Lee Harvey Oswald was not a Castro fan. His pro-Castro stuff is fake stuff. Oswald's assignment was to create anti-Castro sentiment by making it look as if a pro-Castro partisan was attempting to assassinate the US President. He had a poor enough rifle that he couldn't actually harm the President. That wasn't his assignment or his intent. He was anti-Communist, not especially anti-Constitution. He had been a CIA asset. But his assigners weren't telling him the full story. That's how it's done.
Who assigned him this task? Likely the same mega rich oil and war bucks men, mafia dons, CIA assets, former and off duty agents of several kinds (CIA, FBI), and a few on-lines, likely stringing all the way back to J Edgar Hoover (who managed the coverup perfectly--pure genius), who were responsible for actually killing Kennedy, and including GHW Bush, LB Johnson, Gerald Ford, probably Nixon too. It was not an official CIA Finding signed by the Kennedy that led through directly through chain of command to his own murder… But there may be a whole community of partisans of war through the on and off duty ranks, and reaching into the aforementioned parts of society, including secret societies we may not even know about. The ultimate promoters of the need for Cold War and crushing Communism, who have ruled the USA ever since, actually ever since FDR, and overlapping with those who wanted to topple FDR, but asked the wrong muscle to do so.
If there is such a conspiracy, or anything close to it, does it matter who actually fired the fatal shot? Not much now, for all the conspirators bear as much if not more responsibility than the shooter. The greatest responsibility might even be assigned the perpetrators of the coverup. It's the conspiracy or not that is the first big question, then who it involved. And the single bullet theory makes no sense, and there had to be a conspiracy (so Congress itself resolved in the 1970's). Recently I've been looking at the stuff by William Dankebar, who has all the angles, plus, ultimately, for what it's worth, the shooter, James Files.
And should this be seen, then, as an internal coup by insiders? Yes! And there only might have been a change in national history…if Kennedy had lived. That was the problem, Kennedy was growing weaker and weaker on empire, and that couldn't be tolerated. What was needed was someone to keep the Cold War going, full tilt, as it had been since…the day FDR died, and Truman was persuaded to play the Superpower bully his backers wanted (see Oliver Stone's Untold History of the USA).
So really all that we see here is the hope, that Empire would have been rolled back a bit…and maybe a slightly better future built, though Kennedy wasn't having much luck then with his actual future building, and a Republican would probably have won in 1964, so there could only have been a brief springtime for freedom. There's just a glimmer of a hope, say, if Kennedy had survived a shooting…he might have won re-election too. Then there might have been a lot of differences. Kennedy had been expected to be a good Empire man, he campaigned on the phony "missile gap"--always good to call for more guns, he started his assignments from the secret super imperialist Eisenhower, but backed down on Cuba, and now it was appearing he was doing the same on Vietnam, those were two of Eisenhower's most important continuing projects, given uncertainty over Indonesia and elsewhere.
Even the chance of a chance of empire ending, or a temporary erosion, couldn't be tolerated. Plus there were some with axes already being ground. Like the oil men who might have lost the depletion allowance had Kennedy lived. Including H.L. Hunt, who lived near Dallas, who figures in many theories, and certainly the Bush family would have been hit hard by the end of the depletion allowance too, and many other such. Meanwhile, rich oil men who were pacifists, and could have figured it all out, may have been disappearing.
Only in the public imagination was there a rollback during or after Vietnam. The Vietnam War was known to US planners to be unnecessary after Suharto crushed Indonesian leftists. The dominos thusly fortified, Vietnam was a paperweight. But it was personal, Lyndon Johnson didn't want to lose a war on his watch, and Nixon wanted to show Republicans were better. But it was all personal face saving for the '63 coup leaders. The real empire stuff was going on in Chile and other places south of the US border. And in the middle east. That never wavered, and Carter stepped up to the plate funding the mujahadeen in Afghanistan, militarily challenging and ultimately defeating the Soviet Union's efforts there.
So there was no break, and has been no break, in Empire. It goes on under Obama (Obombem), with wars, major military attacks, backing right wing thug take overs (e.g. Ukraine) which assemble themselves into West subservient governments remarkably quickly, and drone bombing multiple generations down to the kids. Imperialists have no reason to complain about Obama, but with a Democratic President, they always do, and often under Republicans too.
Who assigned him this task? Likely the same mega rich oil and war bucks men, mafia dons, CIA assets, former and off duty agents of several kinds (CIA, FBI), and a few on-lines, likely stringing all the way back to J Edgar Hoover (who managed the coverup perfectly--pure genius), who were responsible for actually killing Kennedy, and including GHW Bush, LB Johnson, Gerald Ford, probably Nixon too. It was not an official CIA Finding signed by the Kennedy that led through directly through chain of command to his own murder… But there may be a whole community of partisans of war through the on and off duty ranks, and reaching into the aforementioned parts of society, including secret societies we may not even know about. The ultimate promoters of the need for Cold War and crushing Communism, who have ruled the USA ever since, actually ever since FDR, and overlapping with those who wanted to topple FDR, but asked the wrong muscle to do so.
If there is such a conspiracy, or anything close to it, does it matter who actually fired the fatal shot? Not much now, for all the conspirators bear as much if not more responsibility than the shooter. The greatest responsibility might even be assigned the perpetrators of the coverup. It's the conspiracy or not that is the first big question, then who it involved. And the single bullet theory makes no sense, and there had to be a conspiracy (so Congress itself resolved in the 1970's). Recently I've been looking at the stuff by William Dankebar, who has all the angles, plus, ultimately, for what it's worth, the shooter, James Files.
And should this be seen, then, as an internal coup by insiders? Yes! And there only might have been a change in national history…if Kennedy had lived. That was the problem, Kennedy was growing weaker and weaker on empire, and that couldn't be tolerated. What was needed was someone to keep the Cold War going, full tilt, as it had been since…the day FDR died, and Truman was persuaded to play the Superpower bully his backers wanted (see Oliver Stone's Untold History of the USA).
So really all that we see here is the hope, that Empire would have been rolled back a bit…and maybe a slightly better future built, though Kennedy wasn't having much luck then with his actual future building, and a Republican would probably have won in 1964, so there could only have been a brief springtime for freedom. There's just a glimmer of a hope, say, if Kennedy had survived a shooting…he might have won re-election too. Then there might have been a lot of differences. Kennedy had been expected to be a good Empire man, he campaigned on the phony "missile gap"--always good to call for more guns, he started his assignments from the secret super imperialist Eisenhower, but backed down on Cuba, and now it was appearing he was doing the same on Vietnam, those were two of Eisenhower's most important continuing projects, given uncertainty over Indonesia and elsewhere.
Even the chance of a chance of empire ending, or a temporary erosion, couldn't be tolerated. Plus there were some with axes already being ground. Like the oil men who might have lost the depletion allowance had Kennedy lived. Including H.L. Hunt, who lived near Dallas, who figures in many theories, and certainly the Bush family would have been hit hard by the end of the depletion allowance too, and many other such. Meanwhile, rich oil men who were pacifists, and could have figured it all out, may have been disappearing.
Only in the public imagination was there a rollback during or after Vietnam. The Vietnam War was known to US planners to be unnecessary after Suharto crushed Indonesian leftists. The dominos thusly fortified, Vietnam was a paperweight. But it was personal, Lyndon Johnson didn't want to lose a war on his watch, and Nixon wanted to show Republicans were better. But it was all personal face saving for the '63 coup leaders. The real empire stuff was going on in Chile and other places south of the US border. And in the middle east. That never wavered, and Carter stepped up to the plate funding the mujahadeen in Afghanistan, militarily challenging and ultimately defeating the Soviet Union's efforts there.
So there was no break, and has been no break, in Empire. It goes on under Obama (Obombem), with wars, major military attacks, backing right wing thug take overs (e.g. Ukraine) which assemble themselves into West subservient governments remarkably quickly, and drone bombing multiple generations down to the kids. Imperialists have no reason to complain about Obama, but with a Democratic President, they always do, and often under Republicans too.
No comments:
Post a Comment