JFK at 100: The War on Our Heroes Part 2

by Kit

In the first half of this article, published on JFK’s centenary, I discussed the general degradation of the intellectual and moral character of figurehead politicians, the concomitant societal decay, and whether or not this is a deliberate policy or a by-product of promoting sociopaths above their ability to function.
In this half we will re-examine the death of JFK, not just as a simple assassination, but as an act of psychic-warfare on the general populace, and explore the long-lasting effect on the American psyche.

A Nation of Hamlets

We’ve all become Hamlets in our country, children of a slain father-leader whose killers still possess the throne. The ghost of John F. Kennedy confronts us with the secret murder at the heart of the American Dream.”Jim Garrison – JFK

The death of Kennedy is a story that won’t go away, a splinter at the back of the American mind. Driving them mad. If a country can be compared to an individual, then a fallen king can be a dead parent. A father lost before his time. An adolescent trauma, rotting and unconfronted and repressed. Informing every moment, every decision.
The JFK obsession has been dismissed by some as nothing more than a cult of personality, a trite fetishising of the too-soon-departed, equivalent to the worship of Jim Morrison or Marilyn Monroe. But I see it as going deeper than that, somewhere behind the glitz and glamour of “Camelot” there was something more substantial. An idea. “And ideas are bullet proof”.
That, perhaps, explains the cultural push back against both investigation of the Kennedy assassination, and praise of his presidency. The man was killed over five decades ago, but the political establishment still feel the need to assassinate him. Over and over again.
He is portrayed as naive and arrogant for ignoring “experts” and getting involved in Vietnam. A spoilt rich kid whose father bought the election. A womanizing drug addict.
In this Guardian article, for example, published earlier this year to mark the centenary, the author makes reference to Kennedy’s extra-marital affairs, and criticises him for his “secret medical conditions” as if they are somehow relevent to his politics. The final two paragraphs are then given over to Kissinger’s biographer who proceeds to compare Kennedy, unfavourably, to Donald Trump:

The realities of the Kennedy White House are so extraordinarily scuzzy that Trump is a kind of saintly figure by contrast.”

For years now, from both sides of the right-left paradigm, there has been a steady effort to “fight back” against the “sanctified” picture of JFK. That particular charge has been led by Noam Chomsky, who is keen to paint JFK as just another politician. “Worse than Obama”, he says in this interview.
It’s obviously true that the election of Kennedy didn’t instantly and completely halt any and all military and covert operations, the world didn’t become a Coca Cola advert on January 20th 1961. But to lay that at the feet of the new President, when he was in the process of taking control of a highly secretive framework of machinery designed to promote war and chaos, and compartmentalise information, is disingenuous at best.
Yes, the Bay of Pigs invasion was a disaster – one that Kennedy is routinely blamed for – but that was planned under Eisenhower (even Chomsky admits that). Kennedy’s reticence to turn it into a full-scale war – which the military repeatedly pressured him to do – led to him being labeled “soft on communism”. He beheaded the CIA afterwards, forcing the resignation of Allen Dulles and several others.
And yes, the irresponsible and provocative placing of Jupiter missiles in Turkey led to the Cuban Missile Crisis – but it was Kennedy’s readiness to make a deal that prevented a near-miss from blooming into a mushroom cloud. One wonders how many modern presidents would have resolved that situation peacefully.
And, finally, yes, his administration carried on the Eisenhower era policies of arming the south Vietnamese – but Kennedy was committed to ending that support and to pulling out of Vietnam. This is an established fact. But for his assassination, there would have been no Vietnam war.
As an argument, the idea that Kennedy was nothing more than a proto-Obama, a smiling salesman in an expensive suit, would perhaps carry more weight if he hadn’t been murdered in public. Generally speaking, you don’t need to execute mascots and frontmen.
We are being asked to live in an insane world – one where we are expected to believe that the most influential act of political murder of the last 100 years happened for no reason at all. Kennedy wasn’t important. Kennedy didn’t stand for anything. Kennedy died for no reason.
The massive divergence between the established, allowable consensus and genuine weight of public opinion has driven a wedge into the American psyche. The Jungian collective mind is schizophrenic in America, driven insane by mass-cognitive dissonance. Every poll of the American people ever done on this topic, dating back to November 29th 1963, only a week after the shooting, has shown a clear majority believe in a conspiracy to kill their president. Public support for the “Lone Gunmen” theory has never surveyed at better than 30%.
Less than one in three people have ever believed the official narrative, but is that reality reflected in the media? Never. Films and documentaries and TV productions (with one noteworthy exception) routinely portray the assassination in the absurd terms laid down by the Warren commission. Attempting to undermine, straw-man or completely ignore any other interpretations.
Whether you view the President as the father of the nation, or the concept of democracy as the father of America, the US citizenry are reduced to a nation of Hamlets. Forced to watch their father die and his killer usurp the power that should, by right, be passed to them.
Cursed with the certain knowledge that their country is poisoned, their society sick. They try to pursue the truth, but are told by every voice they consider authority…that they are mad. To let it go.
Our heroes are stamped out before our eyes, and their ghosts cry out for justice we cannot provide. We want to act, but are deprived of the kind leadership that can coalesce angry people into a movement with direction and purpose. The media muddy the water and sow discord, whilst any voice that tries to rise above the din of distraction, to make us whole and just, is shut out. Locked up. Gunned down.

Of All Sad Words…

Here we are. Lyndon Johnson, more of the same. Nobody voted for him…It felt for a second like everything was about to change.Pete Campbell – Mad Men

The public execution of John Fitzgerald Kennedy is a watershed moment in the history, not just of America, but the world. Possibly the key moment of the entire 20th century. From that violent wellspring flowed Johnson, Nixon, Reagan and Bush. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.
America, the ideal America described in the constitution, died on November 22nd 1963. It’s important to remember: Things could have been so different.
At its heart, the American system of government is one of the fairest ever devised by man, the US Constitution one of most fair-minded and important pieces of legislation ever drafted. But from its founding as a nation America has been in a near-constant state of internal struggle. In the early days it was Jefferson vs. Hamilton, Democratic-Republicans vs Federalists. The push of central government against the rights of individual states. The idea of a stable cooperative vs the push to nationhood and, inevitably, empire. That same struggle exists in Europe today.
Slowly but surely, over the first two-hundred years of American existence, the ideals of the constitution were knocked back, limited, qualified, in the push for more centralised power and the building of an Empire. States were forced through military might to stay in the Union against their will. It became America’s “manifest destiny” to commit genocide against Native Americans and steal their land.
Over time the American Imperialists fermented into what we call the Deep State. Interconnected family’s of enormous wealth and immeasurable economic influence, given complete monetary control after the founding of the Federal Reserve, and handed the reins of military and political power when Harry Truman signed the order that established the CIA. Truman declared, later in life:

I think [the creation of the CIA] was a mistake. And if I’d known what was going to happen, I never would have done it…Why, they’ve got an organization over there in Virginia now that is practically the equal of the Pentagon in many ways. And I think I’ve told you, one Pentagon is one too many.

In the decade following that order the CIA backed anti-democratic coups in Guatemala, Iran, and the Congo. Resulting in decades of oppression and millions of deaths. It set a pattern that would repeat right up to the present day.
This gluttonous pursuit of wealth and power was only ever held in check by constitutional safe-guards against out-right tyranny. A rivalry personified in the clash between Kennedy’s administration and the giants of the American intelligence community, Allen Dulles and J. Edgar Hoover. Kennedy’s assassination ended that rivalry, and ever since that day the barely controlled Imperialist drive has run rampant.
Consider everything that might have been different if the Kennedy side had won that struggle, if he had made good his alleged threat to “splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces”.
Firstly, and most obviously, there is Vietnam. The war that drove America mad. The prototype for all American “interventions” since, a war started on an absurd lie, fought brutally and inefficiently by a system more interested in selling helicopters than saving lives. From Vietnam flows Cambodia, Laos, Angola, Grenada, Iraq, the Balkans, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq again, Libya and Syria. Five decades of Orwellian, perpetual warfare. Millions of lives destroyed. All started by that first domino, Vietnam.
Outside of overt warfare, there are covert actions. A tamed intelligence service could never have launched military coups in Ecuador, Brazil, Greece, Dominican Republic, Cambodia, Indonesia, Bolivia, Chile and Haiti. Without illegal and punitive sanctions, who knows how countries like Cuba, Venezuela and Libya would have fared.
Who knows what men like Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King would have achieved, if an emboldened and all-powerful intelligence community hadn’t gunned them down before our eyes.
Kennedy was in favour of universal health care along the lines of the NHS, he wanted to abandon the space race and cooperate with the Soviets on a mission to the moon. He pushed for black civil rights and de-segregation and signed into law the Equal Pay Act. He argued for nuclear disarmament and pushed the nuclear testing ban.
We’ll never know exactly what kind of world was taken from us all the day American democracy was destroyed and a coup government installed. It may have been not much better than this one, but how much worse could it be?

An Assault on the Public Mind

Power resides where men believe it resides; it’s a trick, a shadow on the wall, and a very small man can cast a very large shadow.”Varys – Game of Thrones

You will have realised by now that, when I discuss the JFK assassination, I talk about it as a deep-state operation. A conspiracy. To me that is the only rational reading of the evidence, and I have thought so ever since, aged 12, I first watched Oliver Stone’s fantastic film JFK. The evidence all points in one direction, a CIA-sponsored operation using a an intelligence operative as a fall guy, who is then “liquidated” before his trial. To cling to the official story has been insane ever since Arlen Specter proposed the insulting “magic bullet theory”.
Far more interesting, and perhaps important, than the who and how of the case, is the why.
Let’s revisit JFK through the lens of a declining Empire, run entirely by psychopaths. Psychopaths, not just on an individual, but an institutional level. Battling alphabet agencies competing over influence, all placed under threat by Kennedy’s alleged desire to “splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter them to the winds”, can become united in a need to remove said threat, and re-assert their authority.
In that light, the assassination of JFK can be seen as more than the political removal of an inconvenient man. If JFK represented, as he certainly has come to represent since his death, hope for a better society, then what does it say to society at large to blow his brains out in a public square?
There are much easier ways to remove a “difficult” politician than killing him. It’s far better to bring him to heel through pressure, or to buy him with bribes and favours. You can blackmail him with dirt or release the dirt and impeach him, as was done with Clinton. If he doesn’t respond to bribes, and has no dirt to dish, then you can bring pressure on his party to keep him from being nominated, as was done with Henry Wallace in the 1940s. You can fix primaries, as was done with Bernie Sanders only last year.
You can perform “soft coups”, hamstringing an administration with bureaucratic resistance whilst leaking sensitive material to a cooperative media – undermining the authority and credibility of the executive branch until it has no choice but to resign. As they did with Nixon and are attempting to do with Trump. The Falklands War and the Iran hostage situation were both used to secure public support for the “approved” candidates just before and after important elections. The 2000 and 2004 elections were outright fixed.
The deep state has evolved a long list of tactics for controlling who wears the public face of power. Assassinations are at the very bottom of this list. They are hard to do, difficult to cover up, and so damn final. That there is a general institutional reluctance to utilise assassination as a tool, not on moral but pragmatic grounds, is a logical conclusion based on the rarity of political assassinations in general.
Do not forget that JFK was killed in November ’63, he lad less than a year of his first term left. Unseating him in 1964 would have been difficult, but doubtless easier than covering up a CIA-backed assassination for the next 54 years (and counting).
So why was he killed?
You can reason that his removal was a strong reaction, an almost reflexive autonomic rejection, of what the system deemed a strong, and immediate, threat. That he was, through whatever circumstances, immune to threats, unresponsive to pressure and impossible to bribe. That being the case, death becomes the only recourse.
This reasoning might explain the act, but not the method.
Generally speaking, murders aren’t committed in public. If murder becomes a practical solution to a political problem, there are far simpler means to that end than guns. Kennedy could fall down the stairs of the White House. His car could explode. His plane could crash. He was on pain meds for his back, an accidental overdose or “complication” would be easy enough to arrange. There would be dozens of times a week when the president was alone but for his security detail…anything can happen.
You could do whatever you wanted to the man in private, behind closed doors, then make up any story you wanted and beam it out on every channel. A horrible accident. A national tragedy. Now let’s invade Vietnam.
If your goal is simply his death, there’s a massive spectrum of possibilities available to you. Most of them offering a higher degree of secrecy than a rifle, all them requiring a smaller number of personnel.
There’s only one interpretation that fully explains all of this. One that lays open the thought process of the deep-state:
The man must be killed for questioning your authority, but he must also be SEEN to be killed, to reinforce that authority. It can be argued that the assassination was as much a message to the world as anything else. A public execution displays contempt for the victim, and conveys raw power to the witnesses.
Vercingetorix was paraded in chains at Caesar’s Triumph, before his eventual execution. Richard II lay in state after Henry IV had him starved to death. Saddam Hussein’s execution was “leaked” online. Gaddafi publicly raped to death.
Jesus, before his post-mortem PR team ret-conned him into a literal God, was an anti-Imperial rabble-rouser. A political revolutionary nailed to a tree to quieten talk of rebellion.
Power is an ephemeral concept, bestowed by the vast majority on to a tiny minority entirely through the process of belief. The only way to win power is to convince people you already have it. That is most easily done through displays of brutality and the nurturing of public fear. As medieval monarchs would mount heads on spikes, so do our new rulers terrorise us with the public execution of our chosen leaders.
Behold the head of a traitor, flying back and to the left.

Kit Knightly is co-editor of OffGuardian. The Guardian banned him from commenting. Twice. He used to write for fun, but now he's forced to out of a near-permanent sense of outrage.

Filed under: Essays, featured, Kit


Kit Knightly is co-editor of OffGuardian. The Guardian banned him from commenting. Twice. He used to write for fun, but now he's forced to out of a near-permanent sense of outrage.

newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Hugh O’Neill
Hugh O’Neill

God Bless JFK, Kit, Catte and Offguardian. The article is one of the best Assessments I have yet read and neatly summarises the best book yet written on JFK, James Douglass “JFK & The Unspeakable”. Let the naysayers read this book if they dare. The choice is simple: Truth and Understanding vs. Lies and Confusion. Why he died and why it matters.
I hope Offguardian can maintain this higher plane in this year of MLK and RFK anniversaries. Sirhan is still in jail for a murder he didn’t commit. Freeing Sirhan would be an honourable goal and a victory against the Deep State.

Big B
Big B

Kit; Admin; Arrby; Catte: I haven’t got time to write an article – but if Arrby won’t take it on, I’m well up for an alternative POV – because I’ve got more misgivings than Thanksgivings over the myth of Camelot! I accept that there is no editorial policy to do so, but the articles (two back to back) and the comments BTL do give the appearance of promulgating a mythos. Why does this matter? Let me expand …
First of all: let me start ex post facto. Nothing can be taken away from the importance – as a Deep State event – of his assassination. But let us not commit the cardinal sin and expand the reasons for his death (closer to a ritual sacrifice really) into the heroification and mythologisation of the man: the JFK who simply never was.
To build the myth of Kennedy (even subliminally): you also have to further some of the most egregious and dangerous propaganda known to man. Propaganda that has recently been revitalised: and again threatens the very continuance of humanity. Using two of the same examples Kit used …
Vietnam. To encapsulate the complexities of the Vietnam War into a comment is impossible: but here goes. Kennedy did not start the Vietnam War. We know from the Pentagon Papers that America was supporting the French right up until Dien Bien Phu: and continued a covert presence after that. Eisenhower supported the corrupt Diem regime: including cancelling the 1958 elections – which by all accounts Ho Chi Minh would have won by a landslide. Kennedy supported and furthered this inherited Foreign Policy.
[If I were to digress: I could take a massive swipe at the Vatican here. Suffice to say, both Kennedy and Diem were (pro) Catholic.]
The myth of Camelot is partially built on the supposition that JFK was ‘Teshuvah’: ‘turning’ (a ‘repentance’ toward peace) – in defiance of the Deep State – to avoid an all out war in Vietnam. Was he? Or was he trying to avoid an overt war by replacing it with a covert war??? I can’t see the slightest intention that JFK’s policy was for peace: merely that an American war was to be avoided by having a (proxy) South Vietnamese civil war instead. And the 1,500 military that were to stay “for supply purposes”? Who were they to be – Boy Scouts? Let us not be so naïve: we know what a modern ‘train and equip’ mission entails. With the training mission complete; the troops battle ready [???]: how many CIA operatives would be left to “supply”? To “supply” peace: I don’t think so???
And what of the sovereignty of Vietnamese nation state; the autonomy and self-determination of its people; the demonisation of (socialism and) Communism. Is the myth of JFK – the liberal ‘peacenik’ – not contaminated with strains of American exceptionalism; manifest destiny; inherently racist white privilege capitalism; and the Cold War ghost that continues to haunt us today???
Is it realistic to project that JFK would have survived to fight against the goals of Empire: when his life was to fight for them???
The Cuban Missile Crisis: talking of Cold War ghosts … the myth says that JFK stared into the cold psycopathic eyes of the Soviet Beast; stared it down unflinching; and saved the world! Did he? Did he fuck!!! For brevity: JFK precipitated the crisis [as Kit says] and only brought it to an end when he could find a suitable face saving option (to preserve the myth of his charismatic authority?) All the while the JCOS were planning the nuclear option and the invasion of Cuba. It was Krushchev that offered the way out: a missile swap, if you will (when it was the tit-for-tat deployment of missiles that led to the crisis.) Only JFK managed to keep secret the decommissioning of the Jupiter missiles in Turkey (and Italy?): thus maintaining the veneer of a ‘victory’ (for democracy over totalitarianism?) So was it not the cold-hearted Cold War Warrior JFK’s nuclear brinksmanship that nearly precipitated Armageddon with the deployment of the Jupiters in the first place? And barely avoided it by removing them??? [The missiles were long obsolete anyway: having been replaced by Polaris subs.] Who was the real hero: JFK or Krushchev? Or the shuttle diplomacy of U Thant? Or Soviet submariner Vasili Arkhipov? Do they not deserve cults???
[How close we came to the brink was not known until later. Had Arkhipov not countermanded the order to launch a 15 kt nuclear torpedo at the height of the Cuban blockade: we possibly would not be here?]
[[The JFK rhetoric toward nuclear disarmament and Test Ban Treaties has to be evaluated Obama-like against the fact that he ordered the (then) largest peacetime expansion of military (including nuclear) might: to close the (fictitious) ‘missile gap.’]]
I addressed the de-segregation and civil rights issues yesterday. To recap: did JFK push for these – or was he pushed? The de-segregation issue had been building for years (from “Brown v Board of Education”; through Little Rock; to the ‘Freedom Riders’ – who JFK refused to meet; and on) … had JFK acted sooner and more decisively on his inaugural speech promises: could he have avoided the Birmingham riots? Was it not the non-violent direct action of a mobilised ethnic underclass that forced change? Not the crusading JFK? By the time of the “March on Washington for Freedom and Jobs”: were the white privilege overclass not forced to accept (and co-apt) that “those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” [JFK] Was he a crusader: or was he preserving what he could of the status quo class structure (against the very real threat of overthrow by [non] violent revolution)? In answering: bear in mind that it was LBJ (after JFK’s death) that gave what little concessions he (the ruling class structure) could afford. Was he a liberal progressive reformer deserving of a cult? It is called the ‘unfinished’ March for a reason: nearly all of the Civil Rights issues (ghettoisation, etc) remain unresolved to this day. Just how much reform did he allow???
[Let’s not forget that it was RFK that authorised the wiretaps that Hoover took as licence to go full COINTELPRO on MLK: that led to his subsequent assassination.]
This brings me to the psycho-historical aspect. From Marx: the creation of the ‘Great Men’ theory disempowers the individual and undermines the historical dialectic. It is class struggle – not the apotheosis of crusading reformers – that brings about social change. I’m with Chomsky when he says the “worship of leaders is a technique of indoctrination.” It’s a way of masking and preserving the (class) status quo. I would argue that MLK more authentically embodied the zeitgeist of a true class hero: though I would also argue that no cult be built around him. What: it’s too late? Nevermind!
And so much for a “nation of Hamlets”: had the American Dream really been vanquished with JFK – shouldn’t the enlightened response be good riddance???
The paradox that JFK stood against all the things he actually stood FOR: is kinda antithetical???
Finally, there is the psychological aspect. I’ve already mentioned the transference of power from the individual to the fetishised Self of the heroic leader is disempowering. From Becker: the process of heroification is the creation of an ersatz immortality cult – a coping mechanism to deny our own too real mortality. [“O, that this too solid flesh would melt, thaw, and resolve itself into a dew” – perhaps we are all Hamlets after all?] As Kit asks: does the fact that JFK was killed in such a brutal way not require that we imbue his death with meaning? As if to counteract the banality and seeming meaninglessness of our own existence? The fact that people can discern in him; a move away from the entrenched violence of the established power structure – does that not allow people to transfer all their hopes and aspirations (their bulletproof ideas?) for peace into the void created by his death? To transform who he was into who he might have been: to open up the realm of possibility of a different world? Was the real historic JFK a man capable of such a change? Would he have lived up to the expectation???
[Is there a far more prosaic synopsis for his assassination? He pissed off some seriously powerful entities and people? Was this plausibly an intra-class power struggle: whose deadly resolution was staged as a message???]
It seems to me there are two JFK’s: the mortal and the immortalised transubstantiated persona. Other than the misplaced hopes of the haunted “fatherless” nation: is there any reason – based on the real man – to think that the world would have been in any way different had he lived? I think not. That world lives only in the realm of possibility. To make that world tangible: do we not need to take back our power (to transform) and cease tot project it into psychic fantasies that have no basis in reality???
From the Buddha: if we seek immortality and the transcendence of death – the highest state of being is ‘no-self’ (anatma). How do we build a cult on that???
From an iconoclast: kick over the statues – the real power to transform is not without: but within.
Nullius in verba – “on the word of no one.” In other words – you have to see for yourself?
[Huge caveat!!! I wrote this off the top of my head. If there are any historical inaccuracies: please point them out. It is entirely due to ‘senior moment[s] – I have absolutely no intention to distort or misrepresent the facts. That doesn’t necessarily ensure that I can remember them though! ]


Many good points here.
But the trivializing of Jesus into a “rabble-rouser” is a terrible insult to His wisdom and His compassion, both of which are desperately needed in the very world outlined in this article.
Believe, or don’t believe, in Christ – it’s entirely your choice, but there’s enough soullessness in the world without falsifying – or displaying ignorance of – one of the few events in our history which are capable of inspiring utterly selfless compassion for others.


Correct. But there’s a LOT of anti-God, anti-Christian Bible sentiment on the Left. For those of us who are leftwing and Christian, that’s difficult.


Indeed it is difficult sometimes.
We’re dealing with the old assumption that because the most naive and gullible human beings on earth believe whatever they are told, it therefore follows that the highly educated, experienced and wise human beings who have coincidentally come to some of the same conclusions by processes of critical analysis, must, somehow, also be naive and gullible…
But in any case I don’t think one even needs to be religious to read the central story of Christ’s life and be deeply inspired by it.
Among other things, that story crucially raises the issue of whether one should aspire to be an evolved human being, or a brute bent on mere survival.


The Christian Bible explicitly rules out biological evolution. And the fossil record rules it out as well, which is why the scientific community, made up mostly of those who want nothing to do with a God who they want to replace, resorted to ‘punctuated equilibrium’. It’s telling, Isn’t it? The central issue, the driving engine for biological evolution was mutations and long periods of time. And then, just like that, that’s gone – now that it doesn’t work. So yes, You have mutations, but you get this idea that whole new species, a la X Men, can pop up suddenly. What was holy to the scientific community suddenly isn’t. But their difficulty is far from over here. Even with punctuated equlibrium, there’s still a transitional period that’s thousands of years long. And lo and behold, the fossil record still doesn’t reveal it. Darwin said that if there was one thing that would prove fatal to his theory, it would be the failure of the fossil record to back it. If people want to fool themselves into thinking otherwise, with help from evil corporate owned media that every few years carries some story about a missing link or something, they may do so.


This Camelot propaganda is just awful. What a fail for Off Guardian.


Why not critique the content of the article? There are numerous links provide to back up the basic claims being made, so plenty of grounds for discussion.


Because it’s a waste of time. You’re determined to do this. It’s not a one-off for you, Is it? I’ve critiqued before when this crap has surfaced. Few seem interested in dealing with facts and history. As you wish. I’ve assembled a compendium of Camelot myth-debunking material and linked to it. No one seemed interested in that. You ignore me when I critique the Camelot narrative. Then when I don’t bother – because I’ve got the message – you tell me to critique the Camelot propaganda instead of complaining about it. Again:


We are certainly not wedded to a single POV re. JFK. Why not submit an article on the subject.


That was interesting. Thanks!


It is argued that Chomsky’s deterministic commitment to ‘structural’ models of have led him, incredibly, to dismiss outright the evidential arguments made against the Warren commission. To him, the question is “Who cares ?” – i.e. that the personality of the leader is of little or no consequence to the funcitoning of the system.
This is so glaringly wrong, and contradicted by Chomsky’s own writings. Regardless of the intellectual denial that he has had to go through in order to avoid evidential arguments (or even those around the basic principles of justice and accountability), it is undeniable that popular charismatic leaders can and do fundamentally change the structures of power, when circumstance allows. Look at Tony Blair and the Labour Party for instance, and the long recovery. Kruschev and the de-Stalinisation era….
For me, the JFK killing was the first revelation of the ‘parallel structures’ that operate within and around visible political institutions. As the unconscious mind is hidden from us and yet has such influence upon us as individuals, so the ‘deep state’ remains, for the most part, concealed (denied even). The psychological growth of the individual has often been described as a process of conscious revelation of unconscious material. Perhaps the equivalent could be said in regard to the collective aspects of living, but only if we are willing and open to the more discomforting things that lie in there.

Harry Stotle
Harry Stotle

The assassination of JFK proved once and for all that some members of the public are simply too blinkered to deviate from certain illusions no matter how compelling the evidence put before them.
In fact so deep seated is this anxiety that even once trusted public intellectuals like Chomsky find it too difficult to confront the implications of what the evidence is actually telling them.
There is a majestic lecture by Ray Griffin (entitled, ‘Debunking 9/11 Debunking’ – Let’s Get Empirical) in which he explores many of the obstacles that arise once controversial political events are described in terms such as ‘conspiracy theory’.
I strongly agree with Kit that this seminal event especially the official discourse post-shooting was a huge red flag with regard to the modus operandi of the deep state in the years to come.


It is an interesting article, but I am sorry, the American people have had choices they have refused to take up:
1) If authority figures tell you you are mad if you investigate, you have the choice to challenge and throw out their perceived authority. There are 300 million Americans at least, so if 200 million believe in a conspiracy theory, they can choose to reopen Warren, populate a new investigation with their own people (not the Deep State) and publicise every single threat made behind closed doors, naming those who issued it and calling for them to have their careers destroyed….they can do the same for 9/11…….
2) If 200 million Americans want to cooperate with Russians, form a political movement without figureheads: assassinating a movement is harder than assassinating an individual. Tell the Russians why the leadership structure is as it is: they would prefer dealing with 100 peace negotiators than one psychopathic gung ho nuclear armageddon dickhead……
3) If you want to change the political system, do not vote Democrat, do not vote Republican and do not vote for any of the old order, whatever new organisation they may be touting. If there are 200 million Americans who want clean, safe water; reliable cost-effective electricity; gas on demand; and housing designed for those who live in it, not for the profits of those who build it, then a party promoting those things above all else will sweep to power.
I do not know of a single nation that would go to war with America for
imperialistic reasons. There are plenty who now hate Amerca due to being occupied, having been occupied, being under threat of being occupied.
The military need to know they SERVE, they do not lead. The MIC needs to be told, brutally, by the American people that the PEOPLE, not the MIC, decide on military strategy.
Bankers are supposed to be CUSTODIANS OF CAPITAL, not business leaders. They invest in propositions brought to them, they do not impoverish nations for power. They need to be returned to their proper place, the Federal Reserve needs to be nationalised and the mechanisms of banking need to be returned to local roots, with local affiliations, serving local economies.
If Americans want to get America back, they need to stand up and fight for what they think is worth restoring. America was not founded by people sitting on their collective ass and bemoaning their lot. It was founded and developed by people risking all to the sea, seeking a new life in The Free World.
So Americans need to stop being couch potatoes and becoming lippy, mouthy, dynamic, demanding, negotiating, compromising, values-led citizens once again.
They need to re-educate themselves about what being an American OUGHT TO BE, then if enough of them care enough to actually be that, then they have a chance to stop the American Dream turning into a World Nightmare….
Because if they do not, the rest of the world will live without them, cutting them off like a tumour.
And that seems rather a waste of real American energy, energy of folks the rest of the world would be happy to say represents the best of America.
Isn’t it?


It’s just too much hard work and too much of a risk for most Americans to promote accurate and substantive versions of media lies.
And Americans are not alone.
The UK population also ultimately believes whatever some media mogul chooses to feed it, as do most of the Scandinavian and other European nations.
The current plague of immoral political stereotypes running all those countries doesn’t help matters either.


Very interesting article with points I’d never have considered. Thank you.


As Voltaire said about Admiral Byng: “Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres”.

Mark Mason
Mark Mason

Fuck JFK. No one cares.


You don’t belong here.
There are reasoned arguments for continuing to look at this crime in great detail, and of course some people don’t care about anything.
Not caring makes life so easy…
But none of us came into the world with a little tag on our toes saying, “This is going to be easy”.
Not even JFK.


@Mark Mason
It’s not about JFK.
And if this article above had been about the murder of Abraham Lincoln, it wouldn’t be about Lincoln. By the way: Did You know that there are still(!!) files of the Lincoln murder case blocked – and neither researchers or the public are allowed to see them?
Soon we will be reminded of the murder of Robert Kennedy. And then of the murder of Martin Luther King. But the topic then also wound’s be on each special victim.
Instead all this is about our PRESENT and about NOWADAYS!
Please, Mark Mason, go and ask the CIA (You can write to them), why they “care” so much about ‘fucking JFK’ and these old ‘fucking files’!
I mean, THEY “care” – don’t they. And they “care” NOWADAYS, don’t they? Even after having had 25 years time to black out ‘dangerous information’ from the files, to make them ‘fit’ for the public, they panicked totally and rushed to Trump to ask for more time!
And, Mark Mason, there must be a reason TODAY, why CIA & partners didn’t say “Fuck JFK. No one cares”.
Think about it!


Reblogged this on Floating-voter.