may be easy to see why Ruby went and shot Oswald, it maybe easy to see why Bugliosi crafted a book that was an outright lie (see Tom O'Neill's research and book released last year). If your comfort and way of life is jeopardised, even in a small way, it may be easier to go with the flow than, go against the grain, as society is a dominance hierarchy. One thing is for certain is that we know what happens if you go against he grain, Belzer wrote a book about it. I know nobody wants to believe what I have just said, as it means democracy doesn't exist and it means you've been gullible as a citizen. But, in your defence, you're at the epicentre or the most powerful communication network perhaps know to man. Democracy is probably the most used word in American news, perhaps aside from freedom. I can see some of JFK's motives in being a politician and becoming president,  there are a few others like him but, of the rest, how many of them are just looking after their own ends and how many of them care about the electorate one bit? Does the salary, advancement, prestige and capacity to further earn fail to incentivise these people? 

America is the most powerful country in the world, it was perceived to be a bastion of democracy. if you had to list your top 5 or 10 American values as a society, how many of them would be true if we looked at the upper echelons of society? My country is the same, it's just more subtle and harder for me to see, as I am so close to it. We often can't see what is right in front of us, yet the guy peering over your shoulder watching the game of chess you are engrossed in can easily see with clarity. I think what I am saying is very logical but, critical thinking is in short supply in the 21st century. 

You mention the autopsy comment about it being 'left field', how many things have to happen before things cease to be coincidences, or incompetency? When you have some incredibly competent people, probability stacks against happenstance and mindless errors. At some stage you have to consider they are something else other than what is being represented. 

 

[James DiEugenio]

I have said this myself, that the JFK case, if its admitted to being what it is, would begin the unraveling of all the years from then until now. And it would also lead to other huge crimes of state. 

The MSM does not want that to happen. Because it then exposes them.  One of the most interesting things in the late ARRB releases was a CIA document in which an informant said that the NY Times was working on a serious expose that would expose the Warren Report.  What happened to it?  I think we know.

This is why one of the things I have concentrated on since that book, and you can see that i did discuss it  there, is exploring Kennedy's hidden foreign policy. That way, one addresses the cover up in a different way. Through that one discovers that American Exceptionalism is not that Exceptional.

[Joe Bauer]

9 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

This is the real world of professionals.  And it points out that when you come to the JFK case you are not in the real world: you are in the Bermuda Triangle.

C. Barnard...love your post above as well.

[Guest]

18 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I have said this myself, that the JFK case, if its admitted to being what it is, would begin the unraveling of all the years from then until now. And it would also lead to other huge crimes of state. 

The MSM does not want that to happen. Because it then exposes them.  One of the most interesting things in the late ARRB releases was a CIA document in which an informant said that the NY Times was working on a serious expose that would expose the Warren Report.  What happened to it?  I think we know.

This is why one of the things I have concentrated on since that book, and you can see that i did discuss it  there, is exploring Kennedy's hidden foreign policy. That way, one addresses the cover up in a different way. Through that one discovers that American Exceptionalism is not that Exceptional.

One of the things that stuck me is just how prescient JFK and RFK were in their thinking. Perhaps that was born of shared insight from their fathers' experiences in the SEC, business and politics but, for whatever reason, I am staggered by how they saw the threats to democracy and society as a whole. The June 10th 63 American University speech by JFK and the Ripples Of Hope speech by RFK in South Africa spell out everything we have gone through since. 

JFK
"I have, therefore, chosen this time and place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth too rarely perceived. And that is the most important topic on earth: peace. What kind of peace do I mean and what kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow, and to hope, and to build a better life for their children — not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women — not merely peace in our time but peace in all time."
 

"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know."

RFK
"There is," said an Italian philosopher, "nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things." Yet this is the measure of the task of your generation and the road is strewn with many dangers.

First is the danger of futility; the belief there is nothing one man or one woman can do against the enormous array of the world's ills – against misery, against ignorance, or injustice and violence. Yet many of the world's great movements, of thought and action, have flowed from the work of a single man. A young monk began the Protestant reformation, a young general extended an empire from Macedonia to the borders of the earth, and a young woman reclaimed the territory of France. It was a young Italian explorer who discovered the New World, and 32 year old Thomas Jefferson who proclaimed that all men are created equal. "Give me a place to stand," said Archimedes, "and I will move the world." These men moved the world, and so can we all. Few will have the greatness to bend history; but each of us can work to change a small portion of the events, and in the total of all these acts will be written the history of this generation. Thousands of Peace Corps volunteers are making a difference in the isolated villages and the city slums of dozens of countries. Thousands of unknown men and women in Europe resisted the occupation of the Nazis and many died, but all added to the ultimate strength and freedom of their countries. It is from numberless diverse acts of courage such as these that the belief that human history is thus shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.

"If Athens shall appear great to you," said Pericles, "consider then that her glories were purchased by valiant men, and by men who learned their duty." That is the source of all greatness in all societies, and it is the key to progress in our own time.

The second danger is that of expediency; of those who say that hopes and beliefs must bend before immediate necessities. Of course if we must act effectively we must deal with the world as it is. We must get things done. But if there was one thing that President Kennedy stood for that touched the most profound feeling of young people across the world, it was the belief that idealism, high aspiration and deep convictions are not incompatible with the most practical and efficient of programs – that there is no basic inconsistency between ideals and realistic possibilities – no separation between the deepest desires of heart and of mind and the rational application of human effort to human problems. It is not realistic or hard-headed to solve problems and take action unguided by ultimate moral aims and values, although we all know some who claim that it is so. In my judgement, it is thoughtless folly. For it ignores the realities of human faith and of passion and of belief; forces ultimately more powerful than all the calculations of our economists or of our generals. Of course to adhere to standards, to idealism, to vision in the face of immediate dangers takes great courage and takes self-confidence. But we also know that only those who dare to fail greatly, can ever achieve greatly.

It is this new idealism which is also, I believe, the common heritage of a generation which has learned that while efficiency can lead to the camps at Auschwitz, or the streets of Budapest, only the ideals of humanity and love can climb the hills of the Acropolis.

A third danger is timidity. Few men are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change the world which yields most painfully to change. Aristotle tells us "At the Olympic games it is not the finest or the strongest men who are crowned, but those who enter the lists. . .so too in the life of the honorable and the good it is they who act rightly who win the prize." I believe that in this generation those with the courage to enter the conflict will find themselves with companions in every corner of the world.

For the fortunate amongst us, the fourth danger is comfort; the temptation to follow the easy and familiar path of personal ambition and financial success so grandly spread before those who have the privilege of an education. But that is not the road history has marked out for us. There is a Chinese curse which says "May he live in interesting times." Like it or not, we live in interesting times. They are times of danger and uncertainty; but they are also the most creative of any time in the history of mankind. And everyone here will ultimately be judged - will ultimately judge himself – on the effort he has contributed to building a new world society and the extent to which his ideals and goals have shaped that effort.

So we part, I to my country and you to remain. We are – if a man of forty can claim the privilege – fellow members of the world's largest younger generation. Each of us have our own work to do. I know at times you must feel very alone with your problems and with your difficulties. But I want to say how impressed I am with what you stand for and for the effort you are making; and I say this not just for myself, but men and women all over the world. And I hope you will often take heart from the knowledge that you are joined with your fellow young people in every land, they struggling with their problems and you with yours, but all joined in a common purpose; that, like the young people of my own country and of every country that I have visited, you are all in many ways more closely united to the brothers of your time than to the older generation in any of these nations; you are determined to build a better future. President Kennedy was speaking to the young people of America, but beyond them to young people everywhere, when he said "The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it – and the glow from that fire can truly light the world."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo_91HbhHTo

I have noticed right across this forum that almost unanimously, the press is used as a source of information or truth. People seem to but into this concept that if a news network is on their side, then its virtuous and if it's against them its dishonest. This is born of a two party system that runs campaigns on division, not a united states. We see race, gender, history and all sorts of things used to whip up hysteria in the public domain, which keeps us all occupied on things other than corruption, distortion of the constitution and people milking it for their own ends. I've mentioned divide and rule before and I won't labour on about it but, it was the British tool for conquering the world. From a psychology standpoint, crisis and fear being whipped up, destabilises people and we all run around like headless chickens, fuelled with emotion, and government acts like the mediator between two sides, the saviour. I began to question the media role after reading Edward Bernay's 1928 book "Propaganda" and looking at other things like "Manufacturing Consent" by Herman & Chomsky. I started to see things differently, reading Machiavelli's "The Prince" made more more inquisitive and less likely to take news on face value. The second Gulf War was really the slap in the face for me, I had backed Blair and G W Bush to go to war, the case had been made by my trusted news networks (BBC & SKY) and off they went to regime change in the name of democracy. Obviously since then, I know I was completely misled. Running on the same theme as discussed in earlier posts on this thread, I thought; how can people who are expert reporters and well funded news networks come to conclusions that were so wrong? I can perhaps be excused as a guy working in finance in my early 20's. When those mistakes and errors are repeatedly made by the same people, with first class educations and tremendous shared knowledge, you have to come to another conclusion than gross incompetence. I know this topic is very destructive in terms of peoples belief structures, but, the media truly is the elephant in the room.

Let's carry out a hypothetical scenario; Gone are the days of kings and queens ruling western society with overt tyranny, social revolutions and one man in India ensured the British empire walked out of his country, tails between legs and really put a book end on that era. During that era things were perpetually done that were not in the interests of the population, wars, taxes, wealth distribution disparity etc. The further you go back, the easier to communicate mistruths was. In 2021, we are far more sophisticated, as are the methods of communication. If you were to design a structure that ensured the higher echelons of society continued to add to their wealth, whilst avoiding any insurrection or uprising that could regime change your unequal system, how would you do it? What would it look like? How would it work?

If someone said to you that the governments' & big corporations' marketing department was called "The News", you might think that sounds silly. If you stop for a second and ask where our trust in the news comes from, it's been with us our whole lives. If you apply the logic that we use for religious extremists, we claim their dangerous ideology is often due to them being products of their environment. From 0-8 years old, your brain is a little downloading machine, it has to be for you to learn to survive in life, you have to absorb tones of information. If ideas are put in that impressionable little mind, they are often there for life. Well, the news has been there our whole lives, subliminally placing it as an important source of trusted information. It's very hard to convince anyone otherwise, just like it's hard to convince the religious extremist not to be prejudiced against others not of their faith or traditional enemies. All of that is evidential in psychology. 

Then you say, well, what evidence is there of this? For the first time in your life you may start to ask yourself; who funds the news? Is there a distortion? I began to look at BBC, the news site I instinctively looked at my whole life, the same lot that deceived me on Iraq. The BBC runs so many stories on race, gender and equality, that the public perception must be that they are the good guys and, on the side of the people. That's the retort you get when you mention the BBC is state funded. People look baffled when you ask how they can say things like; "the trouble with Russia or China is, the state owns the news, it's all propaganda to brainwash the people". Hardly anyone in the UK thinks of the BBC that way. If you're a businessman, and you are familiar with negotiations, or a politician, it may occur to you that the old trick is to use a trusted source in the eyes of the people to assist you in your plans. If you are Omega watches, having James Bond wear your watches and some product placement in he films, gets he public buying your watches, as a suave hero who saves the world every few years wouldn't choose a naff watch, right?. But, in politics, you can always use the trusted source as a counterpoint. Let's take the BBC; for decades now they have run pro-EU articles, whilst also receiving money from he EU. One of the biggest concerns by the population was on migrants coming to the UK in huge numbers, so the BBC runs runs stories that are compassion themed relentlessly, whipping up public support for this cause. The ruling party (Conservatives) have almost an apathy about the level of migrants coming into Britain, the government states it is doing what it can to stop people coming across the English channel. But, it continues every day with less and less resistance. What the public doesn't realise is, the Conservatives being pro big corporations and profit increases, actually wanted the migrants to come in, just as they are, simply because a surplus of labour keeps wages low and stops pay rises happening, thats the economics of it. You also have more taxable people and people paying into pensions. You might think the BBC and Conservatives were in opposition but, they were actually working in synergy. Another example of this counterpoint, might be in a tax raise, which are always unpopular. If you want to raise taxes by 5%, the government leaks a story to the BBC that they are thinking about a 10% raise. The BBC runs this, whips up hysteria, there is public outrage and the government steps in with a public announcement stating they have reconsidered/compromised and the tax raise will be 5%. The people thank the BBC for being on their side and accept the 5% raise, as its much better than 10%, however, the government only wanted 5% in the first place and played a trick using their media arm. It's just a couple of many situations like this. You might look at the arms race, if the government is looking to announce defence spending rises, it may help in the preceding days, weeks and months, to run stories about terrorism, Russian planes in the north Atlantic or enemy warships using the English channel as a shipping lane (of course this has gone on daily since the start of the cold war). The public nod and do not resist defence spending. It occurs to me that we need bogeymen, enemies, threats, as another counterpoint to keep this arms race going. We could take the focus off BBC and look at Sky News, The Guardian, Fox, CNN or whoever. Who funds or sponsors them? Are they using he same modus operandi that the Rockerfeller Foundation and others have used to achieve great influence? Or are big corporations overtly funding when there is an obvious conflict of interests? We know about Dulles media moles in the median of the late 1950's, why do we assume things have got better and not far worse? If we used the same scrutiny used to research JFK, we might find ourselves in some trouble. We could use that scrutiny to look at lobbyists and corporations donating to political parties. What do they expect in return? 

If you did design the most efficient structure to be most effective in shaping ideas, would it look something like this? 
1.heic
I could make a similar chart showing how to successfully market products, there would be little difference. 

I am sure some of the guys who have read about DARPA, Stanford Research Institute and some of the origins of big tech will understand some of this. Does anything defy logic? I should imagine it's too Orwellian for most to comprehend. If you can understand it, and putting it in context with recent history, you have to wonder where this ends?! 

13 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

C. Barnard...love your post above as well.

Cheers Joe

Edited February 7, 2021 by Chris Barnard

[Paul Brancato]

2 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

One of the things that stuck me is just how prescient JFK and RFK were in their thinking. Perhaps that was born of shared insight from their fathers' experiences in the SEC, business and politics but, for whatever reason, I am staggered by how they saw the threats to democracy and society as a whole. The June 10th 63 American University speech by JFK and the Ripples Of Hope speech by RFK in South Africa spell out everything we have gone through since. 

JFK
"I have, therefore, chosen this time and place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth too rarely perceived. And that is the most important topic on earth: peace. What kind of peace do I mean and what kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow, and to hope, and to build a better life for their children — not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women — not merely peace in our time but peace in all time."
 

"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know."

RFK
"There is," said an Italian philosopher, "nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things." Yet this is the measure of the task of your generation and the road is strewn with many dangers.

First is the danger of futility; the belief there is nothing one man or one woman can do against the enormous array of the world's ills – against misery, against ignorance, or injustice and violence. Yet many of the world's great movements, of thought and action, have flowed from the work of a single man. A young monk began the Protestant reformation, a young general extended an empire from Macedonia to the borders of the earth, and a young woman reclaimed the territory of France. It was a young Italian explorer who discovered the New World, and 32 year old Thomas Jefferson who proclaimed that all men are created equal. "Give me a place to stand," said Archimedes, "and I will move the world." These men moved the world, and so can we all. Few will have the greatness to bend history; but each of us can work to change a small portion of the events, and in the total of all these acts will be written the history of this generation. Thousands of Peace Corps volunteers are making a difference in the isolated villages and the city slums of dozens of countries. Thousands of unknown men and women in Europe resisted the occupation of the Nazis and many died, but all added to the ultimate strength and freedom of their countries. It is from numberless diverse acts of courage such as these that the belief that human history is thus shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.

"If Athens shall appear great to you," said Pericles, "consider then that her glories were purchased by valiant men, and by men who learned their duty." That is the source of all greatness in all societies, and it is the key to progress in our own time.

The second danger is that of expediency; of those who say that hopes and beliefs must bend before immediate necessities. Of course if we must act effectively we must deal with the world as it is. We must get things done. But if there was one thing that President Kennedy stood for that touched the most profound feeling of young people across the world, it was the belief that idealism, high aspiration and deep convictions are not incompatible with the most practical and efficient of programs – that there is no basic inconsistency between ideals and realistic possibilities – no separation between the deepest desires of heart and of mind and the rational application of human effort to human problems. It is not realistic or hard-headed to solve problems and take action unguided by ultimate moral aims and values, although we all know some who claim that it is so. In my judgement, it is thoughtless folly. For it ignores the realities of human faith and of passion and of belief; forces ultimately more powerful than all the calculations of our economists or of our generals. Of course to adhere to standards, to idealism, to vision in the face of immediate dangers takes great courage and takes self-confidence. But we also know that only those who dare to fail greatly, can ever achieve greatly.

It is this new idealism which is also, I believe, the common heritage of a generation which has learned that while efficiency can lead to the camps at Auschwitz, or the streets of Budapest, only the ideals of humanity and love can climb the hills of the Acropolis.

A third danger is timidity. Few men are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change the world which yields most painfully to change. Aristotle tells us "At the Olympic games it is not the finest or the strongest men who are crowned, but those who enter the lists. . .so too in the life of the honorable and the good it is they who act rightly who win the prize." I believe that in this generation those with the courage to enter the conflict will find themselves with companions in every corner of the world.

For the fortunate amongst us, the fourth danger is comfort; the temptation to follow the easy and familiar path of personal ambition and financial success so grandly spread before those who have the privilege of an education. But that is not the road history has marked out for us. There is a Chinese curse which says "May he live in interesting times." Like it or not, we live in interesting times. They are times of danger and uncertainty; but they are also the most creative of any time in the history of mankind. And everyone here will ultimately be judged - will ultimately judge himself – on the effort he has contributed to building a new world society and the extent to which his ideals and goals have shaped that effort.

So we part, I to my country and you to remain. We are – if a man of forty can claim the privilege – fellow members of the world's largest younger generation. Each of us have our own work to do. I know at times you must feel very alone with your problems and with your difficulties. But I want to say how impressed I am with what you stand for and for the effort you are making; and I say this not just for myself, but men and women all over the world. And I hope you will often take heart from the knowledge that you are joined with your fellow young people in every land, they struggling with their problems and you with yours, but all joined in a common purpose; that, like the young people of my own country and of every country that I have visited, you are all in many ways more closely united to the brothers of your time than to the older generation in any of these nations; you are determined to build a better future. President Kennedy was speaking to the young people of America, but beyond them to young people everywhere, when he said "The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it – and the glow from that fire can truly light the world."

I have noticed right across this forum that almost unanimously, the press is used as a source of information or truth. People seem to but into this concept that if a news network is on their side, then its virtuous and if it's against them its dishonest. This is born of a two party system that runs campaigns on division, not a united states. We see race, gender, history and all sorts of things used to whip up hysteria in the public domain, which keeps us all occupied on things other than corruption, distortion of the constitution and people milking it for their own ends. I've mentioned divide and rule before and I won't labour on about it but, it was the British tool for conquering the world. From a psychology standpoint, crisis and fear being whipped up, destabilises people and we all run around like headless chickens, fuelled with emotion, and government acts like the mediator between two sides, the saviour. I began to question the media role after reading Edward Bernay's 1928 book "Propaganda" and looking at other things like "Manufacturing Consent" by Herman & Chomsky. I started to see things differently, reading Machiavelli's "The Prince" made more more inquisitive and less likely to take news on face value. The second Gulf War was really the slap in the face for me, I had backed Blair and G W Bush to go to war, the case had been made by my trusted news networks (BBC & SKY) and off they went to regime change in the name of democracy. Obviously since then, I know I was completely misled. Running on the same theme as discussed in earlier posts on this thread, I thought; how can people who are expert reporters and well funded news networks come to conclusions that were so wrong? I can perhaps be excused as a guy working in finance in my early 20's. When those mistakes and errors are repeatedly made by the same people, with first class educations and tremendous shared knowledge, you have to come to another conclusion than gross incompetence. I know this topic is very destructive in terms of peoples belief structures, but, the media truly is the elephant in the room.

Let's carry out a hypothetical scenario; Gone are the days of kings and queens ruling western society with overt tyranny, social revolutions and one man in India ensured the British empire walked out of his country, tails between legs and really put a book end on that era. During that era things were perpetually done that were not in the interests of the population, wars, taxes, wealth distribution disparity etc. The further you go back, the easier to communicate mistruths was. In 2021, we are far more sophisticated, as are the methods of communication. If you were to design a structure that ensured the higher echelons of society continued to add to their wealth, whilst avoiding any insurrection or uprising that could regime change your unequal system, how would you do it? What would it look like? How would it work?

If someone said to you that the governments' & big corporations' marketing department was called "The News", you might think that sounds silly. If you stop for a second and ask where our trust in the news comes from, it's been with us our whole lives. If you apply the logic that we use for religious extremists, we claim their dangerous ideology is often due to them being products of their environment. From 0-8 years old, your brain is a little downloading machine, it has to be for you to learn to survive in life, you have to absorb tones of information. If ideas are put in that impressionable little mind, they are often there for life. Well, the news has been there our whole lives, subliminally placing it as an important source of trusted information. It's very hard to convince anyone otherwise, just like it's hard to convince the religious extremist not to be prejudiced against others not of their faith or traditional enemies. All of that is evidential in psychology. 

Then you say, well, what evidence is there of this? For the first time in your life you may start to ask yourself; who funds the news? Is there a distortion? I began to look at BBC, the news site I instinctively looked at my whole life, the same lot that deceived me on Iraq. The BBC runs so many stories on race, gender and equality, that the public perception must be that they are the good guys and, on the side of the people. That's the retort you get when you mention the BBC is state funded. People look baffled when you ask how they can say things like; "the trouble with Russia or China is, the state owns the news, it's all propaganda to brainwash the people". Hardly anyone in the UK thinks of the BBC that way. If you're a businessman, and you are familiar with negotiations, or a politician, it may occur to you that the old trick is to use a trusted source in the eyes of the people to assist you in your plans. If you are Omega watches, having James Bond wear your watches and some product placement in he films, gets he public buying your watches, as a suave hero who saves the world every few years wouldn't choose a naff watch, right?. But, in politics, you can always use the trusted source as a counterpoint. Let's take the BBC; for decades now they have run pro-EU articles, whilst also receiving money from he EU. One of the biggest concerns by the population was on migrants coming to the UK in huge numbers, so the BBC runs runs stories that are compassion themed relentlessly, whipping up public support for this cause. The ruling party (Conservatives) have almost an apathy about the level of migrants coming into Britain, the government states it is doing what it can to stop people coming across the English channel. But, it continues every day with less and less resistance. What the public doesn't realise is, the Conservatives being pro big corporations and profit increases, actually wanted the migrants to come in, just as they are, simply because a surplus of labour keeps wages low and stops pay rises happening, thats the economics of it. You also have more taxable people and people paying into pensions. You might think the BBC and Conservatives were in opposition but, they were actually working in synergy. Another example of this counterpoint, might be in a tax raise, which are always unpopular. If you want to raise taxes by 5%, the government leaks a story to the BBC that they are thinking about a 10% raise. The BBC runs this, whips up hysteria, there is public outrage and the government steps in with a public announcement stating they have reconsidered/compromised and the tax raise will be 5%. The people thank the BBC for being on their side and accept the 5% raise, as its much better than 10%, however, the government only wanted 5% in the first place and played a trick using their media arm. It's just a couple of many situations like this. You might look at the arms race, if the government is looking to announce defence spending rises, it may help in the preceding days, weeks and months, to run stories about terrorism, Russian planes in the north Atlantic or enemy warships using the English channel as a shipping lane (of course this has gone on daily since the start of the cold war). The public nod and do not resist defence spending. It occurs to me that we need bogeymen, enemies, threats, as another counterpoint to keep this arms race going. We could take the focus off BBC and look at Sky News, The Guardian, Fox, CNN or whoever. Who funds or sponsors them? Are they using he same modus operandi that the Rockerfeller Foundation and others have used to achieve great influence? Or are big corporations overtly funding when there is an obvious conflict of interests? We know about Dulles media moles in the median of the late 1950's, why do we assume things have got better and not far worse? If we used the same scrutiny used to research JFK, we might find ourselves in some trouble. We could use that scrutiny to look at lobbyists and corporations donating to political parties. What do they expect in return? 

If you did design the most efficient structure to be most effective in shaping ideas, would it look something like this? 
1.heic
I could make a similar chart showing how to successfully market products, there would be little difference. 

I am sure some of the guys who have read about DARPA, Stanford Research Institute and some of the origins of big tech will understand some of this. Does anything defy logic? I should imagine it's too Orwellian for most to comprehend. If you can understand it, and putting it in context with recent history, you have to wonder where this ends?! 
 

Cheers Joe

Good work Chris. And thanks for the earlier quotes from JFK and RFK. I had never seen the second paragraph in the JFK speech - how incredibly prescient. I always knew why their deaths mattered, and I’ve never lost my idealism, and never will. 
Perhaps you have previously done this, but how would you look at today’s events - Pandemic, The Great Reset, conspiracy theories involving Bill Gates and vaccines, the environmental movement and those that think it’s all a big lie foisted on us by Big Oil, etc etc, in the light of your current beliefs? I struggle all the time with this. Trusted sources on the more radical left seem to have drunk the right wing koolaid, but on the other hand you have RFK Jr speaking to crowds lending his weight to many of the things I mentioned, and he is a man I respect, one that I cannot imagine is under the sway of any corporate plans. Is Eugenics making a secret comeback? 
My own view, such as it is, is that not all billionaires are up to no good, that the Covid vaccines are a legitimate attempt to grapple with a real problem. But I also feel the weight of isolation from my friends and acquaintances, many of whom seem too scared. But I also wonder whether the virus isn’t something far more insidious. I’m very unsure these days.

 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Good work Chris. And thanks for the earlier quotes from JFK and RFK. I had never seen the second paragraph in the JFK speech - how incredibly prescient. I always knew why their deaths mattered, and I’ve never lost my idealism, and never will. 
Perhaps you have previously done this, but how would you look at today’s events - Pandemic, The Great Reset, conspiracy theories involving Bill Gates and vaccines, the environmental movement and those that think it’s all a big lie foisted on us by Big Oil, etc etc, in the light of your current beliefs? I struggle all the time with this. Trusted sources on the more radical left seem to have drunk the right wing koolaid, but on the other hand you have RFK Jr speaking to crowds lending his weight to many of the things I mentioned, and he is a man I respect, one that I cannot imagine is under the sway of any corporate plans. Is Eugenics making a secret comeback? 
My own view, such as it is, is that not all billionaires are up to no good, that the Covid vaccines are a legitimate attempt to grapple with a real problem. But I also feel the weight of isolation from my friends and acquaintances, many of whom seem too scared. But I also wonder whether the virus isn’t something far more insidious. I’m very unsure these days.

 

Thanks Paul. Well, I think we need to think about the pandemic topic. It's on a thread about James' book, which may be read by people looking to purchase his book, would we be better starting another thread? Also, whatever is said will crop straight up in SEO like a sore thumb attached to your name, mine and whoever else comments. I think people probably need consider any potential consequences of that, socially or in work terms. People really are being made to be 'persona non grata' for even questioning what is going on right now. I have seen a few members commenting on different threads re: Trumps handling of it, which gave their perspective of concern about it and didn't indicate any suspicion surrounding the pandemic. Emotions are high and they are taking precedent over logic (I feel). Which actually is very natural given the media surrounding the topic and the psychological effects. I have have an opinion on this, which hasn't changed since early April 20. I am happy to discuss my thoughts, they are grounded in logic and historical context. We should be able to talk about it, it is free speech. 

[James DiEugenio]

JFK later said that he wished the media would have exposed more of the Bay of Pigs operation before the fact, so he would have had to call it off.

[Guest]

18 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

JFK later said that he wished the media would have exposed more of the Bay of Pigs operation before the fact, so he would have had to call it off.

If the shoe was on the other foot, Dulles would have undoubtably used the media to manipulate the situation, just as he did in the aftermath. 

Edited February 10, 2021 by Chris Barnard

[Greg Doudna]

On 2/5/2021 at 5:49 PM, Ron Bulman said:

"The question then seems to be:  Why did it appear that Ruth was trying to conceal the true nature of her relationship with George DeMohrenschildt?".  Pg. 194. 

In fairness to Ruth Paine, there is nothing presented in Destiny Betrayed indicating Ruth Paine was concealing anything about her relationship with George DeMohrenschildt. The paragraph from Destiny Betrayed reads:

"The official story has it that Ruth never met George [DeMohrenschildt] until then [February 22, 1963, Glover home gathering], and she never had contact with him afterwards.[fn 88]. When Garrison questioned her on this point before a New Orleans Grand Jury, this previous tenet of hers was shown to be in error. Garrison managed to get her to admit that she and Michael were dinner guests at George's house in 1966. At that time, they talked about a copy of the famous backyard photograph which was found in DeMohrenschildt's possessions after the assassination.[fn 89] As author Steven Jones notes: Why would George invite a couple to dinner in 1966, if he had only briefly met them once three years earlier? Further, in his manuscript I'm a Patsy, I'm a Patsy, George wrote that he only discussed this backyard photograph with close friends.[fn 90] The question seems to be: Why did it appear that Ruth was trying to conceal the true nature of her relationship with George DeMohrenschildt?"

Footnote 88 goes to the Warren Report which was published in 1964. A dinner meeting which took place in 1966 cannot contradict testimony in 1964 concerning not having had further contact with DeMohrenschildt, because the 1966 dinner had not yet happened.

The wording "Garrison managed to get her to admit" that she and Michael were dinner guests at George DeMohrenschildt's house in 1966 is odd wording, in making it sound as if Ruth tried to conceal that. I checked the New Orleans Grand Jury transcript. Not so. Q is Garrison and A is Ruth Paine:

"Q. How about George and Jean deMorenschid? [sic]  

"A. They were there. [Feb 22, 1963 Glover]

"Q. Do you know George and Jean well?

"A. I met them at that party and once since, about a year ago.

"Q. They still live in Dallas, don't they?"

If the final sentences of the paragraph from Destiny Betrayed at the top were translated into declarative sentences it would read as follows:

Ruth and Michael Paine accepted a dinner invitation, issued at the initiative of George DeMohrenschildt, one evening in 1966.

Therefore it appears that Ruth Paine was lying in saying she only met George DeMohrenschildt once before in February 1963.

That is not logical, because the conclusion does not follow from the fact cited.

Edited February 10, 2021 by Greg Doudna