10-03-2013, 04:32 AM
Adele
What an excellent and concise interview. Douglass continues to distill.
Bill Maher self-advertises as the unabashed critic of the powerful. It is to laugh. "He didnt' want to go there." QED Maher takes his mark on the unmannedala. No, Maher has no guts. Look at Mort Sahl, Dick Gregory, Bill Hicks.
It's good to reiterate the censorship of RFK Jr's voicing of his father's doubts and his own interest in Douglass' Unspeakable. JFK just happened to get offed by a lone nut; his brother as well; their brother by Damore; JFK's son by loss of awareness at night. Now RFK's son is silenced. There's nothing to see here; move along.
"rogue CIA"? Rogues aplenty emanating from Langley, from the National Security Act, from OSS, from decades of deals across borders with schlemiels.
And perhaps the gemstone in this setting, all finework surrounding the brilliant insight:
I would describe it as his encounter with that void in the midst of the Cuban missile crisis, where the world was on the verge of a total nuclear war. If that isn't the void, I don't know what is. And he and his greatest enemy in the world, in terms of ideology, Nikita Khrushchev, encountered that void simultaneously. And what was remarkable and what led to Kennedy's assassination was that in that moment, when it reached the darkest point possible, and Kennedy felt he was losing power to his generals who were going to push through an opportunity for victorybecause they had the dominant power; in their terms, for example, We'll get them for 150 million, they'll only get 40 million on our side'; that's victory to that kind of insanity; they actually talked that wayin the midst of all that, what Kennedy does is totally outrageous. He turns to Nikita Khrushchev, the enemy.
Behold the interests above Cold War ideology Charles' distills from his work with George Michael Evica, something perhaps suggested in L. Fletcher Prouty, Peter Dale Scott, The Package (1989) with Tommy Lee Jones and Gene Hackman--
--for Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev, John F Kennedy's partner in peace, is removed by the hawk Leonid Brezhnev October 1964. And the band played on.
Losing power to his generals--a condition the secret correspondents shared.
Douglass speaks of the mighty Wurlitzer--no media person will address the murder of the 35th president with an open mind. CIA shut them all by killing a few, humiliating, ridiculing, ruining more, and holding the power over any who would dare oppose the dogma.
Stone was and is stunned by the hostile reaction which scorched his enormous politico-artistic achievement JFK (1991). How could he not realize that those who murdered one to be able to murder a subcontinent in the name of power would hesitate to turn flamethrowers on a mere Hollywood artisan.
Here are the secondary gems: consensus and Dulles' Invasion of the Body Snatchers:
I don't think there had to be one grandmaster, say one of the Rockefellers or one of the other multi-trillionaires, I don't think that's the way it works. I think you have a process of propaganda, of ideology, of subverting one's own conscience that's going on on a very large scale, and certainly it is to the benefit of those at the very top of the pyramid, to put it mildly. But I think that process is so overwhelming, whether it be the Cold War, or the war on terror, which is the war of terror, it's so overwhelming that when someone comes along and says, I'm the president of the United States, and I'm going to turn toward peace,' then you've got a consensus decision. Intolerable. This guy goes. And I don't think it's a question of somebody having to mastermind a plot; Fletcher Prouty describes the process wherein Allen Dulles is putting people in all these key positions year after year after year, whether it's Secret Service or the White HouseMcGeorge Bundy for that matter is on record for having been working for the CIA when he was a dean at Harvardso this isn't very mysterious. When it comes time to stop all of this, they're all working together. It's a consensus decision. And for those at lower levels, it's just overwhelming.
Here's Douglass stating the prime reason it still matters: The American Commission for Truth and Reconcilliation begins here:
But if you don't deal with the origin of thisnot the only origin but certainly a key one, which is the assassination of a peace-making president by his own national security state, done with impunityif that's not an origin of subsequent problems, I don't know what is.
To which I append a modest proposal that a strategy of tension cannot tolerate peace and peacemakers. Lincoln, Kennedy--and loose the dogs of war. None of this bind up the wounds, no part of we are all mortal.
What an excellent and concise interview. Douglass continues to distill.
Bill Maher self-advertises as the unabashed critic of the powerful. It is to laugh. "He didnt' want to go there." QED Maher takes his mark on the unmannedala. No, Maher has no guts. Look at Mort Sahl, Dick Gregory, Bill Hicks.
It's good to reiterate the censorship of RFK Jr's voicing of his father's doubts and his own interest in Douglass' Unspeakable. JFK just happened to get offed by a lone nut; his brother as well; their brother by Damore; JFK's son by loss of awareness at night. Now RFK's son is silenced. There's nothing to see here; move along.
"rogue CIA"? Rogues aplenty emanating from Langley, from the National Security Act, from OSS, from decades of deals across borders with schlemiels.
And perhaps the gemstone in this setting, all finework surrounding the brilliant insight:
I would describe it as his encounter with that void in the midst of the Cuban missile crisis, where the world was on the verge of a total nuclear war. If that isn't the void, I don't know what is. And he and his greatest enemy in the world, in terms of ideology, Nikita Khrushchev, encountered that void simultaneously. And what was remarkable and what led to Kennedy's assassination was that in that moment, when it reached the darkest point possible, and Kennedy felt he was losing power to his generals who were going to push through an opportunity for victorybecause they had the dominant power; in their terms, for example, We'll get them for 150 million, they'll only get 40 million on our side'; that's victory to that kind of insanity; they actually talked that wayin the midst of all that, what Kennedy does is totally outrageous. He turns to Nikita Khrushchev, the enemy.
Behold the interests above Cold War ideology Charles' distills from his work with George Michael Evica, something perhaps suggested in L. Fletcher Prouty, Peter Dale Scott, The Package (1989) with Tommy Lee Jones and Gene Hackman--
--for Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev, John F Kennedy's partner in peace, is removed by the hawk Leonid Brezhnev October 1964. And the band played on.
Losing power to his generals--a condition the secret correspondents shared.
Douglass speaks of the mighty Wurlitzer--no media person will address the murder of the 35th president with an open mind. CIA shut them all by killing a few, humiliating, ridiculing, ruining more, and holding the power over any who would dare oppose the dogma.
Stone was and is stunned by the hostile reaction which scorched his enormous politico-artistic achievement JFK (1991). How could he not realize that those who murdered one to be able to murder a subcontinent in the name of power would hesitate to turn flamethrowers on a mere Hollywood artisan.
Here are the secondary gems: consensus and Dulles' Invasion of the Body Snatchers:
I don't think there had to be one grandmaster, say one of the Rockefellers or one of the other multi-trillionaires, I don't think that's the way it works. I think you have a process of propaganda, of ideology, of subverting one's own conscience that's going on on a very large scale, and certainly it is to the benefit of those at the very top of the pyramid, to put it mildly. But I think that process is so overwhelming, whether it be the Cold War, or the war on terror, which is the war of terror, it's so overwhelming that when someone comes along and says, I'm the president of the United States, and I'm going to turn toward peace,' then you've got a consensus decision. Intolerable. This guy goes. And I don't think it's a question of somebody having to mastermind a plot; Fletcher Prouty describes the process wherein Allen Dulles is putting people in all these key positions year after year after year, whether it's Secret Service or the White HouseMcGeorge Bundy for that matter is on record for having been working for the CIA when he was a dean at Harvardso this isn't very mysterious. When it comes time to stop all of this, they're all working together. It's a consensus decision. And for those at lower levels, it's just overwhelming.
Here's Douglass stating the prime reason it still matters: The American Commission for Truth and Reconcilliation begins here:
But if you don't deal with the origin of thisnot the only origin but certainly a key one, which is the assassination of a peace-making president by his own national security state, done with impunityif that's not an origin of subsequent problems, I don't know what is.
To which I append a modest proposal that a strategy of tension cannot tolerate peace and peacemakers. Lincoln, Kennedy--and loose the dogs of war. None of this bind up the wounds, no part of we are all mortal.