What?

[Roger Odisio]

Robert Montenegro said:  Every indicator is that a cataclysmic, tidal-shift in liberal social-politics took place, on a global scale, almost immediately after the murder of President Kennedy, that almost exclusively favored the extreme fascist elements of humanity.  

 

I said:  This is the key to understanding the murder, which is too often ignored as it is considered in isolation.  Once the killers saw how easy it was to get away with--with their control of information and ability to sell a scenario blatantly contradicted by easily known facts--they unleashed a torrent of murders designed to decimate the left opposition.

 

You can draw a straight line between the Dulles brothers, Cheney and Rumsfeld, to the current neocon ignoramuses currently running the White House.  The good news is the "rules based order", where the US makes and enforces the rules, created by, and a prime object of, the murder, is disintegrating before our eyes.

 

This is why understanding the murder is so important today.

 

To which Robert replied:  Amen, couldn’t agree more.

 

RO:  I chose my words carefully. I said the tidal-shift (Robert's word) in politics that immediately followed, and was the result of, the JFK murder was *the key* to understanding who did it and why.  Not *a* key to understanding the murder, but *the* key.  

 

All too often researchers that try to grapple with the central questions, who, why, treat the murder in isolation.  Robert's statement was a welcome redirection to the *fact* that the JFKA was just the beginning of a rampage of murders that followed that were designed to decimate left opposition to the killers.  Political murders, all.

 

Kennedy publicly rejected a "Pax Americana enforced by American weapons of war" his killers wanted.  His murder directly paved the way for them to get their way.  And for the "rules based order" (the current name for Pax Americana) enforced by American weapons of war to be put in place on a bipartisan basis ever since. It has been the policy regardless of which party occupies the White House.

 

History can't be changed.  What's important about a study of the past is what it can tell us about the present and future.  Is there any other reason to study the JFKA other than as a basis for changing what we have today that resulted from the murder?

 

I concluded a study of Robert's tidal-shift is essential to understanding what happened 60 years ago that led to where we are today.

 

Today, I woke up to the following message from Sandy Larsen. "You have been issued penalty points for posting contemporary anti-politician or anti-political-party comments." I had to acknowledge the warning before i could post again.

 

Sandy has said before that contemporary politics has nothing to do with the JFKA.  He's entitled to his personal opinion.  But he is wrong. The JFKA couldn't be more relevant to our current political situation. That is what Robert was saying, to which I was adding some thoughts in agreement.

 

The very wording of Sandy's warning claiming my note was anti-politician or anti-political party misunderstands what I was saying.  

 

I don't know the limits, if there are any, to Sandy's power as a mod. But surely he is *not* entitled to enforce his opinion about the irrelevance of contemporary politics on other members by trying to limit what we can say in analyzing the murder.

 

Which brings me to a note to other members.  For months Sandy has been removing threads and penalizing people for discussing what he terms irrelevant politics, without pushback. It's no wonder he thinks he has been doing the right thing.  

 

It's time for others to speak up or forever hold your silence.

[Robert Morrow]

Why can't we make anti-current politician or anti current political party comments? What if they directly relate to the JFK assassination? Such as Donald Trump publicly being a lone nutter? Or Bill Clinton publicly being a lone nutter, while privately believing differently?

What if I say that Lyndon Johnson's psychological profile is very similar to Donald Trump's and vice versa? Am I violating the rules by saying that?

I think the moderation here needs to ease up. Whenever I post about JFK's promiscuity, which I think is extremely relevant as to who the man was and also to how LBJ got on the 1960 Demo ticket (sexual blackmail) I fear being censored.

Another think I don't like is you can't use the 4 letter word for "prevaricator." How else am I going to be able to describe Lyndon Johnson and numerous other politicians including JFK on certain matters? Shouldn't we just have a rule against calling other "board members" a xxxx? Shouldn't we be able to call historical figures that 4 letter word and also "murderer" and "criminal" and "evil" - such as Stalin, Hitler, good ole LBJ and Winston Churchill for example?

I think that the moderation should be limited to maintaining civility on the board and not protecting current politicians or political parties or censoring bad but true things about JFK, MLK, RFK, etc.

Yes, I agree if someone is just trolling with meaningless, non-factual comments they should be reigned in or not allowed to be a poster.

Having said that, Roger Odisio, I have seen posted on here threads that are completely irrelevant to the study of the JFK assassination or the cast of characters of the JFK assassination. Those threads should be deleted or merged into other areas. It is irritating to me when I see those threads taking up eyeball space here.

Just my two cents.

 

Edited March 8 by Robert Morrow

[Benjamin Cole]

Roger O: 

"The CIA takeover of the (A Major US Political) Party"

(ICFI) INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE FOURTH INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST EQUALITY PARTY

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/13/pers-m13.html

This is an interesting perspective, even though I tend to favor free markets and small government. 

It is said of Marx, "Vulgar Marxist analysis is 95% on target, but Marxist medicine is poison."

Maybe you disagree, and that is fine. That is what a forum is for. 

One problem is no one can discuss JFK in current context without bringing in current politics, and then things quickly go downhill, due to certain participants. I see why Sandy Larsen banished some commentary to internet-Pluto. Maybe even this comment will get sent e-Siberia. My comment is fine, but it will generate other comments. 

My take: The globalists would have won control of DC even if JFK had survived. The globalists have unlimited amounts of money and friends in Qatar, Beijing, Riyadh to get even more. 

 

[Roger Odisio]

16 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Roger O: 

"The CIA takeover of the (A Major US Political) Party"

(ICFI) INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE FOURTH INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST EQUALITY PARTY

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/13/pers-m13.html

This is an interesting perspective, even though I tend to favor free markets and small government. 

It is said of Marx, "Vulgar Marxist analysis is 95% on target, but Marxist medicine is poison."

Maybe you disagree, and that is fine. That is what a forum is for. 

One problem is no one can discuss JFK in current context without bringing in current politics, and then things quickly go downhill, due to certain participants. I see why Sandy Larsen banished some commentary to internet-Pluto. Maybe even this comment will get sent e-Siberia. My comment is fine, but it will generate other comments. 

My take: The globalists would have won control of DC even if JFK had survived. The globalists have unlimited amounts of money and friends in Qatar, Beijing, Riyadh to get even more. 

 

Ben:  What's the evidence of things going quickly downhill (whatever you mean by that), when someone brings up, as Robert and I did, the murder's effect on current politics?   I've been lurking here for more than a decade and a member for almost two years and haven't seen this. Sandy has often made this claim but he is short on specifics.

 

You say you can see why Sandy banished "some commentary". Can you respond specifically to the warning I was given?  Do you agree with that?  Sandy has been silent.

 

Robert's point is that the murder created a seismic shift in US politics that we can clearly see the effects of today.  Is that controversial? If so, would you or Sandy like to debate that point?  Do either of you think that shift is unimportant?  Do you or Sandy think a debate on that point might be more beneficial than attempting to censor it?

 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

6 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

Ben:  What's the evidence of things going quickly downhill (whatever you mean by that), when someone brings up, as Robert and I did, the murder's effect on current politics?   I've been lurking here for more than a decade and a member for almost two years and haven't seen this. Sandy has often made this claim but he is short on specifics.

 

You say you can see why Sandy banished "some commentary". Can you respond specifically to the warning I was given?  Do you agree with that?  Sandy has been silent.

 

Robert's point is that the murder created a seismic shift in US politics that we can clearly see the effects of today.  Is that controversial? If so, would you or Sandy like to debate that point?  Do either of you think that shift is unimportant?  Do you or Sandy think a debate on that point might be more beneficial than attempting to censor it?

 

 

RO-

I don't know if I want to "debate" you, as I think we largely agree that US foreign, military and trade policies have become globalist (btw, not nationalist) in the decades after the JFKA. 

My only possible disagreement with you is whether that would have happened had not JFK been murdered.

The globalists are huge--Apple, BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, Microsoft, Morgan Stanley, WalMart, Tesla, GM, Disney, the NBA et al, and fund all the leading think tanks and relevant academic centers in the US. 

Add on the media.

JFK appeared able to forestall globalism, but he would have termed out anyway. 

We are unable to discuss much in the current context as there some participants who are rabid partisans and evidently unable to conduct civil discourse. 

There are plenty of other forums in the world. 

PS I recently posted about the media treatment of RFK2's explanation of the JFKA, and that post was deleted. So it goes. 

I consider media treatment of explanations of the JFKA---always dubbed "conspiracy theories"---as important to this forum.

But some participants see "RFK2" and go bananas. As if commentary here could have slightest impact on national elections. 

BTW, RFK2 is not a globalist. The first candidate in the JFK tradition in many, many moons. 

 

 

[Paul Brancato]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

RO-

I don't know if I want to "debate" you, as I think we largely agree that US foreign, military and trade policies have become globalist (btw, not nationalist) in the decades after the JFKA. 

My only possible disagreement with you is whether that would have happened had not JFK been murdered.

The globalists are huge--Apple, BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, Microsoft, Morgan Stanley, WalMart, Tesla, GM, Disney, the NBA et al, and fund all the leading think tanks and relevant academic centers in the US. 

Add on the media.

JFK appeared able to forestall globalism, but he would have termed out anyway. 

We are unable to discuss much in the current context as there some participants who are rabid partisans and evidently unable to conduct civil discourse. 

There are plenty of other forums in the world. 

PS I recently posted about the media treatment of RFK2's explanation of the JFKA, and that post was deleted. So it goes. 

I consider media treatment of explanations of the JFKA---always dubbed "conspiracy theories"---as important to this forum.

But some participants see "RFK2" and go bananas. As if commentary here could have slightest impact on national elections. 

BTW, RFK2 is not a globalist. The first candidate in the JFK tradition in many, many moons. 

 

 

Peter Dale Scott did an interview with someone in RFK 2’s camp and in it he suggested that 2028 was RFK 2’s year, because he needed more time to build a political movement. I’m inclined to agree, if only for the reason that it is necessary for a party to be on the ballot in all 50 states, and that is a tall order. Now we also have the No Name Party trying to do likewise. While I don’t think of RFK 2 as a spoiler, a plot to hurt Biden and the Democrats, I’m less sure about the No Name Party, which is pledging to have a ticket with a Republican presidential candidate and a Democratic VP. 
In my view presidential elections are a rigged game, and we are constantly reminded that Democrats have to vote for Biden to forestall Trump. 

[Kirk Gallaway]

I think this is a good topic Roger , and I have views at odds with most of the forum about a lot of this. So far there has been a lot of comments I can comment on..

On 3/8/2024 at 12:44 PM, Roger Odisio said:

Robert Montenegro said:  Every indicator is that a cataclysmic, tidal-shift in liberal social-politics took place, on a global scale, almost immediately after the murder of President Kennedy, that almost exclusively favored the extreme fascist elements of humanity.  

I love Robert's writing style, but fascism has been with us all our lives., long before JFK. To those people who propose a humongous JFK conspiracy  I would agree only in the sense that there is a right wing malignancy in the U.S. that's never been truly understood . It exists organically and hasn't been brought here exclusively or substantially by old WWll Nazis allowed to thrive in the post war West.

 

On 3/8/2024 at 12:44 PM, Roger Odisio said:

I said:  This is the key to understanding the murder, which is too often ignored as it is considered in isolation.  Once the killers saw how easy it was to get away with--with their control of information and ability to sell a scenario blatantly contradicted by easily known facts--they unleashed a torrent of murders designed to decimate the left opposition.

Roger, you and I have lived through this. After RFK's death I had suspicions that both deaths were related but I didn't want to seriously consider  it. After time researching both assassinations, I've come to believe they are. 

 

On 3/8/2024 at 12:44 PM, Roger Odisio said:

You can draw a straight line between the Dulles brothers, Cheney and Rumsfeld, to the current neocon ignoramuses currently running the White House.The good news is the "rules based order", where the US makes and enforces the rules, created by, and a prime object of, the murder, is disintegrating before our eyes.

I assume you are talking about the U.S. policy of endless wars?  I think that could be stopped, but it obviously isn't going to be stopped now. 5 years ago I wondered about the usefulness of NATO.. Well the governments of Europe don't think it's useless now. We have neutral countries like Finland  and Sweden clamoring to join NATO. Obviously they perceive a threat. That we could have avoided this if the U.S. had made a concerted effort to help the Russians in the period after the dissolution of the USSR's is undoubtable and we share blame, but we aren't the sole cause.

Roger:The good news is the "rules based order", where the US makes and enforces the rules, created by, and a prime object of, the murder, is disintegrating before our eyes.

The prime object  of the murder??!    I'll address that later. I agree with you only in that the U.S. is gradually and voluntarily detaching economically from the world  and is going inward. Which is a matter of great concern, particularly for Europe. But I don't think that's what you're talking about.

On 3/8/2024 at 12:44 PM, Roger Odisio said:

This is why understanding the murder is so important today.

This is real forum heresy! I don't believe understanding the JFKA has any great relevance to what is happening. The power structure is completely different today. You have to know who your enemy is. I'm for generally cutting defense spending but the truth is the amount of money the U.S. spends on Defense is a smaller part of  GDP than it's been since WWll . The amount of money spent on arms and weapon systems is about 3% of GDP. But because across the political spectrum, people agree a fundamental purpose of government is for it's mutual defense. The topic of government spending  on Defense is important and should always be in question.

 

It is true that people lost trust in their government that was never regained after the JFK assassination But the truth is the Vietnam war was the cherry on top for America's self image.  Finally America came to grips wit the fact that they couldn't just militarily roll over everybody, if they so chose. 

A lot of this lamenting about this is because of a nostalgia for the carefree America of the 50's where America was the infallible leader of the world, and  opportunity was everywhere for everyone, which of course, was an illusion!

IMO This tidal shift you're talking about is an illusion as well. I think for 20 years things were going in a humdrum fashion.  I don't think what i see as a military industrial based coup that favored largely a handful of defense based companies could ever have lasted on it's own and morphed into something much worse, much more insidious to be not be recognized and the result is we're still having these "war state" arguments when the power structure is now international and involves policies representing all industries on earth,  as none of the elites are tied to the military or any one industry. If industries go out of favor, money goes somewhere else. I think the seminal event that really has little relation to the JFKA happened with little notice around the time of the Reagan administration and  policies that were designed to marginalize the middle class that have strengthened unopposed over decades.

Roger, I understand we all want peace but this is precisely why I think your comments below are so irrelevant. You're focusing on one area below which shows me you have no concept of the scope of the problem. Sorry

But I do agree with your general commentary at the end in that I think Sandy probably is occasionally stepping out of bounds. But I don't think your post here is too political. I think it's relevant.  I think Sandy's persistence has done some good at stifling purely political posts and I find it ironic that Ben brought that up because he  was the number 1 violator. Maybe he's grown out out of it. Maybe I'll address his comments later.  .

On 3/8/2024 at 12:44 PM, Roger Odisio said:

Kennedy publicly rejected a "Pax Americana enforced by American weapons of war" his killers wanted.  His murder directly paved the way for them to get their way.  And for the "rules based order" (the current name for Pax Americana) enforced by American weapons of war to be put in place on a bipartisan basis ever since. It has been the policy regardless of which party occupies the White House.

 

History can't be changed.  What's important about a study of the past is what it can tell us about the present and future.  Is there any other reason to study the JFKA other than as a basis for changing what we have today that resulted from the murder?

 

Edited March 10 by Kirk Gallaway

[Benjamin Cole]

2 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Peter Dale Scott did an interview with someone in RFK 2’s camp and in it he suggested that 2028 was RFK 2’s year, because he needed more time to build a political movement. I’m inclined to agree, if only for the reason that it is necessary for a party to be on the ballot in all 50 states, and that is a tall order. Now we also have the No Name Party trying to do likewise. While I don’t think of RFK 2 as a spoiler, a plot to hurt Biden and the Democrats, I’m less sure about the No Name Party, which is pledging to have a ticket with a Republican presidential candidate and a Democratic VP. 
In my view presidential elections are a rigged game, and we are constantly reminded that Democrats have to vote for Biden to forestall Trump. 

PB--

I always enjoy your commentary, even when we disagree. 

I would like to see the JFK Records Act opened up in my lifetime. 

The major parties are running the weakest candidates in memory. 

I think it is do-or-die time for RFK2, who himself is no spring chicken. 

All we can do is watch and hope. 

 

[Paul Brancato]

Quote

I want to see RFK Jr win, not just run, especially if he is not on every state ballot. He’s 10 years younger than the others

Edited March 10 by Paul Brancato

[Sandy Larsen]

On 3/8/2024 at 1:44 PM, Roger Odisio said:

Sandy has said before that contemporary politics has nothing to do with the JFKA.

 

It is a forum policy that contemporary politics cannot be discussed on the JFKA Debate forum. It is not my policy. I merely enforce the policy.

There was a period of time when I and other mods were moving a lot of contemporary political threads to the Political Discussions forum where they would be on topic, or removing individual posts that violated the policy.

Most of those posts were anti-politician or anti-political-party in nature. Which is one reason political discussions are not allowed.

At one point I announced that we would begin warning members who make comments that are contemporary anti-politician or anti-political-party in nature. Members would not be penalized on the first warning, but would be upon a subsequent violation.

 

On 3/8/2024 at 1:44 PM, Roger Odisio said:

[Sandy's] entitled to his personal opinion.  But he is wrong. The JFKA couldn't be more relevant to our current political situation. That is what Robert was saying, to which I was adding some thoughts in agreement.

The very wording of Sandy's warning claiming my note was anti-politician or anti-political party misunderstands what I was saying.

 

I didn't issue Roger a warning based on some understanding or misunderstanding of something he said. I warned him based on the following statement of his:

You can draw a straight line between the Dulles brothers, Cheney and Rumsfeld, to the current neocon ignoramuses currently running the White House.

The portion of Roger's sentence I've made bold is anti-politician in nature.  Had Roger not used the word "ignoramus," I wouldn't have cited him.

 

On 3/8/2024 at 1:44 PM, Roger Odisio said:

I don't know the limits, if there are any, to Sandy's power as a mod. But surely he is *not* entitled to enforce his opinion about the irrelevance of contemporary politics on other members by trying to limit what we can say in analyzing the murder.

 

There was no "opinion" involved.

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

13 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

Robert's point is that the murder created a seismic shift in US politics that we can clearly see the effects of today. 

Roger you use catchphrases like "seismic shift" and "tidal effect".  Yet you offer no details like we should know what you're talking about and all nod in agreement.

When you say a "political seismic shift."  What are you talking about?

[Sandy Larsen]

On 3/8/2024 at 2:08 PM, Robert Morrow said:

What if I say that Lyndon Johnson's psychological profile is very similar to Donald Trump's and vice versa? Am I violating the rules by saying that?

 

There is no need to say that on a JFKA forum.

Feel free to do so at the Water Cooler or in a Political Discussions thread.

(Technically speaking, you probably could get away with saying that here because, on its own, it doesn't say anything negative about the contemporary politician Trump. But if it triggered a longish discussion, it would likely be flagged as being contemporary politics and would be removed or moved to the Political Discussions forum.)

 

On 3/8/2024 at 2:08 PM, Robert Morrow said:

Whenever I post about JFK's promiscuity, which I think is extremely relevant as to who the man was and also to how LBJ got on the 1960 Demo ticket (sexual blackmail) I fear being censored.

 

JFK is not a contemporary politician. So you can say negative things about him.

However, note that saying something that is untrue violates a forum rule. So you'd better have some evidence if you say something like that. Still, even if you have no evidence, mods aren't likely to do anything if nobody complains.

 

On 3/8/2024 at 2:08 PM, Robert Morrow said:

Another think I don't like is you can't use the 4 letter word for "prevaricator."

 

I agree. And that is why I just removed that filter. So members are now free to write "liar."

However, the admin team needs to vote on this change in order for it to remain. I don't have the power to make the change myself.

 

On 3/8/2024 at 2:08 PM, Robert Morrow said:

Having said that, Roger Odisio, I have seen posted on here threads that are completely irrelevant to the study of the JFK assassination or the cast of characters of the JFK assassination. Those threads should be deleted or merged into other areas. It is irritating to me when I see those threads taking up eyeball space here.

 

If you report such a thread, there's a good chance you'll get your wish.

I tend to ignore such a thread if the members seem to like it. There was one such thread a few weeks ago where members were posting music videos. I posted a couple myself. But had somebody reported it as being off-topic, I would have asked members to stop posting the videos.

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

On 3/8/2024 at 5:21 PM, Benjamin Cole said:

My take: The globalists would have won control of DC even if JFK had survived. The globalists have unlimited amounts of money and friends in Qatar, Beijing, Riyadh to get even more. 

Ben you always talk like the U.S. started globalism.

So you don't think that the colonization of the world that went on for 5 centuries wasn't globalism? Why do you think Brits, French Spanish  Dutch decided to leave home?

But that wasn't just business . That was raping and pillaging countries for their natural resources!

Ben:JFK appeared able to forestall globalism, but he would have termed out anyway. 

Where do you get this that "JFK appeared able to forestall globalism?"  You don't realize that the class of people that the Kennedy clan represented were globalists? His father was a bootlegger of Irish whiskey. I'm sure he had many other foreign interests as well. Most everyday Americans had never been out of the country!

Ben:The globalists have unlimited amounts of money and friends in Qatar, Beijing, Riyadh to get even more. 

Skipping ahead a bit, aren't we? 

The prevalent attitude among the nations of the  post war world was simple, the more globalism and International  trade, the better! But Europe was largely decimated and the country more apt take advantage was the U.S.  

 Ben:PS I recently posted about the media treatment of RFK2's explanation of the JFKA, and that post was deleted. So it goes. I consider media treatment of explanations of the JFKA---always dubbed "conspiracy theories"---as important to this forum. But some participants see "RFK2" and go bananas. As if commentary here could have slightest impact on national elections. BTW, RFK2 is not a globalist. The first candidate in the JFK tradition in many, many moons. 

So are we going to have a civil discussion about the topics you guys brought up, or is this just a cheap segue to talk about RK again? Because it sure seems like it!

[George Govus]

46 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

His father was a bootlegger of Irish whiskey.

Citation? I seem to recall this is disputed. Thought he was a Hollywood guy.

This is a deserving thread... in the Politics folder. One won't get cooties, if one goes there.

[Sandy Larsen]

9 minutes ago, George Govus said:

1 hour ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

[JFK's] father was a bootlegger of Irish whiskey.

9 minutes ago, George Govus said:

Citation? I seem to recall this is disputed. Thought he was a Hollywood guy.

This is a deserving thread... in the Politics folder. One won't get cooties, if one goes there.

 

I don't think anyone would complain if you created the thread here. Since JFK and his father are not contemporary political figures, posting it here wouldn't violate that forum policy. It's just a little off topic... no big deal.