Q: Do you think these people who were behind all this [JFK assassination] are still very powerful and very deadly?

Gerald Patrick Hemming (U.S. Intelligence Agent): They never stopped doing their work. It’s a continuous event. You see, people don’t understand. The coup didn’t occur in November [of 1963]. The coup had already occurred before the inauguration. Kennedy never took power as president. He never functioned as a real president. This is what Eisenhower was warning* about. They’d done the same thing to him. They’d caused him to cease functioning as the president himself.

Reading over the blog this morning, entries going back a few weeks, I thought it a pity that people don’t read it. I need to spice this place up! I need to write about football and elections! I should not expect people to come here, but rather go to where they live.

Except that I can’t do that.

People advise not to go down rat holes. They say that our country is like sausage – if you like it, don’t ask how they make it.

People get discouraged when they find out that we’ve been lied to most of our lives about everything of importance. It is more important to believe than to live in the real world. Belief sustains people, where truth debilitates them. So it appears, anyway.

Religion, for example, a completely irrational belief system, makes people happy.

Odd. I become exhilarated when I learn truths. Hemming’s statement above was a light switch clicking on. I have long marveled that when Kennedy was murdered, all of the apparatuses to carry out the murder and then cover it up were in place.  The Justice Department, FBI, Dallas Police, Secret Service, intelligence agencies and their mobsters were all either part of the event, or the cover-up.

That’s not a new understanding. What is interesting is that these people and agencies behaved as if it were a practiced drill. They knew instinctively what to do.

And so did the news media. To this day, people of power in the news media know to continue with the cover-up. How do they know to do this?

The answer will not please you. I cannot speak of the time before World War II other than that I know we did not have a powerful military, so that our power to do evil was limited.  But by process of war and formation of organizations to fight it, and by assimilation of elements of the Third Reich into our intelligence establishment, some time after 1945 we experienced a bloodless coup d’etat. The National Security Act of 1947 was the frontispiece.

Eisenhower experienced it. The McCarthy hearings, the public face of a purge, happened on his watch. He sought détente with the Soviet Union, and was undermined by the intelligence agencies, who managed to pull off the Gary Powers U2 affair** to sabotage his meetings with Khrushchev.

Already we were being governed from behind the scenes by acts of treason. Ike knew it, tried to warn us. But as Hemmings tells us above, the country was already lost by that point, our form of government severely weakened. It has never recovered. We are a fake republic, and have been for decades.

I only sort of understand the mechanism that makes people hide from truth. I don’t suffer from that defect. I have never been harmed by knowing things. If as a child I grew up in a whorehouse, I would not know it. When later I put two and two together, I would be hurt, for a brief spell. Then I would want to know more. I would not hide from ugly truth.
________________________
*He’s referring to Eisenhower’s farewell address wherein he warned of the dangers of the “Military Industrial Complex.”
**Sitting on stage right in the middle of the courtroom gathering witnessing the Powers’ trial in the Soviet Union was a young man put there to send a message to the American intelligence community, a “defector,” Lee Harvey Oswald. Gary Powers was sure that Oswald had given the Soviets the information needed to bring him down. But it was a failed operation in part, in that Powers was not supposed to survive when his aircraft was brought down.
_________________________

PS: It occurred to me after writing this that the coup might have occurred on April 12, 1945, or before that time when Henry Wallace was replaced by Harry Truman in backrooms at the Democratic convention. Josef Stalin told Elliot Roosevelt, Franklin’s son, that FDR had been murdered, poisoned by “that Churchill gang.”

I first asked the question about the murder of John F. Kennedy as a junior in high school in 1967, reading Mark Lane’s Rush to Judgment. 21 years later, in 1988, I asked it again.

For those of you who were not around, those were different times. People coming out of World War II were optimistic. The future looked good. Kennedy was an unusual man, a natural for the leadership slot. I lived in a Republican household, but cried when he died. He was so natural, so good on his feet. He made us do things like exercise our bodies, the fifty-mile walk a goal he inspired in youth. He sent legions of young men to do good abroad in the Peace Corps. We just felt good. Especially us kids. He was so cool.

The murder, and on some level most of us knew it wasn’t as we were told, disenchanted us. It made kids rebellious. Campuses were alive not only with protest, but curiosity. They were holding “teach-ins.” These were not long-haired beaded hippies, but rather young men and women who dressed nice. The anti-war movement was a peaceful movement of serious people. They talked about Indochina, colonialism, the roots of Vietnam, Cuba, Lamumba, Guatemala … They were not spouting slogans. They were spouting real history. It had to be stopped. (In the ensuing years, it has been stopped.)

Hippies, drugs, rock music – all of that came later, and was CIA-inspired. That is the message that Dave McGowan was working on in Weird Scenes in the Canyon. The guy is great, but somehow never nails it. CIA morphed the anti war movement in to sex, drugs and rock and roll. Laurel Canyon was at the center of it. And the war went on until 1975.

There is very little history available today, certainly none taught in the schools. But it is a rich vein for the curious mind.

I was 27 years ago that I decided I wanted to know who killed JFK. What a journey! Have you any idea what it is like to be curious? To go down avenues you never thought you would or could? Lose faith, find faith, lose faith, transcend the need for faith? Each step in solving the murder is an opening into a higher level of reality. When something like 9/11 or Boston happens, you don’t wonder. You know. It’s them again … that dark force operating behind the scenes, ruling us by fear and symbols. It is the ones who killed JFK, RFK, MLK, Malcolm X, JFK Jr., Marilyn, so many many others. They drip blood. They are sinister and evil, and in charge.

J. Edgar Hoover was a closet homosexual who was being blackmailed by the Mafia. Lyndon Johnson, had not JFK been killed, would likely have ended up in the penitentiary. Because those two extremely corrupt men had access to power, other people realized that they could kill the president and get away with it. Edgar and Lyndon had to cover it up. They had no choice. Their own lives were threatened. That was the straw that stirred the drink.

1963, Ma and Pa Kettle days, bobby socks and Beach Blanket Bingo and Doris Day, when everything was so clean, yet we were so corrupt.

Anyway, I am just saying, if you haven’t asked a question for which the search for an answer turned your life on its head, you have not thought enough yet. Nothing is as it appears. Nothing.

“All of us, at some level, know that we are being lied to. Some people internalize it and go on with their daily lives. Some ignore it completely. And still others latch onto fatuous opinion-makers whose daily bread depends on the very system they purport to uncover.

Obviously none of this is satisfactory. What we need is to understand how the world works, how systems of power operate, what motivates its operation, and where it all originated.” (Joseph E. Green, Dissenting Views)

I am conferring today, that is, spending a whole day with accountants. I’d rather eat worms. I like the above quote because is synopsizes the American condition, the internalization of lies. My blog runs hot and cold, but one thing I can be sure of is that when I write about the big lies of our times, the comment section dries up.

People shy away, but they know on some level that they are living in lies. Breaking free is near impossible, I think, as so few of us manage to make that break.

Still, if ever you see one thing that does not make sense, no matter how small or insignificant, and follow it through, you might experience a breakthrough. It is usually just that, a small thing.

You will experience denial, pain, disappointment, anger, disillusionment, and finally freedom.

I spend a lot of effort trying to get people to look at evidence. It speaks, but usually says things we are not supposed to know. Consequently, just as a mother might ignore all the signs that her husband is abusing her children, most Americans studiously ignore evidence that their government has committed grisly crimes against them. Some things are too difficult to ponder.

It is irrational to believe the official story of the JFK assassination, 9/11 or the Boston Marathon bombing. Evidence does not support those stories. But it is entirely rational to believe in Apollo and the moon landings. Evidence is both convincing and abundant.

And false. It had to be manufactured and it had to be convincing because it was not only the American public that was being fooled, but most of the excellent people who participated in Apollo. If you choose to believe in Apollo, I won’t argue with you. Have a nice day.
___________________

The usual reasons given for diverting $40 billion to fake the moon landings are not believable – to instill patriotism and belief in the wonders of our technology? To honor the legacy of a dead hero who boldly stated we should boldly go? Those are nice side effects. (I wonder if JFK was involved in the hoax, or if he was merely deceived by people around him. He spoke of going to the moon in 1961 even as the Van Allen radiation belts were discovered in the late 1950s.)

Among the reasons for belief, the most prominent is that if it were a lie, people would talk. The government cannot keep secrets. Consider this:

• Gus Grissom, astronaut, was an open critic of NASA, and went so far as to hang a lemon on one of the space capsules that was supposedly going to take him to the moon. He and two others died in a fire that Grissom’s family believes was deliberate murder.
• Tom Baron was a quality control and safety inspector for North American Aviation, the primary contractor for the lunar module. He testified before congress as what we would now call a “whistleblower” about the mischievous goings-on at Kennedy Space Center. Six days later he, his wife and stepdaughter were killed at a railroad crossing. It was ruled suicide.

That’s not how the government keeps secrets. People are right when they say that governments cannot keep secrets. That is how the military keeps secrets. It’s effective. It’s why not even Truman knew about the Manhattan Project. Three things are going on:

• Contractual obligations to secrecy. If you violate them, just the financial consequences are enough.
• Compartmentalization. Most people involved don’t know the big picture.
• FEAR. Grissom and Baron and others who were murdered served as a dog whistle to insiders.

The silent whistle says that if you talk, you die. And not just you – your family too. (Ergo, the absence of deathbed testimony.)

Some time down the road I’ll offer up some opinions on what NASA was really doing in those days when it was not going to the moon. It is still a closely guarded secret, so the best we can do is informed speculation. NASA is a military organization disguised as civilian. It was not playing around with rocketry for fun. The business was dead serious and the need for secrecy was paramount. But knowing that the moon landings were faked does answer a few questions:

• Why did we never go back to the moon? We didn’t go there to begin with.
• Why, if we had the technology in 1969, are we still searching for technology in 2015? Self-explanatory.
• Why the quirky behavior of the Apollo moon walkers? They are and were good and decent men who must lie in public. It is not in their nature. We should just leave them alone. If they speak, they die.

If you are of a curious bent, take a walk on the wild side. The photos taken on the moon are very good fakes. That fact alone does not prove anything, but seeing how they were faked tells a much larger story.

As always, your own thoughts and abilities come into play. And again, given the abundance of evidence …

If you believed they put a man on the moon
Man on the moon
If you believe there’s nothing up his sleeve
Then nothing is cool…

… you have an abundance of good hard evidence to support you. I won’t argue the point.

“My own opinion is enough for me, and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time. And anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line, and kiss my ass.” (Christopher Hitchens)

I admired Hitchens, defiant to his last days, possessed of his own mind, flipping us off even as he departed this world.

At the other end of dignity, I was struck by the words in the post below of (Saint) Ignatius Loyola, a man who had obviously lost his mind. But it is a sad fact of our existence that a small percentage of the population is highly susceptible not so much to “thought control” (most Americans), but a more sinister practice, “mind control.”

In fact, anyone who reads the literature of the 1950’s and 60’s will run across a mind control program run by the CIA called “MKULTRA,” the object of which was to find people who could work under control of others without their knowledge. James McGowan trifled with this notion in his book “Programmed to Kill,” in which he speculates that the serial killers of the 60’s and 70’s might well have been subjects of that program.

CIA is a large organization, thousands of talented people, but at its beating heart center are psychotic monsters. They ran a program in Vietnam called “Phoenix.” It was assassination on a large scale, as many as 40,000 dead. What happened to these trained killers when they returned stateside? Did they become plumbers and accountants? (One man whose murderous behaviors in Vietnam are on record, Bob Kerrey, went on to become a governor and senator.)

MKULTRA is a fascinating subject. A trip through its history will take the inquiring mind through hypnosis, child abuse, sexual perversion, dissociative disorder, LSD and other drugs, and of course, the torture regime. What we saw at Abu Ghraib was not some out-of-control underlings getting off by scaring people with dogs … it was a scientific program of torture designed to induce psychosis. Out of such settings come assassins, suicide bombers, and men who proudly pose for photographs while beheading other men. That’s our CIA. Did the MK program ever stop?

MKULTRA was (is?) run by men in business attire sitting behind desks and claiming to be protecting us. But who protects us from them?

And though we will never be able to know for sure, people like Sirhan Sirhan, Mark David Chapman, John Hinckley, Jr., Charles Manson, Squeaky Fromme, James Holmes and others all fit the bill, victims of mind control. CIA claims that MKULTRA was a bust, and was discontinued. I doubt it.

Look at the photo to the right. James Holmes is obviously drugged. What kind of drugs? What kind of treatment has he undergone? His mind is gone.*  Sirhan Sirhan to this day cannot remember his activities on the night of June 5, 1968 (the only reason he is still alive). A professional hypnotist from Harvard has studied him and finds that he was deeply hypno-programmed.

We have a cancer within our body politic, an agency that runs programs like MK, and that determines the fate of our country by means of murder and skullduggery. And we have among us people who are susceptible to mind control. If the bulk of the population were not in such a trance as to not be able to see what is before their every eyes, perhaps we could put a stop to it.

I have not linked to anything here. It’s all out there for people of curious bent, and for the others, linking does not prod curiosity.
______________
*Will he soon be founding a religious order?

Every now and then we stumble on a piece of information that is so out of tune that we automatically disregard it. So too did John Armstrong when he was doing the body of research for his book “Harvey and Lee.”

I like Mr. Armstrong, that is, I think I get a sense of the man. He’s not married to a theory, but rather to pursuit of truth. Evidence leads him to places he’d not otherwise have gone. He claims, based on twelve years of research, that there were two Oswalds: Lee, an American born in New Orleans, and Harvey, a Russian-speaking Eastern European immigrant whose real name he never learned. The identity of the European was merged with the American during the 1950’s.

In 1953 William Henry Timmer lived in Stanley, North Dakota, a town west of Minot in the northwestern part of the state. During that time he met a boy from New York City who called himself “Harvey,” or “Harv” Oswald. He was a curiosity in that small town, and other boys knew him as well. Harv talked about communism and once told Timmer that “Some day I am going to kill the president and that will show them.”

At the time of the assassination, Timmer had a “funny feeling” that Harv was the guy arrested in Dallas. His mother wrote a letter to President Johnson advising him of the incident. (The letter is shown beneath the fold.) The FBI followed up on the lead, but the Warren Commission ignored it, as “Lee” Oswald was officially in 1953 in New York City. His presence in Stanley was an anomaly.

“Harvey” Oswald, the man shot by Jack Ruby, was as he said, “just a patsy.” He did not shoot President Kennedy. There were perhaps four teams of shooters in Dallas that day, and rather than three “shots” perhaps three volleys of shots. But to have this same Harvey, the patsy, claim in 1953 that he had already been set up on a mission is confounding.

Harvey the spy was set up like this: He spoke fluent Russian, but kept that fact hidden while there. As “Lee,” the Russians would think him a real American, as they would dig into his background.

His secret ability to speak Russian allowed “Harvey” to hear and read things around him during his famous “defection” to the USSR. It’s brilliant.

How both “Harvey” and “Lee” were spotted and recruited is a mystery. Mr. Armstrong does not claim to know those details, only the outcome. I accept all of that as standard operating procedure, probably as old as Julius Caesar.  Deep cover spies are known throughout recorded history.

The “clinker” is the statement in the early fifties that he intended to kill “the president.” What possible explanations are there for this?

• Mr. Trimmer is lying, and is merely a publicity hound. Armstrong has interviewed him at length (he lives near either Great Falls or Helena, Montana), and thinks he is honest. That’s an open question, but if he is a hound, he’s not good at it. He’s not gotten publicity, nor has he made money on his knowledge.
• That boy in Stanley was someone else. Timmer remembers him introduced as “Harvey Oswald,” however, and thinks he is the man Jack Ruby shot. The coincidence of names and looks is, at the very least, an oddity.
• “Harvey” was just talking tough for the boys. He was, after all, a big city kid in a small rural town. (That, to me, has some plausibility, but does not fully explain the happenstance of a New York kid in North Dakota threatening to shoot the president.)

There’s another explanation, and it is my own concoction, possibly a reach: In the postwar era, the United States government (and news media) was slowly infiltrated with moles, a continuation of the Third Reich, a mass importation of spies and military men under Operation Paperclip and by other means. CIA was the vehicle. They and others of that persuasion, who are nothing if not devoted to their cause, made their way into pivotal positions in the military and civilian government, and their ultimate aim was coup d’etat.

The coup would be an American coup, that is, uniquely designed for an American public long immersed delusions of self-governance and exceptionalism. We would be allowed to keep outer appearances of self-governance, our three branches of government and supposedly independent media, intact. But form would be devoid of substance, as it appears to be at this time.

To do this, at some point it would be necessary to murder the president and neutralize the executive branch. Any president would do. The murder would be a “coming out”, a show crime used to demonstrate to those in regular government who was really in charge. The people who did the crime were in effect saying “Look at us. Look what we can do. You’d be wise to stand down now.”

Only fools believe the official story of the JFK assassination. It’s ludicrous. Yet it stands as an icon. All who want a piece of the action must bow before it. No one of a “serious” bent in government, media or academia questions that painfully obvious lie.

Could it be that in 1953 a young man had been selected as patsy for the murder of the president, not even knowing who that president might be?

I do not know, of course. But the story of William Henry Timmer must either fit or be discarded. If it fits, then historians (now called “conspiracy theorists”) must discard all of this nonsense of JFK the hero, and merely regard him as JFK, the poor schmuck.

It fits, for me, in one regard: It would have been relatively easy to remove JFK from office without murdering him in public. What we saw that day was not a murder so much as an execution. Its purpose might actually be contained in its clumsiness.
Continue reading “A clinker” →

We are headed to Montana for an impromptu class reunion (made possible by the existence of Facebook), plus some time away from electronic signals thereafter. Things will be slow around here.

I have long struggled with Plato’s Cave Allegory, and so tried to update it a bit here, hopefully having a grasp of its significance in our age. Television supplies reality for most Americans, and is the medium by which most of our lies are facilitated. Most people don’t read, but then, I don’t really understand why printed lies are not as effective as televised ones. I have been able to sort my way through the lies of our times [even though books lie], but it has taken many years and I have swallowed whole on many lies in the process. It is a game of musical chairs, new lies taking the place of old ones, until such time that truth settles in. Possibly.

With TV, a lie like 9/11 or Boston, told but once, sticks forever. TV has such persuasive power that people cannot fathom actors staging events for our benefit. It’s a confidence game. The underlying belief of Americans, no matter how much skepticism they profess, is that if something is on TV and labeled “news” it is true.

Given the power of such a medium, there is no way the state would let it operate unfettered. So naturally the American television media is state-controlled. Americans might believe such a thing about Cuba or North Korea, but never their own country. That’s part of the lie.

 TV owns reality. Since government controls TV content, government owns reality.

Below I have plagiarized the Wikipedia entry on the Cave Allegory, making changes as needed.
____________________

The Allegory of the Television (also titled Plato’s TV)

Plato in his work The Republic (514a–520a) sought to compare “…the effect of education and the lack of it on our nature”. It is written as a dialogue between Plato’s brother Glaucon and his mentor Socrates, narrated by the latter.

Plato has Socrates describe a gathering of people who have lived chained to a couch all of their lives, facing a television. The people watch images on the TV screen and begin to designate names to these images. The images are as close as the couch prisoners get to viewing reality. He then explains how the dissident is like a prisoner who is freed from the couch and comes to understand that the images on the screen do not make up reality at all. Away from the television, the prisoner can perceive the true form of reality rather than the mere images seen by the couch prisoners.

Our perception of the world around is habitation on a couch with the screen’s light reflecting throughout the home. Our view of the real world only comes into focus once we abandon our televisions.

____________

For reasons unknown the following video seems apropos. Tim Russert, considered one of the best of show in his time, is either acting out a script or swallowing whole on a Rumsfeld routine (performed during the time after 9/11 when people were still in shock).  Seen with a proper dose of skepticism, it is hilarious.