21-11-2010, 05:46 PM
(This post was last modified: 22-11-2010, 12:06 AM by Albert Doyle.)
I agree with Charles. It's a serious mistake to give too much credit to Johnson. It's like accepting an offer that the other side is all too willing to pay and thinking you got a good deal. You're accepting the "offer" too quickly, and in doing so are allowing some very heavy players off the hook. The value of the credit that is being placed on Johnson, and its tone of importance, rightly belongs on the real players above Johnson. When you make a big issue of Johnson being the mastermind, deserving exposure he has escaped up to now, you expend the energy and surprise needed for those who actually deserve that credit in that way. In effect, you are doing a very damning and valid - yet equally unjust "limited hang-out" which only benefits the real masterminds. When you focus on Johnson you swing the teeter totter towards Johnson's side when it most rightly belongs on the shadow government side with all its diverse players including Angleton, Dulles, the oligarchs, CIA/mob underground, etc.
And, it's a mistake to say Johnson was irreplaceable. Johnson was just a bridge to Nixon, who was the heir apparent all the way back to 1960 when he was expected to be in place but was upset by a young populist president who swung himself into power on the enthusiasm towards a change in the miring politics of the Cold War.
Therefore using the specific word "mastermind" makes the semantic mistake of throwing the switch and giving Johnson credit that rightly and deservedly belongs to others. There's a very simple way to look at this, Johnson is long dead and gone, but the real masterminds are still very much in power, and that's the way you have to look at it. Johnson can be seen as an evil king who killed Kennedy but those who really understand what killed Kennedy know it was a broader inertia and momentum that correctly belongs elsewhere.
Charles is entirely and 100% correct.
.
And, it's a mistake to say Johnson was irreplaceable. Johnson was just a bridge to Nixon, who was the heir apparent all the way back to 1960 when he was expected to be in place but was upset by a young populist president who swung himself into power on the enthusiasm towards a change in the miring politics of the Cold War.
Therefore using the specific word "mastermind" makes the semantic mistake of throwing the switch and giving Johnson credit that rightly and deservedly belongs to others. There's a very simple way to look at this, Johnson is long dead and gone, but the real masterminds are still very much in power, and that's the way you have to look at it. Johnson can be seen as an evil king who killed Kennedy but those who really understand what killed Kennedy know it was a broader inertia and momentum that correctly belongs elsewhere.
Charles is entirely and 100% correct.
.