What?

[Kirk Gallaway]

Ok, we'll say he sold Scotch Whiskey. The point was about Globalism, and  Joe was involved in selling product from a foreign country. I would assume,  since he can't legally sell in the U.S. he's selling from one foreign country to another? So now it involves 3 countries?

[George Govus]

Sure, Sandy. Me, I just flat need to do my homework. But, once again I am imprecise. Second part of my post was a non-sequitur. "This" thread, Roger's thread, was what I meant. Other threads trying to put the JFK assassination in the context of today. Is Kirk right? Are the actors today that different?

[Benjamin Cole]

4 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

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!

Kirk--

Yes, you correct, imperial empires were built long before post-WWII globalism. Sheesh, the Germans and Japanese were hard at it, starting WWII in the process. 

IMHO, JFK wanted to tone down 1960s version of corporatist globalism, and was not willing to use US military to further globalist commercial interests.  He also did not want to participate in preserving colonialism, which he thought was a losing battle. 

But, as I said, JFK would have been termed out anyway. 

In any event, global enterprises of incredible scale and power emerged after , including Apple (market cap $2.6 trillion, big operations in China)) or BlackRock (assets under management: $10 trillion, invested globally) and the many other companies I have mentioned. That is "trillion" with a "T." 

I have posted in this space that the top 10 American think tanks are all globalist in nature, but I could have posted the top 50, and which include Council for Foreign Relations. 

There are any number of academic centers devoted to globalism. 

The globalists want a global security guard service, and that is largely the US military. 

This should not be taken as a reflection on the many earnest soldiers in the armed forces, or that the US forces are sometimes in the right, as when fighting terrorist monkey-pig Houthis, who are firing upon unarmed civilian ships and crews. 

As to RFK2's policies, I generally refrain from commenting on them, except for his position of the JFK Records Act, which is that they should be opened up. I agree with that position, which I hope is the same position of anyone reading the EF-JFKA. 

I doubt my comments on RFK2 will do much to ensconce him in the White House. 

[Roger Odisio]

8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

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.

 

 

Sandy:  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.

 

RO:  This is the heart of the matter.  If you are enforcing the policy as a mod, it becomes your policy to defend.  Not some unnamed person who devised it in the past.  Otherwise, to whom do members take their concerns about the policy.  People like myself, e.g., who think the policy not only makes no sense, but injures the very fabric of legitimate discussion.  

 

With the job of being a mod comes the responsibility to consider the merits of a policy when it is challenged. Not take refuge in the claim of that's not my job. 

 

The policy of prohibiting discussion of contemporary politics, as opposed to past politics, is based on an arbitrary distinction that is fundamentally flawed. The contemporary politics we see now has been shaped by the politics of the past.  It's not some separate entity to be considered in isolation. And a study of that shaping helps illuminate the events of the past.

 

The JFK  killers replaced Kennedy's rejection of a Pax Americana by embracing the very policy he abhorred. And every president since has in large measure followed suit.   That's what I meant by my "straight line" comment from the Dulles brothers to contemporary policy makers.

 

Find me a major politician, or political party, today that can be called antiwar. Contrast that with what it was like in 60s.  To claim this seismic shift is not one result of the JFKA, and therefore sheds no light on the murder itself, simply can't be defended.  Can it?

 

If you disagree, fine, let's have that discussion.  What is not acceptable is a policy that prohibits any discussion at all of contemporary politics as it relates to, or is the result of, the JFKA.

 

I formally request you dispense with the policy of prohibiting contemporary political discussion as it relates to the JFKA.  Have I sent this petition to the wrong person or place? If so, please advise who has the responsibility to consider it. 

[Roger Odisio]

14 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. 

I think they're called the No Label Party, Paul, and they are clearly a bunch of fake "centrists", of which actually there is no such thing.  Take any issue and ask yourself what is the "centrist" position, i.e., in between left and right.  What is the centrist position on the Israeli genocide?  Or the defense budget and the use of war as foreign policy?  Or the Trump tax cuts?

 

Centrist is a name given them by a compliant media to try to take advantage of the penchant for most people to avoid "extremes". But basically a Washington centrist is someone who prefers the status quo.

 

Now that you've responded in this thread, do you have anything to say about the mods' policy of of prohibiting discussion of contemporary politics as it relates to, or is the result of, the JFKA? 

[Roger Odisio]

16 hours 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. 

 

 

Ben:  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. 

 

RO:  I understand you are repeating what you think the forum policy is.  And I think your description is accurate. That's my understanding of what Sandy has said when I questioned the policy.

 

But the policy is makes no sense, even on its own terms. For example, we have a topic, relevant and important.  But we can't discuss it because some people are unable to "conduct a civil discourse". about it  There are disruptions.  So we ban the topic. Either delete it, move it to another forum (where presumably people are more civil?) or penalize the people who brought it up. 

 

Rather than dealing with the individuals causing the problem so the topic can be discussed!! 

 

Not only does that not make sense, it seriously harms the very purpose of the forum, which is to discuss all relevant aspects of the murder to better understand what happened.

 

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.

 

RO: This is an example of what I'm talking about. Junior's explanation of his uncle's murder has gathered attention to it and is clearly relevant here.  Remember when he began his campaign, he gave a speech that focused on his uncle's "peace speech" as a model of the kind of president he wanted to be. 

 

In that speech, JFK publicly rejected the Pax Americana approach to foreign policy that has been adopted by every president and both political parties since the murder.  JFK had issued a direct challenge to his killers and I think he did it knowing the risk.

 

To anyone, mod or not, who thinks the speech had nothing to do with the murder, I

would be happy to listen to your reasons.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:

Sandy:  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.

 

RO:  This is the heart of the matter.  If you are enforcing the policy as a mod, it becomes your policy to defend.  Not some unnamed person who devised it in the past.  Otherwise, to whom do members take their concerns about the policy.  People like myself, e.g., who think the policy not only makes no sense, but injures the very fabric of legitimate discussion.  

 

With the job of being a mod comes the responsibility to consider the merits of a policy when it is challenged. Not take refuge in the claim of that's not my job. 

 

The policy of prohibiting discussion of contemporary politics, as opposed to past politics, is based on an arbitrary distinction that is fundamentally flawed. The contemporary politics we see now has been shaped by the politics of the past.  It's not some separate entity to be considered in isolation. And a study of that shaping helps illuminate the events of the past.

 

The JFK  killers replaced Kennedy's rejection of a Pax Americana by embracing the very policy he abhorred. And every president since has in large measure followed suit.   That's what I meant by my "straight line" comment from the Dulles brothers to contemporary policy makers.

 

Find me a major politician, or political party, today that can be called antiwar. Contrast that with what it was like in 60s.  To claim this seismic shift is not one result of the JFKA, and therefore sheds no light on the murder itself, simply can't be defended.  Can it?

 

If you disagree, fine, let's have that discussion.  What is not acceptable is a policy that prohibits any discussion at all of contemporary politics as it relates to, or is the result of, the JFKA.

 

I formally request you dispense with the policy of prohibiting contemporary political discussion as it relates to the JFKA.  Have I sent this petition to the wrong person or place? If so, please advise who has the responsibility to consider it. 

 

Roger,

Much of your argument is irrelevant. I cited you for calling the current administration ignoramuses. That violated forum policy.

As for the relevant part, I've already covered most of it in my prior post. To that I'll add that the administrative staff likes the policy because it solves a lot of problems.

As Mark Knight is fond of saying, the Education Forum is not a democracy. (If you want to have a democratically controlled forum, I suggest you create one.) But if you wish, PM your petition to Mark Knight, Ron Bulman, and myself.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

@Roger Odisio,

If you want to discuss contemporary politics or politicians, you are free to do so on the Political Discussions subforum of Education Forum.

 

[Roger Odisio]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Roger,

Much of your argument is irrelevant. I cited you for calling the current administration ignoramuses. That violated forum policy.

As for the relevant part, I've already covered most of it in my prior post. To that I'll add that the administrative staff likes the policy because it solves a lot of problems.

As Mark Knight is fond of saying, the Education Forum is not a democracy. (If you want to have a democratically controlled forum, I suggest you create one.) But if you wish, PM your petition to Mark Knight, Ron Bulman, and myself.

 

Sandy:  As for the relevant part, I've already covered most of it in my prior post. To that I'll add that the administrative staff likes the policy because it solves a lot of problems.

 

I said your policy of prohibiting discussion of what you call contemporary politics makes no sense when there are better options, and it hurts the core purpose of the forum.  You seem to think contemporary politics as a category can be treated separately from politics itself; as if the former doesn't sprout from the latter.  Contrary to what you say, you ignored that point; you haven't even tried to claim the policy makes sense, or is the best way to handles the problems yousee.

 

Instead you say the staff "likes the policy" because it solves a lot of problems. What problems? If the problems to which you refer are the possibility of unruly discussions, clearly your solution of banning the topic entirely instead of dealing directly with the cause of the disruptions is the wrong one.

 

The obvious and important effects of the JFKA on politics since the murder, right up to today, is an important topic that should not be lost because of the policy.  For example, it has played a central role in my understanding of what happened and why.  If we're talking about "likes", I don't like that fact that your policy is hindering me from learning more about the contemporary effects of the murder.  Of which there are many that play out through the political system.

 

Sandy:  As Mark Knight is fond of saying, the Education Forum is not a democracy. (If you want to have a democratically controlled forum, I suggest you create one.) But if you wish, PM your petition to Mark Knight, Ron Bulman, and myself.

 

RO:  I assume Mark means that the mods don't have to pay attention to what other members think about what they are doing, let alone offer explanations. Hmmm.  How is that different from a dictatorship by troika? Or is it?

 

I have already laid out why I think your policy is not only wrong but damages core values of the forum.  I assume Mark and Ron are reading this; there is no need for a separate petition. I would hope you, Mark, and Ron would respond to those points, starting with why you think it is a good idea to shut off all discussion of the effects of the JFKA on contemporary political life.  

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

@Roger Odisio,

If you want to discuss contemporary politics or politicians, you are free to do so on the Political Discussions subforum of Education Forum.

 

You never get tired of repeating this irrelevancy, do you? I'm talking about a discussion of the effect of the JFKA on current politics, not simply politics itself.  Which belongs here. It's of course fine if you want to add it to the politics forum as well.

[Roger Odisio]

13 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

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?

You were there, Kirk, as was I.  It's difficult to believe you don't know what I mean by a seismic shift in politics from the 60s.

The JFKA was quickly followed by the political murders of Malcolm, King, Bobby, Fred Hampton that were designed to decimate left opposition to the ascendant war mongers. There has been a steady stream of wars since. There is now a uniparty consensus in Washington for war and trillion dollar "defense" budgets, when you include the cost of "intelligence".  Name a politician today who opposes that.  

Name a national politician today who can be called antiwar.  Name anyone who could give JFK's peace speech or even dare contemplate out loud ways to achieve peace, as JFK was trying to work out with the SU.  While explaining there was little reason to hate and fear the Russians, but instead it was necessary to work with them, while acknowledging our differences. "We all breathe the same air."  Where is that guy today?

I'm just scratching the surface.  This is a very different country in a lot of ways from what it was like when Kennedy was murdered. His murder is one of the reasons why.

 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

7 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

Ben:  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. 

 

RO:  I understand you are repeating what you think the forum policy is.  And I think your description is accurate. That's my understanding of what Sandy has said when I questioned the policy.

 

But the policy is makes no sense, even on its own terms. For example, we have a topic, relevant and important.  But we can't discuss it because some people are unable to "conduct a civil discourse". about it  There are disruptions.  So we ban the topic. Either delete it, move it to another forum (where presumably people are more civil?) or penalize the people who brought it up. 

 

Rather than dealing with the individuals causing the problem so the topic can be discussed!! 

 

Not only does that not make sense, it seriously harms the very purpose of the forum, which is to discuss all relevant aspects of the murder to better understand what happened.

 

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.

 

RO: This is an example of what I'm talking about. Junior's explanation of his uncle's murder has gathered attention to it and is clearly relevant here.  Remember when he began his campaign, he gave a speech that focused on his uncle's "peace speech" as a model of the kind of president he wanted to be. 

 

In that speech, JFK publicly rejected the Pax Americana approach to foreign policy that has been adopted by every president and both political parties since the murder.  JFK had issued a direct challenge to his killers and I think he did it knowing the risk.

 

To anyone, mod or not, who thinks the speech had nothing to do with the murder, I

would be happy to listen to your reasons.

 

RO--

You may be justified in your observations, but there is no mechanism to make corrections. 

There are other forums.

So it goes. 

At least we have been able to discuss RFK2's position to open up the JFK Records, which stands in stark contract to the (indefensible) de facto major party positions. 

 

 

[Leslie Sharp]

3 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

You were there, Kirk, as was I.  It's difficult to believe you don't know what I mean by a seismic shift in politics from the 60s.

The JFKA was quickly followed by the political murders of Malcolm, King, Bobby, Fred Hampton that were designed to decimate left opposition to the ascendant war mongers. There has been a steady stream of wars since. There is now a uniparty consensus in Washington for war and trillion dollar "defense" budgets, when you include the cost of "intelligence".  Name a politician today who opposes that.  

Name a national politician today who can be called antiwar.  Name anyone who could give JFK's peace speech or even dare contemplate out loud ways to achieve peace, as JFK was trying to work out with the SU.  While explaining there was little reason to hate and fear the Russians, but instead it was necessary to work with them, while acknowledging our differences. "We all breathe the same air."  Where is that guy today?

I'm just scratching the surface.  This is a very different country in a lot of ways from what it was like when Kennedy was murdered. His murder is one of the reasons why.

 

 

@Roger Odisio I was just today reviewing the June 12, 1963  murder of NAACP's Medgar Evers and wondering once again why his death is seldom mentioned in context of the assassinations of the period. His assassin, Byron de la Backwith of KKK and Indignate White Citizens Council was visited in jail by Gen. Edwin A. Walker whose "Operation Alert" with evangelist Billy Hargis set a standard for Gen. Michael Flynn's ReAwken America Tour

From there, a quick glance at most recent coverage of Gen. Walker provides a segue to your astute insistence that the assassination of Kennedy is perhaps more relevant than ever (particularly the forthcoming  'do or die for democracy' election cycle) and should be permitted on all JFK assassination related threads.

Unless we understand fully (and call them out vociferously) the ideological forces driving the animus against Kennedy and Johnson's civil rights agenda — an animus we see today only thinly veiled in the backlash against The 1619 Project and similar — we'll continue to slouch toward all out civil war.  Kennedy's assassination and cover-up reverberates within every element of the MAGA movement.


March 7, 2024

OPINION: AN OLD FRIEND REVEALS A TRUTH

By WYATT EMMERICH

The Email from Chris Gordon stated: “Wyatt, I just picked up Peter Adams from the airport. He's speaking tomorrow for History Is Lunch about his new book on Gen. Edwin Walker. 
' . . . There were so many bizarre interconnections between unlikely events involving [General Edwin A.] Walker and many other historical figures of that time. Give yourself a treat. Google History is Lunch Mississippi and listen to Peter Adams’ 40-minute talk. . . Fear and paranoia from rapid social and cultural change has now merged with the perfect vehicle to promote crazy conspiracy theories. This will not end well.'   
https://www.grenadastar.com/columns-local-content-opinion-state/opinion-old-friend-reveals-truth-65ea0a4228933


Peter Adams’s The Insurrectionist is the first comprehensive biography of Major General Edwin A. Walker, a figure who, in the 1950s and 1960s, became a leader of a far-right political movement known for its elaborate conspiracy theories, authoritarianism, and uncompromising white supremacy. Sixty years before the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, Edwin Walker was charged with insurrection and seditious conspiracy. He was arrested on orders from the attorney general after leading a deadly riot against federal marshals as they protected the first African American student attempting to register at the University of Mississippi. Those who flocked to Walker’s side believed an invisible government working with coconspirators in the Kremlin and United Nations would soon enslave America under a one-world dictatorship. Walker’s deep state conspiracy theory has echoed through American political culture into the age of QAnon, finding a new home among today’s far-right extremists.  
https://lsupress.org/9780807179925/the-insurrectionist/

[Leslie Sharp]

13 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

@Roger Odisio I was just today reviewing the June 12, 1963  murder of NAACP's Medgar Evers and wondering once again why his death is seldom mentioned in context of the assassinations of the period. His assassin, Byron de la Backwith of KKK and Indignate White Citizens Council was visited in jail by Gen. Edwin A. Walker whose "Operation Alert" with evangelist Billy Hargis set a standard for Gen. Michael Flynn's ReAwken America Tour

From there, a quick glance at most recent coverage of Gen. Walker provides a segue to your astute insistence that the assassination of Kennedy is perhaps more relevant than ever (particularly the forthcoming  'do or die for democracy' election cycle) and should be permitted on all JFK assassination related threads.

Unless we understand fully (and call them out vociferously) the ideological forces driving the animus against Kennedy and Johnson's civil rights agenda — an animus we see today only thinly veiled in the backlash against The 1619 Project and similar — we'll continue to slouch toward all out civil war.  Kennedy's assassination and cover-up reverberates within every element of the MAGA movement.


March 7, 2024

OPINION: AN OLD FRIEND REVEALS A TRUTH

By WYATT EMMERICH

The Email from Chris Gordon stated: “Wyatt, I just picked up Peter Adams from the airport. He's speaking tomorrow for History Is Lunch about his new book on Gen. Edwin Walker. 
' . . . There were so many bizarre interconnections between unlikely events involving [General Edwin A.] Walker and many other historical figures of that time. Give yourself a treat. Google History is Lunch Mississippi and listen to Peter Adams’ 40-minute talk. . . Fear and paranoia from rapid social and cultural change has now merged with the perfect vehicle to promote crazy conspiracy theories. This will not end well.'   
https://www.grenadastar.com/columns-local-content-opinion-state/opinion-old-friend-reveals-truth-65ea0a4228933


Peter Adams’s The Insurrectionist is the first comprehensive biography of Major General Edwin A. Walker, a figure who, in the 1950s and 1960s, became a leader of a far-right political movement known for its elaborate conspiracy theories, authoritarianism, and uncompromising white supremacy. Sixty years before the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, Edwin Walker was charged with insurrection and seditious conspiracy. He was arrested on orders from the attorney general after leading a deadly riot against federal marshals as they protected the first African American student attempting to register at the University of Mississippi. Those who flocked to Walker’s side believed an invisible government working with coconspirators in the Kremlin and United Nations would soon enslave America under a one-world dictatorship. Walker’s deep state conspiracy theory has echoed through American political culture into the age of QAnon, finding a new home among today’s far-right extremists.  
https://lsupress.org/9780807179925/the-insurrectionist/

 

[Joe Bauer]

Question:

If LBJ did more for black Americans than JFK and spent so much time and effort to pressure and push those opposed to his "Great Society" black America lifting agenda, why is it he wasn't viciously vilified and even physically threatened by millions of  segregationists who were filled with this murder wishing rage toward JFK and RFK?

Our top military generals, CIA, FBI, Texas Big Oil and their extreme right wing organizations, the American Mafia, hot headed ex-patriate Cubans, et al...all seemed absolutely fine with LBJ in charge in complete contrast to their mutual hatred toward JFK.I think that reality says it all.

[Ron Bulman]

18 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

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.

I agree with Sandy, as has Mark.  For me the word is kind of like the formerly banned word Nazi.  Used in a historical past tense, with proof that someone was a Nazi or liar that's fine.  If anyone on here calls another member or a current politician, writer, etc. such without demonstrable proof they will be warned and penalized for repeated infractions.  Pending Mark and Sandy's agreement with my statement.