JFK: What we know now that we didn't know then

[James H. Fetzer]

Charles,

You persist in embarrassing and discrediting yourself. So be it! My mention of the two books, as I have explained many times on the air and elsewhere, is because Douglass explains how JFK had antagonized the most powerful special interest groups in the country and Nelson's explains what they did about it--which revolved around the unique character and personality of his Vice President, where, as Jack Ruby observed, if someone else had occupied that officer, the assassination would never have occurred. I doubt that I have ever encountered a more block-headed and aggressive response to the use of a single word than has been emanating from your pen since I first spoke up for Phil's brilliant work. I can only report my dismay someone whom I have admired in the past should have committed himself to the denigration of a book that (I remain convinced) he has never read. In the past I mistook you for a serious student of the assassination, but you have long since disabused me of that belief. The evidence is on my side, rhetoric alone on yours. I really cannot believe that you are continuing with this charade of pretense that you know what you are talking about when you haven't read the relevant books or interacted with the players who knew him "up close and personal". This has been a stunning revelation about someone I used to admire. This is sad.

Jim

Charles,

I know where you are coming from, given our past exchanges, but what in the world do you mean by "arguments from authority" as you use it here?

The best Jim Fetzer can do in defense of the indefensible Nelson is to make arguments from authority. It saddens me beyond measure to note that, because of the myriad frailties he exhibits throughout this sordid Nelson affair, it is now clear that Jim Fetzer's authority has been consumed by the fires of his own ego and enfeeblement.

You know I HAVE read the books that you take glee in acknowledging you have NOT read. Which means that the evidence I have available to assess the situation is far more extensive than yours. In that sense, yes, I have greater epistemic authority than do you, where I find it embarrassing that you go on and on about all this WITHOUT BOTHERING TO READ THEIR BOOKS.

History repeats itself.

Backed into a corner, you now call me a liar.

Of course you're wrong. And you know it.

So it goes, so it goes.

[Jan Klimkowski]

The punchlines of two excellent posts from Adele and Phil:

From my father I learned to analyze political events in terms of their economic underpinnings, as for example, looking at the rise of fascirm in the three European countries I mentioned earlier, as well as the fascist plot by Wall Street bankers, financiers, and industrialists in 1933-1934. This class of people in the United States were the same types of people who placed dictators into power in Italy, Spain, and Germany. Along with Japan these became the Axis Powers of World II. And we also have to remember that through international cartels and other connections, Wall Street of America helped Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco rise to power. The definition of Fascism is the Corporate State.

It made perfectly good sense to me to think of the assassination of John Kennedy as a political-economic crime. For that reason, I would not consider someone like Lyndon Johnson, Kennedy's Vice President, as his murderer.

Regimes fall, heads of state are murdered, not because of Landslide Lyndon but because of the Sword and Shield of the National Security State.

The temporary occupants of the various posts are terra-cotta warriors not masterminds.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3331[/ATTACH]

What is the Texan equivalent of a terracotta figurehead?

A concrete blockhead?

[James H. Fetzer]

That's your word, Charles, not mine. It may fit. You would know. Someone with your dispositions is not going to bother to read Phil Nelson's book or listen to his interviews with me because his (your) mind is already made up. I can see it and I am sure everyone else here can see it. So stop indulging in straw men and other fallacies and admit that you have no business engaging in this exchange because you not only have not read Phil's book but Madeleine's, Billy Sol's, or Barr McClellen's as well. You have admitted as much already. That you are trying to bluster and bully your way around the block is not impressing me or anyone else, I imagine. The idea that you have "boxed me in" is incredible beyond belief and shows the extreme degree of unreality about your role in this exchange. I am sorry, Charles, but I am quite certain I am not the only one who is appalled by your performance in this case.

Charles,

I know where you are coming from, given our past exchanges, but what in the world do you mean by "arguments from authority" as you use it here?

The best Jim Fetzer can do in defense of the indefensible Nelson is to make arguments from authority. It saddens me beyond measure to note that, because of the myriad frailties he exhibits throughout this sordid Nelson affair, it is now clear that Jim Fetzer's authority has been consumed by the fires of his own ego and enfeeblement.

You know I HAVE read the books that you take glee in acknowledging you have NOT read. Which means that the evidence I have available to assess the situation is far more extensive than yours. In that sense, yes, I have greater epistemic authority than do you, where I find it embarrassing that you go on and on about all this WITHOUT BOTHERING TO READ THEIR BOOKS.

History repeats itself.

Backed into a corner, you now call me a liar.

Of course you're wrong. And you know it.

So it goes, so it goes.

[James H. Fetzer]

That's right, Jan. He wasn't killed by any actual persons. He was killed by an abstraction, "The National Security State"! How dumb is that?

The punchlines of two excellent posts from Adele and Phil:

From my father I learned to analyze political events in terms of their economic underpinnings, as for example, looking at the rise of fascirm in the three European countries I mentioned earlier, as well as the fascist plot by Wall Street bankers, financiers, and industrialists in 1933-1934. This class of people in the United States were the same types of people who placed dictators into power in Italy, Spain, and Germany. Along with Japan these became the Axis Powers of World II. And we also have to remember that through international cartels and other connections, Wall Street of America helped Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco rise to power. The definition of Fascism is the Corporate State.

It made perfectly good sense to me to think of the assassination of John Kennedy as a political-economic crime. For that reason, I would not consider someone like Lyndon Johnson, Kennedy's Vice President, as his murderer.

Regimes fall, heads of state are murdered, not because of Landslide Lyndon but because of the Sword and Shield of the National Security State.

The temporary occupants of the various posts are terra-cotta warriors not masterminds.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3331[/ATTACH]

What is the Texan equivalent of a terracotta figurehead?

A concrete blockhead?

[Jan Klimkowski]

That's right, Jan. He wasn't killed by any actual persons. He was killed by an abstraction, "The National Security State"! How dumb is that?

Fine, Jim.

You carry on putting words into other people's mouths, whilst peddling the LBJ Mastermind Lie.

[Ed Jewett]

I'll tend to lean toward the concepts addressed by Klimkowski on the basis of my understanding of the formation and timing of the creation of the national security state, the role of Harry S Truman, the subtle and covert influences of some on that process, and the terra cotta warriors who came to occupy it. These folks are well-described in detail with footnotes [much of which has already been posted here].

****

As posted in my blog last night:

I think we are rapidly moving toward a GRAND UNIFIED THEORY OF CONSPIRACIES.


They know it.



Also in that blog:

See if you or others can pass this quiz:

1. What is the difference between news and war propaganda?
   
2. Are the world's central banks a part of sovereign governments?
   
3. What is the difference between "fascism" and government subsidies?
   
4. Define difference between democracy and representative Republic?
   
5. What is meant by "dialectic" or the left/right dialectic?
   
6. Why have a constitution? What is/was its purpose?
   
7. How is political consistency defined? Is it important?
   
8. Is there a connecting thread between history of wars?
   
9. Would history of wars rank higher than celebrity titillation stories? What determines the rankings?
   
10. Did you learn in your schooling that the assassination of an obscure personage in Serbia was the cause of WW1?
    
11. At any time were you taught or encouraged to doubt that "famous version of history"? What makes WW1 important today? If it isn't, How so?
    
12. Did your schooling teach you to think critically about these things? How so?
    
13. Would you rather have multiple choice answers?
    
14. What is the history and significance of the City of London?
    
15. How did "capitalism get started?
    
16. Is racism a bad thing? Is discrimination a bad thing?
    
17. Why is it not bad for Israel's government to practice both?
    
18. Why is national sovereignty a bad thing? If yes, Since when?
    
19. Do powerful secret societies exist? If no, then who did this thing to the world? Evolution? What is the meaning of Conspiracy?
    
20. Why is it forever only a theory?
    

Did you give or take this little test? How did you do? How did the "other" do? Answers follow, subjective of course:

1. Today there is no difference between war propaganda and news, That only happened in Nazi Germany.
   
2. No, "Central" banks are part of global government buyers, but that is okay, or kosher as they say.
   
3. According to public and privatized schools fascism only occurred in Italy and Germany in the 1930s. Subsidies, or crony capitalism is not nasty fascism, even tho it is exactly that.
   
4. Democracy is mob or majority rule; representative republic is legislation by elected people who are honest and smart enough to make just law for all, regardless of majority screamers.
   
5. Some smart German political philosopher named Hegel figured that by splitting the mob into two opposed camps, the money at the top can dominate real issues by getting the two factions to be more loyal to their faction platforms than to truth.
   
6. A Constitution limits or restricts government.
   
7. Political consistency must be believing one's own rhetoric, fancy word for bullshit, so long as it seems to please the paymaster atop Hegel's dialectic.
   
8. Only if one looks for it. People are unevolved with animal tendencies so wars are simply inevitable.
   
9. Celebrity pabulum is the life-blood of commercial media, and always trumps difficult topics like what and who is enslaving us.
   
10. No, of course not, What was WW1? You know, that was like. forever ago, man.
    
11. What is Serbia, what do you mean obscure? Didn't they make a movie?
    
12. Number 10 and 11 were answered by teachers not students.
    
13. You make it too hard by asking us to explain.
    
14. We don't know.
    
15. You betcha!
    
16. Didn't the Beatles come from there?
    
17. People were paid money for labor, and put it in the banks.
    
18. They are both awful.
    
19. Israel got a pass from God.
    
20. Since a sovereign government has the power to stamp down private banks.
    
21. Surely it evolved. Would God do such a thing?
    
22. Science says theories are only theorems, not proof.
    

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/12/02/...dia-people

[Adele Edisen]

For everyone:

Lengthy interview of Madeleine Duncan Brown by Robert Gaylon Ross, Sr., released by Prison Planet, Inc.

It is one hour, 21 minutes, and 25 seconds long. An 80-minute version was played on the JFKresearch Forum several years ago, and in that video the
interviewer asks for a verbatim account of the words used by LBJ. I took notes for myself

Pay close attention to her versions of what Lyndon was supposed to have said when the interviewer asks for an account, and as in the 80-minute video,
then in another instance, for "his exact words". How many versions would LBJ have given to her of "After tomorrow,________ will never embarrass me again.
That's not a threat, that's a promise." In the 80-minute video I counted three different versions to fill in the blank space:

1. that Irish Mafia
2. those S.O.B.s
3. the Kennedys


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POmdd6HQsus

Adele Edisen

[Charles Drago]

the LBJ Mastermind Lie.

Precisely.

[Ed Jewett]

...on the basis of my understanding of the formation and timing of the creation of the national security state, the role of Harry S Truman, the subtle and covert influences of some on that process, and the terra cotta warriors who came to occupy it. These folks are well-described in detail with footnotes [much of which has already been posted here].

And here:

http://www.foia.cia.gov/cgi.asp
Creating Global Spying
Discover the back story of the US intelligence community by exploring "Creating Global Intelligence: The Creation of the US Intelligence Community and Lessons for the 21st Century", a collection of declassified documents from the late 1940s to the early 1950s that ultimately led to the establishment of the CIA. This 800+ collection allows history to come to life as well as giving perspectives on the complex issues that senior US Government officials grappled with when considering how to establish an enduring national intelligence capability.

http://cryptome.org/ [Magda, you'll appreciate the pic right above this story there...]

[James H. Fetzer]

The point is that phrases like "the national security state" or "the corporate/fasist/police state" describe arrangements or policies that may apply to groups or political entities collectively but do not designate any actual specific persons who could have taken the actual steps that had to be taken to kill JFK, such as forcing himself on the ticket, schmoozing with the Secret Service, collaborating with J. Edgar, sending his chief administrative assistant, Cliff Carter, down to Dallas to make sure the arrangements for the assassination were in place, deploying Malcolm "Mac" Wallace to the plaza to fire shots--all of which I have concluded were done by Lyndon Baines Johnson in furtherance of the plot to murder John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Many here seem to want to adopt a structural analysis of the crime, but abstractions do not actually commit them. People do. That's all. I was not putting words in anyone's mouth--but you, like your mentor, seem disposed to use the word "lie", where there is no foundation, warrant, or justification for doing so. I came here expecting a higher level of intellectual engagement than at The Education Forum. That, I am learning, however, was too much to ask. The shallow treatment of the LBJ thesis displayed here reveals that that expectation was far too much to ask. I really think we need to ask, "Why was 'The Deep Politics' forum created?" One of the reasons I have been told is to avoid the petty badgering and ad hominem attacks that occur there. But take a look at recent posts here. Charles uses sarcasm and ridicule more than logic and evidence. Seamus Coogan is a poster boy for bad behavior. Why is this being allowed? This is very, very sad.

That's right, Jan. He wasn't killed by any actual persons. He was killed by an abstraction, "The National Security State"! How dumb is that?

Fine, Jim.

You carry on putting words into other people's mouths, whilst peddling the LBJ Mastermind Lie.