13-08-2013, 04:42 PM
Ok another very amateur analysis by me. Looking forward to you guys pointing out my errors so i can learn.
Jim DiEugenio ( i love his work ) was nice enough to read my letter on Black Op Radio a few months back. I wrote that his previous BOR interview on Clay Shaws connection to International House and the free trade advocates showed why the Kennedy assassination mattered.
Globalization and free trade have really destroyed the american economy and Kennedys anti colonization and pro middle class beliefs were in direct opposition to the goals of the free traders. If Kennedy had lived maybe globalization would have been subdued.
Could the free traders have been the real sponsors ? Could they have used the pro Vietnam people in the military as a sort of false sponsor. Actually the military would not really be a false sponsor because they had a motive too which makes them an ideal false sponsor.
The 1% actually had more to gain in terms of monetary reward than the military. The military industrial complex made money off Vietnam for 10 years. The 1% has been raking in the benefits of defeating Kennedys pro middle class beliefs for 50 years.
Aren't the rich and not the military the ones that are really in control ? Didn't Smedley Butler say he was a tool of Wall Street ?
If you watch the second hour of "Evidence of Revision" on Youtube it starts with a lot of clips from Kennedys speeches and you hear him continually going to bat for the middle class and poor. He even at one point advocates for a national minimum income which blew me away when i first heard it.
Any politician that said that today would be branded a communist yet there was the number one politician in the country saying it. I feel a great loss because of the assassination but when i heard Kennedy make a plea for a national minimum income my heart really sank over losing him. Kennedy was becoming an economic radical in office. He offered a chance at a much more equal society than we have ever seen.
Well Im getting a bit depressed now just thinking about what might have been so I'll end.
OK guys tear this post to shreds. I'm sure i am making lots of mistakes and I need to find the holes in my argument.
( Note - I understand that Donald Gibson did a lot of the ground breaking work on the one percents connection to the assassination. My poor financial position does not allow me to buy his book or many other books i would like to get hold of )
Jim DiEugenio ( i love his work ) was nice enough to read my letter on Black Op Radio a few months back. I wrote that his previous BOR interview on Clay Shaws connection to International House and the free trade advocates showed why the Kennedy assassination mattered.
Globalization and free trade have really destroyed the american economy and Kennedys anti colonization and pro middle class beliefs were in direct opposition to the goals of the free traders. If Kennedy had lived maybe globalization would have been subdued.
Could the free traders have been the real sponsors ? Could they have used the pro Vietnam people in the military as a sort of false sponsor. Actually the military would not really be a false sponsor because they had a motive too which makes them an ideal false sponsor.
The 1% actually had more to gain in terms of monetary reward than the military. The military industrial complex made money off Vietnam for 10 years. The 1% has been raking in the benefits of defeating Kennedys pro middle class beliefs for 50 years.
Aren't the rich and not the military the ones that are really in control ? Didn't Smedley Butler say he was a tool of Wall Street ?
If you watch the second hour of "Evidence of Revision" on Youtube it starts with a lot of clips from Kennedys speeches and you hear him continually going to bat for the middle class and poor. He even at one point advocates for a national minimum income which blew me away when i first heard it.
Any politician that said that today would be branded a communist yet there was the number one politician in the country saying it. I feel a great loss because of the assassination but when i heard Kennedy make a plea for a national minimum income my heart really sank over losing him. Kennedy was becoming an economic radical in office. He offered a chance at a much more equal society than we have ever seen.
Well Im getting a bit depressed now just thinking about what might have been so I'll end.
OK guys tear this post to shreds. I'm sure i am making lots of mistakes and I need to find the holes in my argument.
( Note - I understand that Donald Gibson did a lot of the ground breaking work on the one percents connection to the assassination. My poor financial position does not allow me to buy his book or many other books i would like to get hold of )
