Jump to content
The Education Forum

Opinion: The WHY of it


Recommended Posts

By Gil Jesus ( 2022 )

"There is nothing more difficult, more dangerous, than to try to change the order of things." ---Machiavelli

Introduction

The following is an opinion based the assassination's historical place in the 20th century.

Fear has always been a part of the American experience.
I suggest that fear was the motivating factor in the assassination of President Kennedy, a fear that saw the President as a Communist appeaser, a coward who was afraid of the Soviets and a traitor to the United States of America. A President who was going to turn the sovereignty of the United States over to the United Nations.
And one who refused to contain the spread of Communism but instead promoted the concept of peaceful coexistence with the "Red Menace".

Fear: the motivating force

"Men hesitate less to harm a man who is loved than another who is feared." --- Machiavelli

Fear is a terrifying feeling. It can cause otherwise good and honorable men to resort to doing terrible things. As a weapon, it can be used to provoke others to do one's bidding.

It is defined as :

"... a natural, powerful, and primitive human emotion. It involves a universal biochemical response as well as a high individual emotional response. Fear alerts us to the presence of danger or the threat of harm, whether that danger is physical or psychological."

This was a fear whose roots dated back to the end of World War I, when the Communist Bolsheviks forced Russian Czar Nicholas II to abdicate the throne.
A series of bombings in 1919-1920 resulted in the nationwide Palmer Raids, resulting in the arrests of 10,000. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), was founded in response to the raids.

This fear raised its ugly head again during and after World War II, with the "relocation" of Japanese-Americans and the spy cases of Alger Hiss, the Rosenbergs and the acquisition of the atomic bomb by the Soviet Union.

It was fed by the Berlin blockade and the Communist insurgency in Korea.

It produced the Second Red Scare of the 1950's, a witch hunt to find Communists in American institutions, headed by Sen. Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin and his Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.
The tentacles of this monster of fear stretched from Government to universities to Hollywood and destroyed the careers of many talented people.
It was fed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, whose director, J. Edgar Hoover, made a career hunting Communists dating back to the Palmer Raids of 1919-1920.

Communism was the new "boogeyman".

Only when this monster turned its ugly head towards the US Army was it finally set back.

But by 1960, fear of Communist expansion worldwide and a slow movement into Communism at home were embedded in the American culture.

The "Cold War" was real and with the success of Sputnik, the prospect of Communists raining down missiles on the US was real too.
It was this fear that John Kennedy had to deal with, a fear so deeply rooted in our American institutions that he found it difficult if not impossible to get his agenda moving.

That agenda involved changing things:
Ending the Cold War.
Peaceful coexistence with the Communists.
Nullifying the policy of "containment", which had been the US' policy since then end of WW II.
Replacing the Eisenhower policy of "massive retaliation" with one of "flexible response ".

JFK used a "back channel" to deal with Khrushchev directly, undermining his own State Dept., military and CIA. With those agencies out of the loop, there was no telling what kinds of deals the inexperienced Kennedys were making with the Russians.

The Kennedys were changing American foreign policy and at home they were venturing into dangerous waters we nowadays call "the swamp". Their focus was on the corruption in government and was just getting started when JFK was assassinated.

General Douglas McArthur warned Kennedy of the things to come, telling the President something to the effect that, "the chickens are coming home to roost and you just moved into the hen house."

In Act III, Scene II of Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar", Brutus, having killed Caesar declares,

"Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more. Had you rather Caesar were living and die all slaves, than that Caesar were dead, to live all free men ?" ( Act III, Scene II )


JFK had no idea what he was up against: an entrenched "deep state" that had the power to set him up by delivering him into an ambush. The very national security apparatus whose responsibility it was to protect him, made sure that his protection was removed and ensured that an attempt against his life would be successful.

They didn't have to plan it, they didn't have to pull the trigger. All they had to do was know that a serious attempt would be made and then do everything they could to make it successful.

Hence, the last-minute changes to the motorcade at Love Field.

Hence, the slowing of the limo when the shooting began and the refusal to speed off until Kennedy had been mortally wounded.

Everybody wants to know who killed John Kennedy.
IMO, short answer: America killed John Kennedy.

And the very FBI that allowed Kennedy to be murdered was put in charge of the investigation and thus covered up its complicity in his murder. Its findings were, for the most part, echoed by a Presidential Commission made up of government officials and members of the ruling elite.

And as they had done with the President, the authorities in the city where he was assassinated led his accused assassin into another ambush just two days later.

If it worked the first time, why wouldn't you do it again ?

Kennedy's assassination moved the Presidency back into the hands of the pre-Kennedy power elite: former Senate Majority Leader Johnson, followed by former Vice President Nixon and former WC member Ford.

Kennedy was dead. The "swamp" had won. US foreign policy was back to pre-1961 standards.

Next stop: Vietnam.

Edited by Gil Jesus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 43
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Nice summation. I agree with your interpretation. 
how would you extend your ideas? For instance, would you put the rest of the 1960’s Assassinations in the same boat? And how do you see today’s machinations? Maybe off topic, but I bring this up because I’ve viewed the world through the lens of 11/22 ever since, and even prior. Enemies of our Empire seem to drive our foreign policy now too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 6/22/2022 at 11:34 AM, Paul Brancato said:

Nice summation. I agree with your interpretation. 
how would you extend your ideas? For instance, would you put the rest of the 1960’s Assassinations in the same boat? And how do you see today’s machinations? Maybe off topic, but I bring this up because I’ve viewed the world through the lens of 11/22 ever since, and even prior. Enemies of our Empire seem to drive our foreign policy now too. 

Without knowing the politics of the security guard ( Cesar ) who I believe fired the fatal shot that hit RFK, it would be hard to say if RFK's killing were in the same boat. As you probably know, at the time of the RFK murder, the SS did not provide protection for Presidential candidates. I find it interesting that RFK declined the protection of the LAPD and opted for, instead, the services of football players Rosie Grier and Rafer Johnson, two guys who were strong men, but hardly experienced in protection services.

As far as the MLK murder goes, I think there's been enough printed on the FBI's campaign to besmirch Dr. King's movement by claiming it was infiltrated by Communists. I don't find it surprising that the President and Dr. King were killed in the South and RFK in California, which today is a progressive stronghold, but back then was a hotbed of right-wing extremism.

The John Birch Society was especially strong in California in the early and mid 1960s.

 

Edited by Gil Jesus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gil - that’s quite a mouthful. I really appreciate the honesty. I don’t frame it the way you do, but then again I’ve been asking questions about Deep State then and now because I don’t know exactly how to frame it. Things are changing rapidly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Paul Brancato said:

Gil - that’s quite a mouthful. I really appreciate the honesty. I don’t frame it the way you do, but then again I’ve been asking questions about Deep State then and now because I don’t know exactly how to frame it. Things are changing rapidly. 

I agree. The similarities IMO between a Republican President ( Trump ) vs. a left wing deep state and the Democratic President ( JFK ) vs. a right wing deep state is uncanny albeit opposite politically. It seems that history repeats itself, if not to the extreme. I had a deep talk about this with my brother at Christmas and he asked me if I thought a Trump win in 2024 would mean his life would be in danger. Given the power of the press and the potential for Democrat violence, I wouldn't be surprised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing this, Gil. I think you are not far off with it. As for the pretext being JFK being a threat to America was only valid on lower strata’s. What I mean by that is; yes military folk and politicians alike may have bought that but, the kind of people profitting from Vietnam or.other foreign policy just used it as an excuse to kill JFK. That tactic is straight out of Machiavellian thought too. 
 

I think it became clear to JFK about what he was up against at the Bay of Pigs, he had some interesting words in a speech just days afterwards. He wasn’t naive when it comes to the power elite. After the Cuban Missilve Crisis there was also the words between him and Bobby about perhaps going to the theatre (Lincoln reference). JFK knew what was coming, he proceeded I think knowing very well that he’d perhaps be remembered like something from a Shakespearian tragedy, becoming larger in death than in life. This was a guy who was always dying, always on borrowed time, he had nothing to lose and it all to gain. It made him feel alive.

 

The deconstruction of the American empire starts in the 60’s. Communism was never something that could. Free markets were always more attractive and the lifestyle of decadence. Thats why Moscow shielded the eyes of their constituents. The fear of communism seemed to apply concerning any nation that wouldn’t do business with America on bad terms. But, America was fine pouring money into China to prop up Chairman Mao. Just not ok with Arbenz and co. 
 

FDR dies of ... illness or poisoning (no autopsy despite it being mandatory). The second Truman is in, policy changes dramatically. The red menace funds the arms race and manufactures public consent to invade any nation, under the pretence of world security. You couldn’t just be colonialists after the British empire. 

Fear as you know is one of the most powerful emotions and its very easy for leaders to corral and manipulate the afraid masses. Again a very old trick. 
 

Does it escape people that the one country that US interests supported, which had great opportunity for growth, and didn’t crush them for being communist, is now the one that will succeed the USA in terms of dominance? 
 

Also, JFK had a choice of first strike or detente. You’re not a pacifist if you prefer not to sacrifice 140 million of your people, you are a sound mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Thanks for sharing this, Gil. I think you are not far off with it. As for the pretext being JFK being a threat to America was only valid on lower strata’s. What I mean by that is; yes military folk and politicians alike may have bought that but, the kind of people profitting from Vietnam or.other foreign policy just used it as an excuse to kill JFK. That tactic is straight out of Machiavellian thought too. 
 

I think it became clear to JFK about what he was up against at the Bay of Pigs, he had some interesting words in a speech just days afterwards. He wasn’t naive when it comes to the power elite. After the Cuban Missilve Crisis there was also the words between him and Bobby about perhaps going to the theatre (Lincoln reference). JFK knew what was coming, he proceeded I think knowing very well that he’d perhaps be remembered like something from a Shakespearian tragedy, becoming larger in death than in life. This was a guy who was always dying, always on borrowed time, he had nothing to lose and it all to gain. It made him feel alive.

 

The deconstruction of the American empire starts in the 60’s. Communism was never something that could. Free markets were always more attractive and the lifestyle of decadence. Thats why Moscow shielded the eyes of their constituents. The fear of communism seemed to apply concerning any nation that wouldn’t do business with America on bad terms. But, America was fine pouring money into China to prop up Chairman Mao. Just not ok with Arbenz and co. 
 

FDR dies of ... illness or poisoning (no autopsy despite it being mandatory). The second Truman is in, policy changes dramatically. The red menace funds the arms race and manufactures public consent to invade any nation, under the pretence of world security. You couldn’t just be colonialists after the British empire. 

Fear as you know is one of the most powerful emotions and its very easy for leaders to corral and manipulate the afraid masses. Again a very old trick. 
 

Does it escape people that the one country that US interests supported, which had great opportunity for growth, and didn’t crush them for being communist, is now the one that will succeed the USA in terms of dominance? 
 

Also, JFK had a choice of first strike or detente. You’re not a pacifist if you prefer not to sacrifice 140 million of your people, you are a sound mind.

Thanks Chris. When you look at the number of American Corporations that were financing the "patriot forums" around the country,  it becomes obvious that Corporate America wasn't going to miss him when he was gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fletcher Prouty’s informed opinion holds the Establishment position as: Kennedy must not win a second term in 1964.

And that the process of Kennedy’s demise was similar to the 12th century murder of Thomas Beckett after Henry II surmised - “who will rid me of this troublesome priest?”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Fletcher Prouty’s informed opinion holds the Establishment position as: Kennedy must not win a second term in 1964.

And that the process of Kennedy’s demise was similar to the 12th century murder of Thomas Beckett after Henry II surmised - “who will rid me of this troublesome priest?”

Good point. A lot of people call the assassination a "coup d'etat", but I believe the real coup was the election of Kennedy.

The assassination was the response to that coup, to return the Presidency to the deep state that existed prior to 1960.

IMO, in order to understand the WHY, you have to look at JFK through the eyes of his enemies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always enjoy reading Gil Jesus commentary.

Oh, maybe I disagree on this or that, but so what? 

We are here to learn about the JFKA, which entails learning about the Deep State and the M$M. 

It pays to be tolerant of other views, and learn what you can from other people. 

I happen to agree in the main: The Deep State had long knives out for Trump from the get-go. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:

Good point. A lot of people call the assassination a "coup d'etat", but I believe the real coup was the election of Kennedy.

The assassination was the response to that coup, to return the Presidency to the deep state that existed prior to 1960.

IMO, in order to understand the WHY, you have to look at JFK through the eyes of his enemies.

You’re spot on here. 
 

It was a triumph of marketing that JFK was elected over Nixon, as JPK said “we’ll sell Jack like soap flakes.” I imagine establishment weren’t all that bothered in that moment, it required more work and coercion on their part to shape Jack’s ideas, than it did the already corrupt Nixon. What they underestimated was the underlying sense of compassion, the idealist trait in JFK. Usually a guy who never had to work would fall in line with his class. JFK had two things which made him a fierce adversary. One, he didn’t need more money, he didn’t care about accumulating it, his father was at least the 14th richest man in America. This meant he was beyond bribery (which is the power elites most irresistible tool). Number 2; he was dying, he was always dying, since he was a boy. He had his last rights read to him 4 times before Dallas. A Dr said he wouldn’t live beyond 27. His siblings would joke that if a mosquito bit Jack, the mosquito would die, as Jack was always sick in bed. This affliction explains his zest for life, he appreciated every minute of life and was living each moment as if it was his last. Only a dying man can really relate to that. You live with a sense freedom that others never have. I suspect that the threat of assassination was something that heightened his senses and made him feel even more alive. He read the greek tragedies and about the Romans and lots of classic literature, he’d have known how he’d have been remembered if he was slain. Which by the way was preferable to dying of some tragic illness, and being remembered as a weak and sickly president who passed away. 
 

Jackie left a note on Nov 22nd 1963 which was beautiful, which also gives insight to his character. 

ec8ba32f32e4cd3666b2dc28c3f264ff.jpg

The torn between being a good person and missing out on all of the opportunities that life has to offer.. refers to affairs but, also to what I am referring to, he was doing what made him feel alive, thats exactly what dying men do. 
 

All of this makes for a massive stone in the shoe of the establishment, he felt he had nothing to lose. Without understanding the circumstances we view it as just bravery and courage, its more than that. Has anyone read “Profiles in courage.” Or any of the books on PT109? Again, it illustrates Jack’s character, what drives him. I would speculate on Myers Briggs that JFK was an INTJ and potentially had ADD (ADHD). He was a complex character but, he understood there are greater things than lining your pockets and that the most rewarding thing is taking on a mighty foe. 
 

This is why the deep state has a system that will make sure they don’t have another idealist in office. The 25th amendment was also passed in 1965, as they’d have loved to have removed JFK on medical grounds. Ironically, they leave Biden where he is despite his obvious signs of cognitive decline. Its about having the mechanisms in place to regime change. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

 

I always enjoy reading Gil Jesus commentary.

Oh, maybe I disagree on this or that, but so what? 

We are here to learn about the JFKA, which entails learning about the Deep State and the M$M. 

It pays to be tolerant of other views, and learn what you can from other people. 

I happen to agree in the main: The Deep State had long knives out for Trump from the get-go. 

 

Me too, Ben. I think it’s because what he writes is a product of his own original thinking, not, heavily influenced by the herd of groupthink. That might be why I enjoy Hunter S Thompson. I too may disagree with Gil on some things, it doesn’t mean I won’t agree with his next post or find it an enjoyable read. 
There are some lessons in this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

And that the process of Kennedy’s demise was similar to the 12th century murder of Thomas Beckett after Henry II surmised - “who will rid me of this troublesome priest?”

Love a bit of history. The nature of tyrants is clear. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

Me too, Ben. I think it’s because what he writes is a product of his own original thinking, not, heavily influenced by the herd of groupthink. That might be why I enjoy Hunter S Thompson. I too may disagree with Gil on some things, it doesn’t mean I won’t agree with his next post or find it an enjoyable read. 
There are some lessons in this. 

I don't expect anyone to agree with me. I posted this as an opinion based on what I see as the assassination's place in history. The Trump stuff was to respond to Paul's request to extend it, to bring it up to date and to point out the similarities they had up against the deep state.

You hear all kinds of theories, but no one ever tells the whole story. I read books, watch documentaries and listen to radio interviews. I get pieces here and there, but no one ever tells the whole story. No one ever puts the assassination in the perspective of a political murder, a President who tried to change things and the forces that resisted him, saw him as a threat to the security of the country, aided and abetted his assassination and then covered up what they had done.

It was all fear driven. And the sad part is that fear is still driving America in the the 21st Century.

Edited by Gil Jesus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...