I have often written here that if a person seriously undertakes and examination of the research done around the assassination of John Kennedy in 1963, that he or she will gain a better and deeper understanding of our country and how it is run. It is largely a criminal enterprise with department store windows masking the corruption.
We may never know who did shot poor old John, just as we do not know to this day the machinations and agents that brought about such events as the Reichstag fire, the blowing up of the Maine, the attack on the USS Liberty by Israel, Jonestown, the murders of Sadat, Benazir Bhutto, Milošević, David Kelly, Bruce Ivins … on and on.
The important reason to examine the evidence is the trigger effect. One thing leads to another, and before we know it, we are far afield of our original question. Instead, we have new and better questions. In the end, which is really the beginning, we become amateur scholars of history. “Doubt is the beginning, and not the end, of wisdom.” (George Iles)
Our leaders do not like citizens who practice doubt. They much prefer compliance, submission, clean thoughts and un-inquisitive minds.
The CIA and our many other overlords seek to discredit critical thinking and curisoity. They label it “conspiracy theory,” as if it were a bad thing. Sadly, that’s enough to scare most people off. On the other hand, anyone possessed of such a low-level of curiosity (and high tolerance of ambivalence) is not ready to face real history anyway. To such citizens I can only say go to church, stay in school, and don’t forget to vote.
An interesting note, conspiracy is a large part of the criminal code, as most major crimes involve a conspiracy. The law and court procedures are designed to aid in uncovering them. RICO* was a law crafted specifically to deal with criminal conspiracies.
We are allowed to believe in some conspiracies. Chomsky/Herman defined the doctrine of “worthy victims”**, but so too are there worthy conspiracies. People otherwise not attune to critical thinking are allowed to drift into certain areas of conspiracy without restraint.
- The Osama/hijackers 9/11 theory is a worthy conspiracy. You can believe any farcical part of the official story and no one will ridicule you.
- Years ago, Atlantic Monthly, a mainstream outlet, ventured into a conspiracy behind the JFK murder – it was allowed to take that road because the magazine was claiming that Fidel Castro was behind it. He wasn’t, but that’s a worthy conspiracy angle.
- We’re allowed to think that Hillary Clinton is hiding important information in secret emails in her illegal server. That would be a conspiracy. (Why Hillary has become a worthy target of critical inquiry, I do not know. This all works to undermine her candidacy. She has powerful enemies.)
- Benghazi – a worthy conspiracy.
- Watergate, to the extent that we assume that Woodward/Bernstein actually uncovered it – worthy.
- Climate change: Believe it? You’re being hoodwinked by a massive conspiracy of scientists. Doubt it? You’re being hoodwinked by ExxonMobil. Each side appears to be a worthy conspiracy.
Conspiracies are a large and important part of life. We live in cognitive dissonance, however, an important aspect of thought control. We must each day assume that if we believe in only worthy conspiracies, we are not conspiracy theorists.
What, then, defines an unworthy conspiracy?
- Following the trial of evidence might lead to doubts about holy truths – belief in God and country, and our sacred institutions.
- Important people who are still alive might be implicated, which is not allowed. (George Herbert Walker Bush comes to mind – when he finally bites it, I expect a raft of new information on old news.)
- We might break free of our mental chains, our thought control regime, and experience true freedom. That feeling is like a drug. It makes for bad citizens.
It also leads to an interesting existence. Think of Mad Men’s Don Draper, a man who grew up in a whore house and spent his life running from the fact. As quickly as he stopped running and stopped living in denial, he became a happier man. (I loved the back story of that show, so well done. I suspect it was in part a smuggling operation. ***)
Just this morning I was perusing a few Internet sites, listening to a podcast as I lay awake in jet lag. I came across two very interesting tidbits, each of which could lead to an awakening for someone living in a state of trained incuriosity.
- Steve Rannazzisi: This guy, a comedian, claimed to have been working for Merrill Lynch on 9/11/2001, and to have narrowly escaped death. He saw the plane hit the building, I suppose. He’s recanted now, saying he made the whole thing up. The question that begs to be asked: Why did no one ever investigate his claims? (He’s had much success in entertainment since that time, but I suspect his career will draw to a close now.)
- Raymond Lee Harvey and Osvaldo Espinoza Ortiz: This offers huge insight into how presidents and politicians are controlled, one way, anyway.These two men were arrested in 1979 in Los Angeles, and we learned that they were planning to fire blank pistol shots fifty feet away from President Jimmy Carter as he gave a speech. It was to be a diversion while two other men shot the president with high-powered rifles.
It appears to be a plot meant to be uncovered. It sent a dog-whistle message to Carter and his people. The names of the two pistol men bore strong resemblance to that of Lee Harvey Oswald. A gun case and three live rounds were found in a motel room, an obvious inference to the 1963 book depository snipers nest. Firing blank 22-caliber bullets while a real assassination went on elsewhere is a strong inference to the Bobby Kennedy killing, where many suspect that Sirhan fired blanks and served merely as a distraction.
If this were a real assassination plot, there would be multiple shooting teams, no one would have talked or been arrested, and it would probably have succeeded. Such operations are professionally run with built in redundancies and and compartmentalization. No way would the pistol shooters have known about the high-powered rifles.
The plot sent a message to Carter, “We killed them. We can kill you too.” Carter was obviously not doing something that he was supposed to do, and so had to be reminded that he served at the luxury of others.
What was he not doing? Best guess: He refused to let the deposed Shah of Iran into the country. Shortly after this incident, he let him in. As I recall, the Shah went to live with Nixon, another deposed leader.
A while back there were widely reported incidents of Secret Service failures in protecting the president. I was one of few who saw through the “failures” (there were too many in sequence for coincidence to allow). Someone, some group, was sending a message to Obama that he would be wise to do something that he was not doing, or stop doing something. The message: “Don’t be overconfident. We can get to you any time we please.”
What was Obama not doing that he needed to do, or what did he stop doing thereafter that has allowed him to survive to this day?
Don’t know. Paul Marshall just a pawn in game of life.
* RICO: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, allows law enforcement latitude to draw connections between those who carry out crimes and those who order them, a common part of conspiracies. It’s how Charles Manson, who never killed anyone, ended up in prison for life.
** “Worthy Victims:” Anyone of prominence whose death or suffering advances US interests will be featured in our news media. Other deaths or suffering, no matter how large, are ignored. As this concept plays out right now, Syrian refugees are worthy, but all of the other victims of US aggression over the past decades are not. Syrian victimhood is serving US interests at this time. They are worthy victims.
*** The word “smuggling” here refers to a secret practice in government and entertainment of leaking messages by means of embedding content in otherwise harmless media. The Beatles were smuggling via album covers and song clues; people planted obvious anachronisms in supposed moon landing photos. Some movies have subversive undertones, such as Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Shining and Wag the Dog. Smuggling is an important mechanism to get some truth out in thought-controlled regimes such as ours.