WHO ORGANISED AND EXECUTED THE JFK ASSASSINATION? (POLL)

[Guest]

Ladies and gents, please give us your feedback. Please provide a written commentary if your answers sit outside of the given options. 

Edited April 27, 2023 by Chris Barnard

[Benjamin Cole]

If I had to bet, it would be elements of the Miami Station of the CIA, and Cuban exiles---all of whom were tight with elements of the Mafia. 

BTW, the plot could have been very small, involving three or four pre-JFKA witting participants. Deeply embittered extremists, involved in the Bay of Pigs, who believed their comrades died ugly and Castro prevailed due to JFK's betrayal. The original CIA history. 

The cover-up involved many. 

I am a strict pacifist.

But who in their right mind would plan a presidential assassination with many witting participants spread across various agencies and organizations---including many people you never met before? 

 

 

 

[Guest]

59 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

BTW, the plot could have been very small, involving three or four pre-JFKA witting participants. Deeply embittered extremists, involved in the Bay of Pigs, who believed their comrades died ugly and Castro prevailed due to JFK's betrayal. The original CIA history. 

It’s possible, Ben. Do you think the risk would be too great without immunity from prosecution or reprisals? Its a very bold move for a part of 3 or 4. 

On that basis, would everything else leading upto the event be a coincidence? 
 

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

But who in their right mind would plan a presidential assassination with many witting participants spread across various agencies and organizations---including many people you never met before? 

Each and every one would need to be compromised. The taking part seals your fate. 

[Benjamin Cole]

39 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

It’s possible, Ben. Do you think the risk would be too great without immunity from prosecution or reprisals? Its a very bold move for a part of 3 or 4. 

On that basis, would everything else leading upto the event be a coincidence? 
 

Each and every one would need to be compromised. The taking part seals your fate. 

And lifetime silence? No "to be read after my death" letters? 

E Howard Hunt did make a dubious deathbed confession. 

Antonio Veciania, late in life, did make a statement he met David Atlee Phillips in Dallas, and LHO. Some serious scholars have said that meeting might not have been possible. 

But sheesh, very very little in the way of bona fide, verifiable confessions. 

I think it is possible, maybe even likely, one higher-up in the CIA leaked info about LHO to certain individuals associated in the Miami Station. A password, or a call was made to LHO to "trust the two guys from Miami." The other half of LHO's half dollar bill was exhibited?

But CIA'ers roping in a dozen or so guys from the Dallas Police Department to knowingly participate in the JFKA....not sure that is a plan that would have been hatched. Just my IMHO.

Post-JFKA, everyone got aboard. No one wanted to see as nutty, or helping the communist LHO, or not following Hoover's orders. Many people in Dallas were literally afraid of physical repercussions. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

And lifetime silence? No "to be read after my death" letters? 

E Howard Hunt did make a dubious deathbed confession. 

Antonio Veciania, late in life, did make a statement he met David Atlee Phillips in Dallas, and LHO. Some serious scholars have said that meeting might not have been possible. 

But sheesh, very very little in the way of bona fide, verifiable confessions. 

I think it is possible, maybe even likely, one higher-up in the CIA leaked info about LHO to certain individuals associated in the Miami Station. A password, or a call was made to LHO to "trust the two guys from Miami." The other half of LHO's half dollar bill was exhibited?

But CIA'ers roping in a dozen or so guys from the Dallas Police Department to knowingly participate in the JFKA....not sure that is a plan that would have been hatched. Just my IMHO.

Post-JFKA, everyone got aboard. No one wanted to see as nutty, or helping the communist LHO, or not following Hoover's orders. Many people in Dallas were literally afraid of physical repercussions

I think we are light on confessions, Ben. Is that all that surprising? If we look at all of the deaths in the 10 years after the JFKA. There are plenty of examples being set for anyone who thinks about running their mouth. Then there is the fate of Roselli, Giancana and others. We might even get into the fate of some CIA operatives. If we look at the big picture, the idealists speaking up for truth are mostly the working class witnesses, or those connected to witnesses. That class of people is trained or conditioned to be honest good citizens. The higher in the US system that people rise, the less idealist they become. When you have a lot to lose, pragmatism and security seems to outweigh conscience. What would be the result of a deathbed confession? Would it then put your offspring at risk? Undoubtably. How many people speak against Putin in Russia? How many spoke against Escobar in his hay day in Colombia? Fear tends to achieve silence. As does money. Most people have a price. Most societies are organised in dominance hierarchies. If someone above you breathes down a directive, most people follow the orders unquestioningly. Livelihoods and longevity are important to people. 
 

Thats not me saying that you are wrong, as I am open minded about it. I think we quickly get up a lot higher than 3 or 4 people under a close analysis. The lack if security, the SS behaviour, the parade routes, the amount of bullets whizzing about / wounds, etc etc. I think it quickly becomes a larger operation. I am happy for there to be 3-4 shooters/spotters. Although we all disagree on this, I think we have 3 shooting locations (minimum). 

[Benjamin Cole]

CB--

Intellectually, I know there are other viewpoints on the number of witting pre-JFKA participants. 

In my gut, I suspect assassins would only trust confederates they knew well, very well, with bonds formed in common battle or similar.

In other words, Cuban exiles, Bay of Pigs vets---but assets tied to the CIA, necessitating the official cover-up, along with LHO's true past.

Well, that's my story and I sticking with it. 

Some have said my lack of imagination knows no bounds. 

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

CB--

Intellectually, I know there are other viewpoints on the number of witting pre-JFKA participants. 

In my gut, I suspect assassins would only trust confederates they knew well, very well, with bonds formed in common battle or similar.

In other words, Cuban exiles, Bay of Pigs vets---but assets tied to the CIA, necessitating the official cover-up, along with LHO's true past.

Well, that's my story and I sticking with it. 

Some have said my lack of imagination knows no bounds. 

I rather like the setting up of a false flag and slipping a few killers into the plaza. My gut just thinks that nobody would undertake the job without having immunity and knowing there was lax security and that all efforts wouldn’t be concentrated on them. 🤷‍♂️ 

We’re all guessing to some degree. I do wonder if we construct what happened in the plaza based on who we think was behind it. I differ from many in believing that the people behind this were the people behind subsequent events in the years and decades after. It’d be nice to hear the confirmed truth in my lifetime.

Have you read Lance De Haveren Smith’s “Conspiracy Theory in America”, I wonder if that may sway you. I can send you the PDF if you wish. Its very logical. The author doesn’t care who did it. He just uses evidence. 

[Roger Odisio]

6 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

I rather like the setting up of a false flag and slipping a few killers into the plaza. My gut just thinks that nobody would undertake the job without having immunity and knowing there was lax security and that all efforts wouldn’t be concentrated on them. 🤷‍♂️ 

We’re all guessing to some degree. I do wonder if we construct what happened in the plaza based on who we think was behind it. I differ from many in believing that the people behind this were the people behind subsequent events in the years and decades after. It’d be nice to hear the confirmed truth in my lifetime.

Have you read Lance De Haveren Smith’s “Conspiracy Theory in America”, I wonder if that may sway you. I can send you the PDF if you wish. Its very logical. The author doesn’t care who did it. He just uses evidence. 

In following your discussion with Ben, this jumped out at me:  "I differ from many in believing that the people behind this were the people behind subsequent events in the years and decades after."

Initially confused by your wording, I now see you're saying the murder was not an isolated incident, but part of a long campaign to intimidate and, in some cases, eliminate adversaries of the war machine, then consolidating power.  Do I have that right?

If so, that's a very important point.  The murder was not an isolated incident and should not be thought of as such.  The clues as to who did it can be most clearly understood by studying what followed.  

Starting right away with the message from the White House Situation Room, being run by McGeorge Bundy, to Air Force 1 coming back from Dallas that the assassin had already been caught and there was no conspiracy.  Those of you who were in the motorcade should forget what you thought you saw.

Followed quickly by the rewriting (probably before the murder) of the memo in which JFK had established the withdrawal plan from Vietnam.  Published that weekend before Kennedy was even buried. The war machine was going to get their war.

Then Oswald was murdered before he could talk to a lawyer.  They of course knew he didn't do it and they were already on the way to framing him.  Including a plan to create a commission of 7 great Americans to ratify the framing and sell it to the public.

Then they were off on a killing spree. One murder often requires others to conceal the perps or solidify the original purpose.  Malcom; MLK, who had come out against the war, jeopardizing the supply of black and poor kids they needed to send over there; RFK, who one week before he was murdered had finally said he was going to reopen the JFKA when he reached the White House; and even Fred Hampton an up and coming Panther in is bed in a Chicago apartment (to show their ruthlessness knew no bounds).

The point is that those behind the murder had to have the power to do these things and much more I have left out.  And get the media, who they had been infiltrating and training to heel whenever "national security" was mentioned, to assist in, to ratify, the coverup. That eliminates all others on your original list but the (leadership of) the CIA.  And requires an addition.  Lyndon Johnson, whose cooperation was essential to the task's success, and who wanted JFK gone as much as they did.

 

 

[Guest]

54 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

In following your discussion with Ben, this jumped out at me:  "I differ from many in believing that the people behind this were the people behind subsequent events in the years and decades after."

Initially confused by your wording, I now see you're saying the murder was not an isolated incident, but part of a long campaign to intimidate and, in some cases, eliminate adversaries of the war machine, then consolidating power.  Do I have that right?

If so, that's a very important point.  The murder was not an isolated incident and should not be thought of as such.  The clues as to who did it can be most clearly understood by studying what followed.  

Starting right away with the message from the White House Situation Room, being run by McGeorge Bundy, to Air Force 1 coming back from Dallas that the assassin had already been caught and there was no conspiracy.  Those of you who were in the motorcade should forget what you thought you saw.

Followed quickly by the rewriting (probably before the murder) of the memo in which JFK had established the withdrawal plan from Vietnam.  Published that weekend before Kennedy was even buried. The war machine was going to get their war.

Then Oswald was murdered before he could talk to a lawyer.  They of course knew he didn't do it and they were already on the way to framing him.  Including a plan to create a commission of 7 great Americans to ratify the framing and sell it to the public.

Then they were off on a killing spree. One murder often requires others to conceal the perps or solidify the original purpose.  Malcom; MLK, who had come out against the war, jeopardizing the supply of black and poor kids they needed to send over there; RFK, who one week before he was murdered had finally said he was going to reopen the JFKA when he reached the White House; and even Fred Hampton an up and coming Panther in is bed in a Chicago apartment (to show their ruthlessness knew no bounds).

The point is that those behind the murder had to have the power to do these things and much more I have left out.  And get the media, who they had been infiltrating and training to heel whenever "national security" was mentioned, to assist in, to ratify, the coverup. That eliminates all others on your original list but the (leadership of) the CIA.  And requires an addition.  Lyndon Johnson, whose cooperation was essential to the task's success, and who wanted JFK gone as much as they did.

 

 

Yes, Roger, you understood me. I mentioned Lance De Havren-Smith’s book to Ben, as it’s one of the best for highlighting a logical process which takes probability into consideration and looks at a sequence of events as a pattern. Most people tend to focus on isolated events as opposed to any bigger picture which may exist. This is what happens with the JFKA, we focus so hard on who pulled the trigger, who might have been in Dealey Plaza etc, as opposed to who really benefitted (cui bono) and who had the power to cover it up. When I get time I’ll pick the bones out of Lance’s book, highlighting the more important points. It makes a mockery of what we are led to believe, as opposed to reality.

PS

I think most of us have not fully understood the motive, which is why the culprits are not more clear IMHO.

Edited April 28, 2023 by Chris Barnard

[Roger Odisio]

22 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

Yes, Roger, you understood me. I mentioned Lance De Havren-Smith’s book to Ben, as it’s one of the best for highlighting a logical process which takes probability into consideration and looks at a sequence of events as a pattern. Most people tend to focus on isolated events as opposed to any bigger picture which may exist. This is what happens with the JFKA, we focus so hard on who pulled the trigger, who might have been in Dealey Plaza etc, as opposed to who really benefitted (cui bono) and who had the power to cover it up. When I get time I’ll pick the bones out of Lance’s book, highlighting the more important points. It makes a mockery of what we are led to believe, as opposed to reality.

PS

I think most of us have not fully understood the motive, which is why the culprits are not more clear IMHO.

Salandria's warning, I think it was 25 years ago, addressed this problem. We knew enough then, he said, to at the very least surmise that Kennedy was murdered by the upper echelons of his own government (Salandria said he in fact knew enough to conclude that to be the case). We know more now. But instead of pushing ahead with that and finding ways to make the public aware of it, too many folks are solving puzzles that simply interest them.  Particularly, it seems, ones that are unlikely to help answer answers the main question--who organized and implemented the murder.  While time moves on.

 

The identity of the shooters *does* however have at least the potential of leading us back to the perps.  If, e.g., Souetre was one of the shooters, that leads to the CIA's ZRRifle project run by Bill Harvey, one of whose main tasks was finding foreign assassins.  The CIA formed the ZRRifle project under Harvey in early 1962 with a budget of its own and disbanded it in 1964.  Hmmm.

 

Whoever the shooters were, there had to be a plan to hustle them out of Dallas after the murder. I don't think the recent thread about Souetre in Dallas pinned down the he was one of them because I have doubts about the veracity of the French article that led to DeGaulle's people to send an inquiry about him to the FBI in March of 1964. French authorities closed the inquiry 8 days after it began having gotten no answer about Souetre's whereabouts from the CIA and FBI. There is more work to be done.

 

The French file on that inquiry, btw, is a legitimate thing for Bill and Larry to ask NARA to retrieve under the JFK Act, which provides for the retrieval of records held by foreign governments.

 

Thanks for the reference to CJ Hopkins in another thread.  Another person to read.

 

Have you seen recent pieces by the estimable Ed Curtin on Bobby Jr's run for the presidency?  https://edwardcurtin.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-to-heal-the-great-divide/.   https://edwardcurtin.com/heal-the-divide/.   https://www.unz.com/audio/kbarrett_edward-curtin-on-rfk-jr-vs-the-american-political-wasteland/.

 

In other clips Junior has told the story of his father's refusal to talk about the JFKA in public, tho his immediate reaction was to suspect the CIA. Then one week before the California primary he was asked by a college student whether he intended to reopen the JFKA if he became president.  There was a long silence.  He said yes to thunderous applause. To my knowledge no one has asked Junior if he would do the same. I think I know the answer.

 

Which is why Junior's candidacy should be important to everyone here.

 

[Leslie Sharp]

52 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

Salandria's warning, I think it was 25 years ago, addressed this problem. We knew enough then, he said, to at the very least surmise that Kennedy was murdered by the upper echelons of his own government (Salandria said he in fact knew enough to conclude that to be the case). We know more now. But instead of pushing ahead with that and finding ways to make the public aware of it, too many folks are solving puzzles that simply interest them.  Particularly, it seems, ones that are unlikely to help answer answers the main question--who organized and implemented the murder.  While time moves on.

 

The identity of the shooters *does* however have at least the potential of leading us back to the perps.  If, e.g., Souetre was one of the shooters, that leads to the CIA's ZRRifle project run by Bill Harvey, one of whose main tasks was finding foreign assassins.  The CIA formed the ZRRifle project under Harvey in early 1962 with a budget of its own and disbanded it in 1964.  Hmmm.

 

Whoever the shooters were, there had to be a plan to hustle them out of Dallas after the murder. I don't think the recent thread about Souetre in Dallas pinned down the he was one of them because I have doubts about the veracity of the French article that led to DeGaulle's people to send an inquiry about him to the FBI in March of 1964. French authorities closed the inquiry 8 days after it began having gotten no answer about Souetre's whereabouts from the CIA and FBI. There is more work to be done.

 

The French file on that inquiry, btw, is a legitimate thing for Bill and Larry to ask NARA to retrieve under the JFK Act, which provides for the retrieval of records held by foreign governments.

 

Thanks for the reference to CJ Hopkins in another thread.  Another person to read.

 

Have you seen recent pieces by the estimable Ed Curtin on Bobby Jr's run for the presidency?  https://edwardcurtin.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-to-heal-the-great-divide/.   https://edwardcurtin.com/heal-the-divide/.   https://www.unz.com/audio/kbarrett_edward-curtin-on-rfk-jr-vs-the-american-political-wasteland/.

 

In other clips Junior has told the story of his father's refusal to talk about the JFKA in public, tho his immediate reaction was to suspect the CIA. Then one week before the California primary he was asked by a college student whether he intended to reopen the JFKA if he became president.  There was a long silence.  He said yes to thunderous applause. To my knowledge no one has asked Junior if he would do the same. I think I know the answer.

 

Which is why Junior's candidacy should be important to everyone here.

 

Agree, Roger, and I would add that the Souetre inquiry should resume with the INS in Dallas; where are the Bailey and Norwood reports?* Were they withheld or destroyed?  And what role might SW Region commissioner of the INS Harlon B. Carter have played?

It's clear by October 9 that Souetre — identified by Lafitte in ten entries in his 1963 datebook, beginning April 25 —  is integral to the Dallas operation. The day before, October 8, it's clear that Charles Askins has been added with the apparent blessing of Harvey as in William King of ZRRifle. 

We know from earlier entries that Charles Askins was being considered along with Jack Canon (September 12 and 14 respectively) based on Canon's long history with Gen. Willoughby and the Z org.

And from Askins, we arrive full circle, Dallas INS Harlon B. Carter who had been friends with Askins for a decade if not longer,having served together in the US Border Patrol. Could Carter assure Souetre's entry via Mexico, or turn a blind eye when he (or someone impersonating him) was detained in Dallas, or might Harlon have orchestrated the detention and expulsion himself?

A search for official records of Harlon B. Carter is ongoing.
 

*Both [J. Gary] Shaw and [Bud] Fensterwald, without benefit of the evidence revealed in the records of Pierre Lafitte, had astutely suspected that the failure of Texas officials to hold Souetre or possible accomplices for questioning revealed a potentially explosive breakthrough in the investigation into the assassination. Fensterwald wrote of the arrests: “. . . An INS Inspector named Virgil Bailey picked up a Frenchman at an apartment on either Gaston or Ross Street in Dallas. He believes the arrest was on Sunday, November 24, 1963, but can remember none of the details other than the person arrested was French, and that the matter was top priority. . . . Another INS Inspector named [Howell] Norwood received two urgent calls from INS Headquarters in Washington, stating that they wanted Mr. X (named unrecalled by INS), a foreigner, picked up immediately. Norwood was very surprised to find that Mr. X was already in the hands of INS Dallas; he had been picked up on November 22nd or 23rd as the result of a call from the Dallas police, who had apprehended him.”

         Not only had authorities failed to pursue their own arrests made in the first forty-eight hours of the assassination—with one spectacular exception, the arrest of the patsy Lee Harvey Oswald—but for decades, the responsible agencies deflected investigations into Jean Souetre and the clues he left behind that would expose the hierarchy behind Project Lancelot.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:

Salandria's warning, I think it was 25 years ago, addressed this problem. We knew enough then, he said, to at the very least surmise that Kennedy was murdered by the upper echelons of his own government (Salandria said he in fact knew enough to conclude that to be the case). We know more now. But instead of pushing ahead with that and finding ways to make the public aware of it, too many folks are solving puzzles that simply interest them.  Particularly, it seems, ones that are unlikely to help answer answers the main question--who organized and implemented the murder.  While time moves on

Hi Roger, thanks for the reply. All of this is a huge topic to fully understand and 250,000 words probably wouldn’t do it justice. Essentially, IMO, at the very least a person would need to have a grasp of history, geo-politics, the darker parts of human psychology and social engineering to see what has and is going on. I have tried to spell this out to people many different ways but, only a few really understand it here. I wish they all did. I did a thread a year or so back giving 20 reasons why people don’t see the situation for what it is. The most powerful reasons are that we have been brain trained through parenting, schooling, TV and film. We mostly think a certain way, and come to our conclusions based on the way we have been taught to think. It mirrors film and not reality / nature. It you asked a shrewd financial trader who second guesses geopolitics, and he/she knew nothing about the JFK case and all you did was supply them JFK’s policies and the details of the assassination. They would assume that big business / very wealthy people were behind the JFKA. In contrast if you asked a normal person in the middle class who killed JFK, they’d probably say it was due to some personal grudge, based on negative emotions toward him. They’d say that because they watch films every evening to relax and the narrative is grudge and revenge is the outcome. By the same token, if we use Occam’s Razor as a tool, we immediately exclude any plots that are complex or Machiavellian by nature. Likewise if we use the “someone would have talked” trope,  because if your average person saw something bad, they’d feel the need to speak, as per their moral values or conscience. We ignore the possibility of how someone might behave if their life was threatened. Or, if they are worth a lot of money and have much more to lose than your average person. These are all factors that play out in reality but, are thought of differently in the public consciousness, mostly because of what we are exposed to in our daily lives and media/TV. I think most of all; a conclusion that there was a coup d’etat in America, and the same framework to commit crimes against democracy is still in place today, is far too disturbing for most people to take. As a partner or friend if they like watching horror films, some will love them, but, if you suggest to them that actual horror is perpetrated by the very people who rule them, they will act with revulsion, they won’t want to hear it. Its not because the suggestion is absurd, as anyone can listen and challenge something absurd and laugh about it. These people don’t laugh, they attack, get agitated, angry etc. Its because it triggers their animal brain, the amygdala, which is responsible for our survival instincts and emotional responses. What separates us from animals is our neo-cortex, the rational thinking, logical part of the brain, which is much newer in evolutionary terms. The amygdala overrides the neocortex when exposed to fear or a threat. I think the idea that the state isn’t this kind institution that protects and does good, is too much for most people to take. Its worth pointing out with some sweeping generalisations that women are more susceptible to fear.  And that we are not all equal when it comes to this mechanism/response. If you spend all of your time in the neocortex and do not have emotional triggers, you might be a psychopath. In contrast its very difficult to function as a human being today, if you are spending all of your time using the amygdala, only responding emotionally. Social scientists know this well, as do our MSM which endeavours to appeal to out emotional responses as much as possible. The responses are fight, flight, freeze, fornicate, feed (5 F’s). People will almost always prefer an illusion that makes them feel ok, as opposed to a truth which makes them afraid. I think there are less than 20% who are analytical and can separate emotions from logical thinking. The rest are of varying degrees. 
 

We have all of the above preventing us from seeing truth. 
 

1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:

The identity of the shooters *does* however have at least the potential of leading us back to the perps.  If, e.g., Souetre was one of the shooters, that leads to the CIA's ZRRifle project run by Bill Harvey, one of whose main tasks was finding foreign assassins.  The CIA formed the ZRRifle project under Harvey in early 1962 with a budget of its own and disbanded it in 1964.  Hmmm.

It does, and it may be why Roselli and Giancana had sudden deaths. I think the higher ups would have insulated themselves against ever being connected. There are various ways to ensure there is zero connection between say a Rockefeller and Jean Souetre. Perhaps the smartest way would be for very few people to understand how high the thing goes. Also, are you really going to talk if caught, if your loved ones will be killed as a consequence? That buys a lot of silence. So does money. And compartmentalisation seems to work very successfully in clandestine operations. 
 

1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:

Whoever the shooters were, there had to be a plan to hustle them out of Dallas after the murder. I don't think the recent thread about Souetre in Dallas pinned down the he was one of them because I have doubts about the veracity of the French article that led to DeGaulle's people to send an inquiry about him to the FBI in March of 1964. French authorities closed the inquiry 8 days after it began having gotten no answer about Souetre's whereabouts from the CIA and FBI. There is more work to be done.

It strikes me that Souetre if involved, wouldn’t have fired a weapon but, would have been attracted by a very large sum of money, after all, he was an exile from his home land to some degree. I could see him observing, planning, being there etc with assurances. He may already have been a blood-brother of the CIA as we don’t know for certain if the CIA were involved in attempts on De Gaulle, as De Gaulle himself suspected. There are many variables. I won’t argue with others that he was or wasn’t there. I just know he certainly wasn’t the person or people to gain the most from JFK’s death. Though I encourage others to continue the research. 
 

1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:

The French file on that inquiry, btw, is a legitimate thing for Bill and Larry to ask NARA to retrieve under the JFK Act, which provides for the retrieval of records held by foreign governments.

100% 

 

1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:

Thanks for the reference to CJ Hopkins in another thread.  Another person to read.

It came from a trader who has made money from the Russian side of the Ukraine conflict. He was against the war but, knew it would play out like the usual racket. These types of guys tend to ignore MSM and fire over links that are less popular but, thought provoking. 
 

1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:

Have you seen recent pieces by the estimable Ed Curtin on Bobby Jr's run for the presidency?  https://edwardcurtin.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-to-heal-the-great-divide/.   https://edwardcurtin.com/heal-the-divide/.   https://www.unz.com/audio/kbarrett_edward-curtin-on-rfk-jr-vs-the-american-political-wasteland/.

I’ll take a look, thank you. Been pretty busy with work and social lately. I did catch Jededilah Bila (ex Fox news) have her say on why Tucker is on gardening leave and why they are canceling/censoring RFK Jr. 
 

1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:

In other clips Junior has told the story of his father's refusal to talk about the JFKA in public, tho his immediate reaction was to suspect the CIA. Then one week before the California primary he was asked by a college student whether he intended to reopen the JFKA if he became president.  There was a long silence.  He said yes to thunderous applause. To my knowledge no one has asked Junior if he would do the same. I think I know the answer.

 

Which is why Junior's candidacy should be important to everyone here.

I have one for you. What does your critical analysis or intuition tell you about RFK’s 1965 ‘speech for affirmation” in South Africa, particularly his warnings. 
 

——————————————————-
 

https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/the-kennedy-family/robert-f-kennedy/robert-f-kennedy-speeches/day-of-affirmation-address-university-of-capetown-capetown-south-africa-june-6-1966
 

"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 National Socialists 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."

And, he added, "With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth and lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own."

I thank you.
 

———————————————————

Did those dangers seem real in 1965 or only now?

Chris 

 

 

[Guest]

Thanks to everyone who voted. That’s roughly what I expected to see. 

[David Andrews]

I'd say better if "Illuminati, Freemasons, Round Table group, secret order's, bankers etc" were excluded from the rank of Exiles-Conservatives-CIA-Military, since the former are an excursion into something like the Arthurian legends of the JFKA.

A germane substitute might be "Foreign anti-communist influences."

Better living through pedantry!

Edited May 3, 2023 by David Andrews

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

I'd say better if "Illuminati, Freemasons, Round Table group, secret order's, bankers etc" were excluded from the rank of Exiles-Conservatives-CIA-Military, since the former are an excursion into something like the Arthurian legends of the JFKA.

A germane substitute might be "Foreign anti-communist influences."

Better living through pedantry!

Unfortunately, David, we ran out of options. Some might say Israel could be on the list as having motivations too.