Oh yeah, it matters

Swede mentioned down below that

You guys keep digging up the non-consequential past and we’ll do the heavy lifting on the present.

This raises the legitimate question, why does JFK matter in 2014? There are several reasons:

  • To understand the present, it helps to understand the past.
  • It’s a portal. It’s a “never enough understanding” incident that leads one far away from the event itself and into the whole of postwar American history.
  • Since the cover-up is ongoing, it’s apparent that those who seized power that day still hold it.

Lee Harvey Oswald is an interesting character, as was Jack Ruby. Oswald apparently had ties to both CIA and FBI. Ruby was a local mobster with New Orleans connections, and knew Oswald well. That’s all interesting, but years after, of no real importance. Similarly, all of the evidence that has emerged over the decades about peripheral characters, the number of shooters, the fake autopsy, X-rays and autopsy photos, missing brain blah blah blah – from a Hound of the Baskervilles perspective, it’s a fascinating mystery, fun to read and connect the dots.

But as to the crime itself, it is easily solved, has been for decades. The was orchestrated by powers high enough in government that they could employ the Secret Service, CIA, FBI, military, and even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to serve its ends. These people are so powerful that fifty years later their legacies are still engaged in the ongoing cover-up, and still lying, and our news media is still afraid to speak up.

No member of JFK’s administration resigned in protest. No member of congress either. No judge anywhere. No district attorney anywhere, aside from Jim Garrison, ever attempted to investigate. No subsequent president has ever voiced qualms – in fact, one of them served on the body that covered up the crime, the Warren Commission. So the crime, open, obvious, easily solved, was ignored by the American establishment. Conclusion: That is how the United States is structured, and how it functions. Everything else – voting, fighting our issues, reading, writing, discussing everything till blue, is for naught. The crime was committed in the open and covered up, and no one of status anywhere ever spoke up.

That means that the office of the president was taken down that day, and has not functioned since. Every occupant has a gun at his head, and knows it. Watergate was a coup as well, but Nixon knew enough not to speak up about JFK other than by veiled references like “It all goes back to the Bay of Pigs,” code for the assassination (according to his aide Bob Haldeman).

Control of the past is control of the present. JFK matters, if only to teach us that.

27 thoughts on “Oh yeah, it matters”

    1. I’ve read about that too – he also pissed off the steel industry. Might have been a perfect storm.

      Another question – why out in the open? Why not poison? Or mere politics? His many affairs were well known. Would that have undone him in 1963?

      The national security State took hold in 1948 and was given carte Blanche without accountability. Ike took notice but was too timid to speak up until he left office. It appears by 1963 all the pieces were in place, and JFK was gunned down to neutralized the executive in perpetuity.

      Like

      Reply

  2. As long as we’re connecting dots let me draw some lines.

    Your favorite conspiracy theories are JFK, 9/11, and the Boston bombers. I can’t quite remember if we can throw the underwear bomber in the mix or not.

    Just who are the perps in these three assaults? A self proclaimed commie, 15 radical Muslims, and 2 radical Muslims. If Oswald would’ve been a disgruntled Nixon campaign worker, the 15 high-jackers radical Amish, and the two young Boston bombers members of the Tea Party these never ending discussions would be distant memories.

    But there not. They keep perpetuating because of who they are and who they can accuse.

    Like

    Reply

      1. Since I nailed your motive let me continue.

        The reason there’s no mention of the current crop on conspiracies is the fact they don’t serve your purposes.

        NSA spieing, no bother. A collective society needs information and the volumeous civillian bytes stored outweigh any presumed terrorists conversations. In your mind there is no threat anyway.

        Like

        Reply

    2. Sounds like a nasty snub – what I mean is that you have never looked into anything you are spouting here. That is just the easily accumulated backwater that resides in the brain if you do not question and burrow. None of it is true.

      Like

      Reply

        1. I saw what you did, Swede. It was stupid, in my opinion, because it makes no sense.

          For one thing, Mark likes the RFK and the MLK conspiracy theories as well, and those were said (officially) to be done by a Christian and a Bigoted Old White Guy (much like yourself.) So you didn’t even think your stupid position (on mark’s motivation) through.

          Secondly, while Oswald did make some statements that might lead one to believe he was a communist, he also said he didn’t kill anyone and was being framed. So I want to know why you believe him when he publicly self professes his love of communism but disbelieve him when he says he’s is innocent and being framed? And why were his friends all right wingers? Is that too much for you? Should i go slower?

          Apparently you have the notion in your brain that Mark is trying to put forth the world view that Republican don’t equal conservative and then doesn’t equal moral superiority. And thus also negates your opposite view, ie, Democrats don’t equal liberal and liberal doesn’t equal moral inferiority. He doesn’t need these assassinations to make that point. Mark knows both parties (especially the national parties) are hopelessly corrupt and dysfunctional.

          You seem too stupid to either get that, and agree, or to make an intelligent effort to dispute it. But that’s the nature of stupid. It can’t be fixed.

          Just because you, Craig Moore, and Pogie all believe the less held minority opinion doesn’t make Craig or Pogie stupid, by the way. They just have another opinion. But you, you are stupid. You could no more intelligently argue that Oswald alone is responsible than you could intelligently argue that multiple people were involved.

          When Ken shows up to see his sister tell him I said I think you are stupid, Ask him if he agrees and report back to us on what he says. Thanks, Swede.

          By the way, sorry for all the abuse but I’m just sick of stupid. I’m sure you understand, (or don’t)

          Like

          Reply

  3. We crossed in the mail.

    What point is there, Swede, if you have never looked at the evidence? If you have never looked at the evidence? If you have never looked at the evidence? If you have never looked at the evidence? If you have never looked at the evidence? If you have never looked at the evidence? If you have never looked at the evidence? If you have never looked at the evidence? If you have never looked at the evidence?

    How many times do I have to say that? The evidence says it all. That you refuse to look at it speaks volumes to character.

    I know why they killed JFK. I know why they did 9/11. Those are easy. I do not know why they did Boston – it appears to have been a large training exercise. Selection of patsies for these crimes is always with purpose, but that does not mean that outsiders are in on that game. There are plenty of other activities that involve high crimes and patsies – anthrax, Iraq, the Syrian gas attack, Wellstone, and I’ve written at length about them.

    The problem is that you don’t read posts before you comment, and then you don’t read responses to your comments unless they are very short. This means that dealing with you is futile and pointless. It also means you did not read this far.

    Like

    Reply

    1. I’m not interested in what you write. You’re a broken record and I’ve read it before.

      I’m more interested in your motives and what you don’t write about.

      Like

      Reply

      1. I accept your frank admission. My motives are simple – I want to know what is true. I’d like to know a lot of “why’s”, and “who’s” too, and do the best I can. “What’s” are the easiest part, but you don’t even get by that part.

        I do not like being lied to. I try to see through lies by connecting dots. We get better at this as we get older if we expose ourselves to lots of information. I have done so, as have many others I know. You have not done so, and so do not have a grip on current events, and by your own admission don’t study history.

        So go away. You’re boring.

        Like

        Reply

  4. Great post, Mark. You nailed it. But they did it in the open because they could, for the people of this country at that time were far too naïve, uninformed, and complacent to believe that our own government would/could kill a beloved president in a coup. It just wasn’t on their radar! And Latin America was still just heating up. Assassination was becoming common place there and around the world, but most Americans simply wrote that off as uncivilized peoples doing what they do. They had NO idea that all those coups were simply CIA coups. Sure, it could have all gone wrong, and someone could have spoken up. But by that time, they had perfected the technique of eliminating anyone who might question the official story. Dorothy Kilgalen, really? Jesus. No one was safe.

    But again, my biggest point in all of this, Mark, is that when one ponders that amount of evil done around the world by this same crew after OUR coup, it becomes overwhelming! If you do think about it regularly, as I do, it will drive you mad! You call me arrogant. No, I’m not. I’m simply outraged beyond belief at what has been done in the name of our country. And for what? Justice calls for some heads to roll, and our country needs to return to the promise for the world that it once was.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Again, it helps to understand that it could be done because the “coup” was a fait accompli. It all goes back to 1947 and a certain NSA document that authorized CIA activities and plausible deniability. Fifteen years later they killed the president, but look at the deafening silence. It’s not that no one cared, bur rather that no one could speak up.

      11/22/63 was merely the finishing touch, neutralizing the executive.

      Like

      Reply

      1. It is said that Truman had grave misgivings about the creation of the CIA. I’m sure that he knew exactly who killed Kennedy. He had to have known. The fascist strain was always there. So yeah, you’re probably right in your assessment of it being a fait accompli. Hell, the fascists were more powerful than anyone could understand.

        Like

        Reply

            1. “The C.I.A.’s growth was ‘likened to a malignancy’ which the ‘very high official was not sure even the White House could control … any longer.’ ‘If the United States ever experiences [an attempt at a coup to overthrow the government] it will come from the C.I.A. and not the Pentagon.’ The agency ‘represents a tremendous power and total unaccountability to anyone.’”

              From an Op-ed by Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times columnist Arthur Krock, published Oct. 3, 1963. Krock was quoting a piece by Richard Starnes of the Scripps-Howard news service, which described the internecine struggle between the CIA and the State Dept. in carrying out US policy in Vietnam.

              Like

              Reply

  5. My guess as to why they did it in the open was they had much better access and egress. You know they did try to kill Castro and failed, repeatedly. But they had much less access.

    Poison would imply inside access. Out in a crowd anyone could have done it. A lone nut negates the need of a motive, as in, ‘Who knows why he did it. He’s nuts.’

    Like

    Reply

  6. Dennis Prager’s 2007 post.

    “Vincent Bugliosi’s remarkable 20-year work on who killed John F. Kennedy has just been published. Containing about a million and a half words and thousands of footnotes, “Reclaiming History” is probably the most detailed examination of one moment in time ever written. It reconfirms that a man named Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in killing the American president.

    As one who never doubted the original U.S. government report that Oswald acted alone, I am deeply grateful to Bugliosi for the service he has rendered our country. But I also regret that he had to.

    Why did he have to? Because it was necessary to definitively refute all those who believe, despite bipartisan government reports and excellent books such as Gerald Posner’s “Case Closed,” that there was some conspiracy to kill President Kennedy and that Oswald was not the only shooter.

    There is not a shred of evidence that there was a conspiracy to kill John F. Kennedy, but that is entirely irrelevant to those who choose to believe that there was one. The lack of evidence only reinforces their belief that a conspiracy has been hidden.”

    Like

    Reply

      1. HEY, right you are, Swede! But one leetle question remains. WHY won’t they release all the files they have? What could the problem be? Help me out here.

        Like

        Reply

      3. Swede you crack me up. You are paranoid and your are whakadoodle. OOOhhOOOOH the big bad conspiracy theorists are out to get you Swede!!!

        What did Ken say? Or were you afraid to ask?

        Did you ever read Bugliosi’s book?

        Like

        Reply

        1. By the way, and this was many, many years ago, “The Bug” was going around the country giving talks on the Manson trial. We heard him talk in Billings. He did not know then, nor did anyone, that he had not gotten to the bottom of it.

          But interesting, he saved fifteen minutes at the end of the talk to discuss the RFK assassination. He was convinced and presented quite a bit of evidence that there had been many more shots fired than admitted, the evidence had been destroyed by LAPD, and that it, like JFK, was a massive coverup.

          He’s changed his tune now.

          Like

          Reply

          1. That’s interesting. i wonder if he acknowledges his conversion in his book.. And does he still doubt RFK or is that been thrown out as well?

            Like

            Reply

Leave a comment