29-08-2012, 11:39 PM
A post I was making on another forum belongs on this topic: it deals with the absolute necessity of directly confronting the allegations of the fake left about JFK, and to in no way allowing them to obscure separate the policy implications of the assassination (rider) from the assassination and coverup itself (horse) . This separation of rider and horse has been central to the disinformation strategy of using one group to disinfo about the policies and another audience to disinfo about the assassination and coverup. To allow this separtion is to lose everything.
----------------
Paul I am certainly not suggesting that JFK was "a leftist".
I think he was a liberal, but a real liberal, not {not a classical liberal, not a neo liberal not a liberal as the term is used today, which really means de facto far rightist... gee isn't it great how political terms are always cut with such surgical precision} ok if you want a model loosely say FDR between 1934-37. Of course this was a different historical context than those years.
To be a liberal-- and to be a president who refused to accept just being nominally in control of the very steroided National Security State when it was 13 years old and... kinda impulsive-- to be a liberal in that unique historical moment when the presidency was becoming either dashboard or engine and would have to make up its mind or have it brusquely removed-- was to rock the boat of the post War US government far more than any "leftist" might from any streetcurb, podium or editorial board.
The disinformationists want us to look only at the weight of the kids on the see saw. That is how they dismiss, and get people never to open that first or second book and they do it with group-identiy-centered magazines. We know that it is also kind of important where, on the see saw, they are sitting.
As to Chomsky positioning himself to the left of JFK, yes that is exactly what he is doing: key word POSITIONING. Of course the strategy is to play individual -judging, and take the question of the National Security State out of the picture, which goes with his ridiculous notion that said National Security Sate was cut and dried by 1950. Again, it cannot be overemphasized just how ironic and perverse he is when he writes to the "left" that the JFK assassination is unimportant because of its lack of structural importance. Nothing could be further than the truth. Nothing offers a cleared picture of the President becoming dashboard sans engine or dead. [Nixon was a gradual learner on this one.] Nothing is more relavent for all US politics right now in illuminating the complete irrelevance of party politics except as diversion and scrambling op.
However the biggest mistake we could make for in all of this is to cede the "left" to their paid pipers. To do that means the pipers have won, and the policy implications will forever be separated from the assassination itself. It will remain a crypt of trivial pursuit, as the narrators of state and big media have designed. However much we become frustrated with the mistatements of the left, we must remember that , in an ultra-right state like the US they are subject to the easiest kind of media manipulation, and all of the best lies have been aimed at them. We must not allow the wrong implications to be drawn from the assassination, because of our disgust with the media representations of the completely caged and gelded US left. Because that left is a fake-left created with rightward ends in mind.
That is why, as the 50th approaches , the misrepresentations of most widely published fake left must be addressed very directly. I have already been making serious efforts on this front, and we should make an express group of writers who should do this. I have just the folk in mind, but am not sure if they would be willing.
----------------
Paul I am certainly not suggesting that JFK was "a leftist".
I think he was a liberal, but a real liberal, not {not a classical liberal, not a neo liberal not a liberal as the term is used today, which really means de facto far rightist... gee isn't it great how political terms are always cut with such surgical precision} ok if you want a model loosely say FDR between 1934-37. Of course this was a different historical context than those years.
To be a liberal-- and to be a president who refused to accept just being nominally in control of the very steroided National Security State when it was 13 years old and... kinda impulsive-- to be a liberal in that unique historical moment when the presidency was becoming either dashboard or engine and would have to make up its mind or have it brusquely removed-- was to rock the boat of the post War US government far more than any "leftist" might from any streetcurb, podium or editorial board.
The disinformationists want us to look only at the weight of the kids on the see saw. That is how they dismiss, and get people never to open that first or second book and they do it with group-identiy-centered magazines. We know that it is also kind of important where, on the see saw, they are sitting.
As to Chomsky positioning himself to the left of JFK, yes that is exactly what he is doing: key word POSITIONING. Of course the strategy is to play individual -judging, and take the question of the National Security State out of the picture, which goes with his ridiculous notion that said National Security Sate was cut and dried by 1950. Again, it cannot be overemphasized just how ironic and perverse he is when he writes to the "left" that the JFK assassination is unimportant because of its lack of structural importance. Nothing could be further than the truth. Nothing offers a cleared picture of the President becoming dashboard sans engine or dead. [Nixon was a gradual learner on this one.] Nothing is more relavent for all US politics right now in illuminating the complete irrelevance of party politics except as diversion and scrambling op.
However the biggest mistake we could make for in all of this is to cede the "left" to their paid pipers. To do that means the pipers have won, and the policy implications will forever be separated from the assassination itself. It will remain a crypt of trivial pursuit, as the narrators of state and big media have designed. However much we become frustrated with the mistatements of the left, we must remember that , in an ultra-right state like the US they are subject to the easiest kind of media manipulation, and all of the best lies have been aimed at them. We must not allow the wrong implications to be drawn from the assassination, because of our disgust with the media representations of the completely caged and gelded US left. Because that left is a fake-left created with rightward ends in mind.
That is why, as the 50th approaches , the misrepresentations of most widely published fake left must be addressed very directly. I have already been making serious efforts on this front, and we should make an express group of writers who should do this. I have just the folk in mind, but am not sure if they would be willing.