Thursday, November 21, 2013

…MEANWHILE, BACK AT THE INSTITUTE FOR RELIGIOUS WORKS (THAT’S THE VATICAN BANK)…



…Meanwhile, as the Philippines are descending into engineered weather chaos, Angela Merkel contemplates sending her phone bill to the NSA, Russia contemplates colonizing asteroids, the new Pope, Francis I, it seems is busy pissing off Mafia capos in Italy:
Pope Francis’ anti-corruption stance agitating mafia – prosecutor
Now, consider the irony here: Russia Today is reporting on the papal stance against corruption in the Vatican. But note carefully the real center of Francis I’s anti-corruption drive:
“State prosecutor Nicola Gratteri – who works in the southern Italian region of Calabria, where the ‘Ndrangheta mafia is active – told the Italian daily Fatto Quotidiano that Francis’ statements on transparency and dismantling economic power in the Vatican are making mobsters ‘nervous and agitated.’

Francis has supported reform at the Vatican’s bank, which has long been suspected of having helped the mob launder money. In October, the Pope replaced Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, who had been brought down by allegations of ties to corrupt Italian politics and the Vatican’s financial scandals.
“’The mafia that invests, that launders money, that therefore has the real power, is the mafia which has got rich for years from its connivance with the church,’ said Gratteri. ‘These are the people who are getting nervous.’
“’There is no affiliation rite that does not evoke religion. ‘Ndrangheta and the church walk hand in hand,’ he said.”
Now note what we have: (1) A pope attempting to clean out the “corruption” in the Vatican, (2) centering on the Vatican bank which has (3) been used to launder Mafia money.
I submit what we have here is a much much bigger story than the Russia Today piece is letting on, and I submit that Russia Today knows it is much bigger.  I have been maintaining in various radio interviews that the election of Francis I – Jorge Maria Cardinal Bergoglio of Argentina – marked a turning point within Vatican power politics, that he constitutes a recognition among the cardinal electors of the papal church that the center of power of catholicism has shifted irrevocably away from Europe and to the Second and Third Worlds. In this shift, the papacy has to reckon with the fact that there is one very obvious toe-hold the western financial oligarchy has within the Vatican: the Vatican Bank, or the Institute of Religious Works. For any papal pivot to the Second World or Third World, or more importantly, any full rapprochement with the Eastern Church from which the papacy estranged itself centuries ago, means that this toe-hold with have to be cleaned out and removed.
Here a little history is in order. The Vatican Bank, if the late Fr. Malachi Martin is to be believed, was established in the wake of the collapse of the papal states under Pope Pius IX (Giovanni-Maria Cardinal Mastai-Ferreti) in the 19th century. According to Fr. Martin, the Vatican of Pope Leo XIII entered into a “bargain” with “the high masonic powers of Europe” to allow it entry into the world of high finance, and thus was the Vatican bank born, already entangled in compromising alliances and relationships with institutions the papacy was nominally or ostensibly against. The concordat with Mussolini’s Italy, which began the modern-era diplomatic recognition of the tiny city-state as a sovereign nation, also gave the Vatican 90,000,000 gold lire as a kind of reparation for the dispossession of the papal states in the 19th century during Garibaldi’s unification of Italy under the house of Savoy. These monies became the seed money that began the modern era of Vatican investing.
With World War Two, and the use of mafia contacts by American intelligence, and the post-war Cold war and the Communist scare of the 1948 Italian elections, the Vatican bank became a key nexus for the laundering of money both from the Mafia and from western – and particularly American – intelligence. So always, behind the article’s reference to “Mafia” one should also understand that, given the deep ties of various western intelligence agencies to international organized crime, laundering money for the Mafia also means, often and simultaneously, laundering money for various intelligence services and activities.
In short, the Vatican bank is a beehive of activity for First World Corruption, and the principal obstacle to any papal pivot toward the new centers of catholic power in the Second and Third Worlds. Thus the unwritten story in this article is that Francis is taking aim, not just at the Mafia, but also at one of the key focal points for laundering money for covert operations of a variety of different sources.  The Vatican bank cannot thus be offered as a trustworthy alternative to the western financial oligarchs nor as a bridge to the BRICSA nations without a “house cleaning,” and additionally, some of the western oligarchs are insisting on cleaning it out.
Thus there is a high stakes geopolitical and financial game swirling around the Vatican, and it has much to do not only with the papal pivot out of Europe, but also with the emerging financial game between the West and the BRICSA nations. That pivot represents as much a break in the old church-Mafia alliance as it does a fissure in the old church-western intelligence agencies alliance… Cardinal Mindzenty is long dead and so is the Cold War that spawned him; similarly Michele Sindona is  long dead and Licio Gelli is very old, symbolizing the coming deaths of old relationships between the Vatican, Masonry, and the Mafia. The papcy must reform and clean up its act if it is to survive the pivot, and that means cleaning up not just the pedophilia scandals, but the much deeper corrupt compromises that spawned it.
Thus, for the Mafia complaints (or anyone else’s complaints) about Pope Francis, given the historical perspective I’ve outlined above, it should be clear that the usual “wet methods” of dealing with errant “clients” won’t work here. Eliminate Francis and another cardinal representative of the same views will be chosen. The selection of  Francis was careful and deliberate, as much a message to the First World as to anyone else… and Mafia capos won’t be able to change that by the usual methods. If they try, I have one word for them:
Canossa.

Read more: ...MEANWHILE, BACK AT THE INSTITUTE FOR RELIGIOUS WORKS (THAT'S THE VATICAN BANK)... - Giza Death Star Community

» Bin Laden’s Obituary Notice

well looky,looky .hummmmmmmmmmm ???        

» Bin Laden’s Obituary Notice


A Funeral Notice for Osama bin Laden was published on December 26, 2001, in the Egyptian newspaper al-Ward. An English translation is provided below. Anyone fluent in Arabic is invited to verify or correct the translation. This item was sent to me from a reader abroad.

Also below are is a CNN interview with its medical correspondent who examines the last non-faked video of bin Laden and concludes that bin Laden is seriously ill.

There is also below a 2002 report that Israeli intelligence has concluded that bin Laden is dead.

I cannot attest to the correctness of any of these reports, but it is unclear why there would be so much disinformation from such varied sources about bin Laden’s condition or what purpose is served.

You can use this information to evaluate the Obama regime’s unsubstantiated claim that Navy SEALs killed bin Laden in Pakistan a decade later.

Try to identify a single event that the US government has not lied about. Weapons of mass destruction? Iranian nukes? Assad’s chemical attack? Spying on Americans? 9/11? The assassination of President John F. Kennedy? The unemployment rate?


Osama Bin Laden is dead since December 26, 2001. Translation of Funeral Article in Egyptian Paper 


Osama Bin Laden is dead since December 26, 2001. Translation of Funeral Article in Egyptian Paper al-Wafd

The original article:


pastedGraphic_1_01

Translation of Funeral Article in Egyptian Paper:


al-Wafd, Wednesday, December 26, 2001 Vol 15 No 4633
News of Bin Laden’s Death and Funeral 10 days ago
Islamabad -

A prominent official in the Afghan Taleban movement announced yesterday the death of Osama bin Laden, the chief of al-Qa’da organization, stating that binLaden suffered serious complications in the lungs and died a natural and quiet death.

The official, who asked to remain anonymous, stated to The Observer of Pakistan that he had himself attended the funeral of bin Laden and saw his face prior to burial in Tora Bora 10 days ago. He mentioned that 30 of al-Qa’da fighters attended the burial as well as members of his family and some friends from the Taleban.

In the farewell ceremony to his final rest guns were fired in the air. The official stated that it is difficult to pinpoint the burial location of bin Laden because according to the Wahhabi tradition no mark is left by the grave. He stressed that it is unlikely that the American forces would ever uncover any traces of bin Laden.


Dr. Sanjay Gupta: Bin Laden would need help if on dialysis


(CNN) 1-21-02

--Speculation about the whereabouts and
health of Osama bin Laden picked up over
the weekend when Pakistan's president, Gen.
Pervez Musharraf, said he thought bin Laden
had likely died of kidney failure.

CNN medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta
spoke Monday with CNN's Paula Zahn about bin
Laden's appearance in recently released
videotapes and the possibility that the accused
terrorist leader was undergoing kidney treatment.

ZAHN: For a point of reference, I'd like for you
to analyze pictures of Osama bin Laden that
apparently were taken prior to September 11.

Describe to us the color and the tone of his skin,
and then I want you to contrast that with pictures
we know to have been taken much later.

GUPTA: You can look [at pictures from a
December 2001 video] and notice that he has
what some doctors refer to as sort of a frosting
over of his features -- his sort of grayness of
beard, his paleness of skin, very gaunt sort of
features. A lot of times people associate this with
chronic illness. Doctors can certainly look at that
and determine some clinical features.

But even more than that, it's sometimes possible
to differentiate the specific type of disease or
illness that he may be suffering from. The sort of
frosting of the appearance is something that
people a lot of times associate with chronic
kidney failure, renal failure, certainly someone
who is requiring dialysis would have that.

He's also not moving his arms. I looked at this
tape all the way through its entire length. He never
moved his left arm at all. The reason that might
be important is because people who have had a
stroke -- and certainly people are at increased risk
of stroke if they also have kidney failure -- he
may have had a stroke and therefore is not
moving his left side. And in the rest of the
videotape, he does move his right side a little bit
more than he does his left. So those are some of
the things that are sort of "of note" here in this
more recent videotape.

ZAHN: I think we need to remind the viewers
once again that the president of Pakistan talked
about [bin Laden] importing two dialysis
machines into Afghanistan. Of course, no one
other than the president of Pakistan right now is
confirming that [bin Laden] in fact needed
dialysis.

GUPTA: That's right. And again, renal dialysis --
talking about hemodialysis -- is something that
really is reserved for patients in end-stage renal
failure. That means their kidneys have just
completely shut down.

The most common cause of something like that
would be something like diabetes and
hypertension. Once that's happened, if you're
separated from your dialysis machine -- and
incidentally, dialysis machines require electricity,
they're going to require clean water, they're going
to require a sterile setting -- infection is a huge
risk with that. If you don't have all those things
and a functioning dialysis machine, it's unlikely
that you'd survive beyond several days or a week at
the most.

ZAHN: If he had all these things you're talking
about to keep the dialysis machine running, how
much help does he need around him to administer
the treatment?

GUPTA: You certainly need someone who really
knows how to run that dialysis machine. You
have to have someone who's actually assessing
his blood, Osama bin Laden's blood, to see what
particular dialysate he would need, and to be able
to change his dialysate as needed. So you'd need a
kidney specialist, a technician -- quite a few
people around him.

Israeli intelligence: Bin Laden is dead, heir has been chosen


SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Wednesday, October 16, 2002

TEL AVIV  Osama Bin Laden appears to be dead but his colleagues have decided that Al Qaida and its insurgency campaign against the United States will continue, Israeli intelligence sources said.

Al Qaida terrorists have launched a new campaign of economic warfare and are targeting shipping in the Middle East, according to U.S. intelligence officials.

The Israeli sources said Israel and the United States assess that Bin Laden probably died in the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan in December. They said the emergence of new messages by Bin Laden are probably fabrications, Middle East Newsline reported.

But Bin Laden's heir has been chosen and his colleagues have decided to resume Al Qaida's offensive against the United States and Western allies, the sources said.

They said the organization regards the United States as the main target followed by Israel. "In this case, it doesn't matter whether Bin Laden is alive or not," a senior Israeli intelligence source said. "The organization goes on with help from key people."

The sources said Al Qaida has already determined Bin Laden's heir. They said the heir has not been identified, but is probably not Bin Laden's son, Saad. Saad is said to be in his 20s and ranked within the top 20 members of Al Qaida.

Earlier this week, Bin Laden's deputy, Ayman Zawahiri, was said to have released a videotape in which he claims that the Al Qaida leader is alive and functioning. Bin Laden's voice was not heard on the tape.

A senior Bush administration economic official said last week that another major Al Qaida attack anywhere in the world could have devastating economic repercussions.

The FBI warned last week that Al Qaida may be preparing for a major attack. The warning followed the release of an audio tape featuring the voice of Zawahiri.

Bombings in Bali aimed at tourists, an attack on U.S. soldiers training in Kuwait and the bombing of a French tanker in Yemen are signs of the new campaign, Geostrategy-Direct.com reported in its Oct. 22 edition.

The first attack was carried out last week with the Al Qaida terrorist attack on the French tanker Limburg, a 157,000-ton ultra large crude oil carrier, that was bombed as it picked up a pilot before mooring at the Yemeni port of al Shihr.

One crew member was killed and others were injured in the blast.

According to intelligence officials, a small boat approached at high speed from the starboard side of the ship and detonated a large explosive device.

A week earlier, the Office of Naval Intelligence issued an alert to ships in the Middle East to be alert for Al Qaida terrorist attacks.



Fox News, along with a number of international news sources, such as the Pakistan Observer, reported bin Laden's death on Dec. 26, 2001. http://www.foxnews.com/story/2001/12/26/report-bin-laden-already-dead/ But this didn't stop Fox News from joining in the hype
about "CIA-Led SEALs Team Delivers Blow To Al Qaeda" ten years later on May 2, 2011.

World of Resistance (WOR) Report, Part 1: The Global Awakening

By Andrew Gavin Marshall. Cross-posted from Occupy.com.
The world today is in the midst of the most monumental social, political and economic upheavals in human history – a state of continual protests, uprisings and what may be considered inevitable revolution on a global scale. Power that had been centralized for roughly 500 years among the Atlantic powers of Western Europe and North America is rapidly shifting to include the rise of the East, as China, India and others operating within established, institutional frameworks of power get wooed by the former Western imperial managers to become colluders in empire, instead of competition.
To add to this, global wealth and power is being centralized among a highly interconnected and transnational ruling class: a small global elite who own and operate the major banks, corporations, foundations, think tanks, universities and international organizations. It is this numerically minute group of plutocrats whom empire serves. Long established among the Western elites, this group of plutocrats is attempting to bring the oligarchies of other powerful and rising states firmly within its organizational and ideological structure.
Think of it as an established Mafia that helped build up a few other crime families in order to extend its influence – and which now has to contend with the increasing autonomy and competition that these strengthened crime families pose, as it attempts to bring them closer within the established ‘Family’ instead of risking an all-out Mafia war in which all parties would surely lose. The changing structures of global power, along with the ever-increasing unrest of populations around the world, has created perhaps the most challenging situation for any empire in human history.
Zbigniew Brzezinski has written and spoken for years on the issue, publishing in establishment journals and speaking at elite think tanks about what he calls the “Global Political Awakening.” Brzezinski is not a casual observer nor a resigned academic; he sits within the heart of the intellectual and institutional foundations of the American empire alongside other notable figures such as Henry Kissinger and Joseph Nye. Brzezinski was even recruited as a foreign policy adviser to the 2008 presidential campaign of Barack Obama, who referred to Brzezinski as “one of our most outstanding thinkers.”
Brzezinski wrote in 2005 that the United States needed to face “a centrally important new global reality: that the world’s population is experiencing a political awakening unprecedented in scope and intensity, with the result that the politics of populism are transforming the politics of power.” Thus, the “central challenge” for the U.S., noted Brzezinski, “is posed not by global terrorism, but rather by the intensifying turbulence caused by the phenomenon of global political awakening. That awakening is socially massive and politically radicalizing.”
In a 2004 speech to the elite-populated Carnegie Council, Brzezinski explained that the global awakening was partly “spurred by America’s impact on the world,” by virtue of the fact that America is able “to project itself outward” and “transform the world,” creating an “unsettling impact, because we are economically intrusive, [and] culturally seductive.” In other words, American imperialism is – by its very nature – creating its antithesis: the global awakening.
The awakening “is also fueled by globalization,” Brzezinski further explained, “which the United States propounds, favors and projects by virtue of being a globally outward-thrusting society.” The process of globalization, however, “also contributes to instability, and is beginning to create something altogether new: namely, some new ideological or doctrinal challenge which might fill the void created by the disappearance of communism.”

In other words, since the end of the Cold War, when Marxism and Communism represented the largest and most organized global ideological challenge to Western state-capitalist democracy, Brzezinski maintains there has been an ideological vacuum in terms of ideas opposing the present global order. The global awakening, however, is changing the circumstances. As he stated: “I see the beginnings, in writings and stirrings, of the making of a doctrine which combines anti-Americanism with anti-globalization, and the two could become a powerful force in a world that is very unequal and turbulent.”
Brzezinski noted in 2005 that, “the population of much of the developing world is politically stirring and in many places seething with unrest,” having become “acutely conscious of social injustice to an unprecedented degree, and often resentful of its perceived lack of political dignity.” A “community of shared perceptions” was being created by the spread of radio, television and Internet access, creating the potential for energies to be galvanized which “transcend sovereign borders and pose a challenge both to existing states as well as to the existing global hierarchy, on top of which America still perches.”
The youth of the Third World represent “a demographic revolution,” and being “particularly restless and resentful,” they also represent “a political time-bomb… creating a huge mass of impatient young people.” The “potential revolutionary spearhead” of the Third World youth was, in Brzezinski’s view, “likely to emerge from among the scores of millions of students” concentrated in the educational institutions of the developing world. Having largely originated from “the socially insecure lower middle class and inflamed by a sense of social outrage, these millions of students are revolutionaries-in-waiting… connected by the Internet… Their physical energy and emotional frustration is just waiting to be triggered by a cause, or a faith, or a hatred.”
In 2008, Brzezinski wrote in the New York Times that “global activism is generating a surge in the quest for cultural respect and economic opportunity in a world scarred by memories of colonial or imperial domination.” In his view, the necessary course of action “is to regain U.S. global legitimacy by spearheading a collective effort for a more inclusive system of global management.” Brzezinski noted, in a speech he gave that same year to Chatham House, that “in the current post-colonial era, it is too costly to undertake colonial wars” which is why the U.S. should attempt to avoid getting further “bogged down” in the Middle East and Central Asia, where America would be “engaged in a protracted post-imperial war in the post-colonial age, a war not easy to win against aroused populations.”
Later, in a 2010 speech to the Canadian International Council (CIC), an elite think tank based in Canada, Brzezinski explained the “total new reality” of the awakening of mankind, explaining that “most people know what is generally going on… in the world, and are consciously aware of global iniquities, inequalities, lack of respect, exploitation. Mankind is now politically awakened and stirring.”
In a 2012 speech at the European Forum for New Ideas (EFNI), Brzezinski stated that 20 years following the end of the Cold War, “a truly comprehensive American global domination is no longer possible [because] in recent decades, worldwide social change has experienced unprecedented historical acceleration, particularly because instant mass communications… cumulatively have been stimulating a universal awakening of mass political consciousness.”

“The resulting widespread rise in worldwide populist activism is proving inimical to external domination of the kind that prevailed in the age of colonialism and imperialism,” he continued. “Persistent and highly motivated populist resistance of politically awakened and historically resentful peoples to external control has proven to be increasingly difficult to suppress, as protracted guerrilla warfare in Vietnam, Algeria, or Afghanistan have amply demonstrated; and as the rising turmoil in both the Middle East and Southwest Asia are foreshadowing.” (“The Role of the West in the Complex Post-Hegemonic World,” Speech at the European Forum for New Ideas, 26 September 2012)
As Brzezinski explained to his fellow elites and imperialists in the United States and other powerful Western societies: “The worldwide yearning for human dignity is the central challenge inherent in the phenomenon of global political awakening.” As he stated at Chatham House in 2008, the world’s major powers, “new and old, also face a novel reality: while the lethality of their military might is greater than ever, their capacity to impose control over the politically awakened masses of the world is at a historic low. To put it bluntly: in earlier times, it was easier to control one million people than to physically kill one million people; today, it is infinitely easier to kill one million people than to control one million people.”
Institutional and imperial power structures have never been more globalized or concentrated in human history; yet, simultaneously, never have they been under more threat from an awakened humanity. We have unprecedented access to information and communication; never have we had a greater opportunity to transform the world for the better and to challenge – or make obsolete – the prevailing global power structures.
Yet, simultaneously, never has humanity – collectively – faced such a monumental challenge: a combination of a massive global economic crisis, growing levels of poverty and hunger, tens of millions dying from poverty-related causes every year, massive global land grabs, high-tech police states and surveillance societies, murder by remote control drone terror campaigns, a more distanced decision-making apparatus than perhaps ever before, and an ecological crisis of such proportions that it threatens the very survival of the human species, let alone all other life forms on Earth.
The World of Resistance (WOR) Report is a new Occupy.com series that aims to provide greater context and understanding about the causes, and the consequences, of social unrest, protests, riots, resistance, uprisings, rebellions and revolutions spreading across the globe. What form is the “global political awakening” taking in different regions, under different conditions, and with what differing degrees of success and failure?
This series aims to explore the evolution of the long road to world revolution so that we may better understand, and support, the causes of human and biological survival to ensure that people’s “central challenge” to elites – that is, the quest for “human dignity” – is made all the more impossible for 1% institutions and ideologies to undermine or repress.
Andrew Gavin Marshall is a 26-year old researcher and writer based in Montreal, Canada. He is project manager of the People’s Book Project, chair of the Geopolitics Division of The Hampton Institute, research director for Occupy.com’s Global Power Project, and hosts a weekly podcast show with BoilingFrogsPost.


Circling The Grassy Knoll

Circling The Grassy Knoll

CIRCLING THE GRASSY KNOLL

It is quite an endeavor to find fresh and interesting things about John F. Kennedy that have not been talked to death and it is frustrating to find pet theories that seem to be exhausting dead ends.
The fallback plan was always planned and that was to confuse people into believing all sorts of propaganda about the assassination.
onion_jfkWe have heard all sorts of discussions about how the Jews killed Kennedy, the Mafia, the bank cartel, Castro, the Russians. Believe me, I have been getting e-mails telling me that if I don’t talk about these theories then this just speaks volumes as to who I “work” for.
I would just love to dilute my show with all of these theories, but it needs to be said that when we throw all kinds of pasta against the wall it doesn’t always stick and then I have to go back and try to recover by getting down to brass tacks.
The basic facts are that the official story has not stood the test of time, 80 percent of Americans do not buy into the official narrative. Another fact is that, no matter how many conspiracy yarns are created about Kennedy’s death, the basic reality is that the national security state was the perpetrator of the assassination and that is why we are seeing no accountability for the assassination nor are the authorities opening the files for public scrutiny.
I have always been asked directly who I think killed Kennedy and after being coy by reciting the lyrics from the Rolling Stones song “Sympathy for the Devil:”
I shouted out who killed the Kennedys, when after all it was you and me,” I throw out a few names that I feel were involved. In fact, when I appeared on Penn and Teller’s “Bullshit” I was asked by the producers and camera people if I would name names on camera. I did, and the unbelievable thing was – they never made it on the air.
I prefaced my statements by saying that there were many players and conspirators but my focus has always been on Allen Dulles, his brother John Foster Dulles, George Herbert Walker Bush, E. Howard Hunt, Richard Nixon, General Curtis Lemay, the Gehlen Organization or “The Org.” From there we have co-conspirators and liars like Senator Arlen Specter, Frank Sturgis, H. R. Haldeman, Gerald R. Ford, David Atlee Phillips, William K. Harvey, Richard Helms, Des Fitzgerald, James Jesus Angleton and David Morales.
It was interesting that, out of all the names that I mentioned, the producers wanted me to elaborate on George Herbert Walker Bush.
I was sensing some political trap and I merely stated that much of the theories on Bush were all tied to “The Org” and its relationship to the CIA. It is documented that Bush was in Dallas, Texas the morning of the assassination, took a flight to Tyler, Texas afterwards to announce to a group of Kiwanis club members that the President had died and then phoned the FBI to tell them that he had an idea who was responsible for the death of President Kennedy.
This way it could be said that he was in Tyler and not in Dallas that day and still he knew or had some idea who might have killed the President.
However, Bush will tell people that he doesn’t remember where he was on November 22nd, 1963.
Names and faces are a blur over time and synchronicities and suicidal coincidences have always plagued the story of Kennedy.
Even within a few years after Oliver Stone’s movie ‘JFK‘ was released, Richard Nixon, Governor John Connally, Frank Sturgis and Jacqueline Kennedy all died.
I have been doing a lot of interviews for other radio and TV shows on the subject and, when asked about my thoughts about the conspiracy theories on the case, I keep it basic because I believe that an entire generation still has not found the relevancy of John F. Kennedy. They just know him as a good man and that, for some reason, grandma and grandpa are remembering his death.
There is really no way to illustrate what a nation goes through when their President is assassinated, let alone try and figure out how one gives tribute to man 50 years after he was murdered in broad daylight during a visit to Dallas, Texas.
In his inaugural address, Kennedy famously declared that the torch had been passed to a new generation of Americans. In order for the torch to be passed once again, a new generation must heed Camelot’s timeless call to service. To do this, we must first learn it.

President John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address

The question is what version of the event will these new generations learn and will they even care?
Younger generations may not understand how the sights and sounds of the time were indelible. The horse sauntering through the street with the flag-draped caisson behind, the muffled drums that echoed through Washington DC and were carried through the nearly 50 million television sets that watched the proceedings.
The historical visuals have been shown on many television specials 50 years later, from ‘John John’ Kennedy saluting his fallen dad, to Walter Cronkite, America’s news voice, shedding tears.

The Funeral of John F. Kennedy Part 1

Then with the ignition of the eternal flame on a Virginia hillside came the igniting of several conspiracy theories.
Unfortunately, each one muddied the waters a little more and, after the Warren Commission’s investigation, the official narrative was used to stifle any and all theories that were produced to obfuscate the ritualistic murder of a president in 1963.
I feel in some ways that the staying power of Kennedy’s “Camelot” is waning and the only reason for the retrospective is out of frustration that the truth about the case has still been kept under wraps, even after it was promised that after a generation that the files would be opened.
It is not surprising that they haven’t and it is not so surprising that the mainstream narrative has hijacked the possibility of conspiracy against a president and has made it a homogenized exercise in watering down the reality that what happened in 1963 was most definitely an organized coup to change the direction of the United States.
To younger generations, the Kennedy legacy is one of history and not of experience. Imagine a time in history that you have experienced, but that generations after you have the same interest in it as they would the Lincoln assassination. Even then, that type of history is a subject of a required history essay for a good grade.
As a follower of conspiratorial history, I can say that once e again the mainstream media has failed to capture the controversy that John F. Kennedy’s murder generates.
Names, places and ideas are lost in the accepted history and the conspiracy history is equally forgotten. There are many authors and investigators that have admitted that they have said all that there needs to be said and until there is anything mind blowing coming out of the sealed documents it becomes a history lecture that becomes an excuse to catch up on ‘Walking Dead’ episodes on Netflix.
However, I have been reading about how, 50 years after the death of Kennedy, there are people that are confused about how we should commemorate the moment in history where our 35th President died.
First of all, the City of Dallas is preventing the Coalition on Political Assassinations (COPA) from holding their annual ‘Moment of Silence’ at Delay Plaza. The city has gone to great efforts to keep the gathering from happening. COPA believes that they represent the 81 percent of Americans that believe that Kennedy was killed as a result of a conspiracy.
The argument being produced is whether or not it is prudent to discuss the possible causes of his death rather than just observing his life and contributions to the country.
The city of Dallas is planning a 40-minute, invitation-only ceremony at the spot where Kennedy died in a hail of gunfire. There will be no talk of the causes of JFK’s death, only talk of his life at least that is what officials hope.
Is censoring this type of talk part of the cover-up? Is it really a well-intentioned tribute or is it a way to silence once and for all the notion that Kennedy was ambushed by his political enemies?
Is it wrong or does it sully the tribute to Kennedy to mention or give a public forum to express these opinions? Is it an undignified, or disrespectful to open up a discussion about the idea of a conspiracy against Kennedy?
Authorities are saying that it is inappropriate, some say that it gives ‘crazies’ an opportunity to speak and therefore should not be allowed.
Is avoiding the obvious the best approach to a tribute?
The 1960’s was a time that obviously was not safe for national leaders in the United States and credulity was stretched to the point of exploding on the scene with numerous assassinations that are the foundation for the dialogue for modern conspiracy and its research.
Even beyond Kennedy, the country watched helplessly as Dr. Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy were gunned down.
Now people that want to meet in Dallas are not even able to ask why?
Occupythegrassyknoll.org writes: “Dealey Plaza is a public park and a designated National Historical Site that has been open to the public over the five decades since President Kennedy was assassinated there.
Now it is being blocked by people who want to silence any talk of conspiracy.
What this censorship is also breeding is the possibility of a hostile ‘occupy’ scenario where protestors arrive and create chaos, leading to mass arrests and violence.
Is this a way to honor a fallen leader that we revere as an American champion for peace and constitutional rights?
Today, the important topic that should be discussed while the vultures circle the grassy knoll is why the American people are inclined to believe that conspiracy was planned against our 35th president and why many of the conspirators remained as smiling, glad-handing politicians, able to make policies and literally create the spin for the mainstream narrative especially Richard Nixon and his replacement Gerald Ford.
How are we able to not see that those who lead the intelligence apparatus – like Dulles and eventually George Herbert Walker Bush – were simply appointed to be foxes that guarded the hen house and had their hands in everything from Bay of Pigs to Watergate?
The authorities in Dallas that are orchestrating the invitation only gathering want you to believe that all of the so-called conspiracy yarns are paranoid or improbable.
Discussion of these stories and facts are how a nation copes with the loss of a president who would be king. While we must boil the subject down to basic known facts, it is also important to understand that making the complex simple is not so simple.
Limiting the conversation to the same tiring narrative will most certainly keep the lies and misconceptions alive and the cover up will endure.
This is most certainly another miscarriage of justice and a negation of free speech.

Historic Footage: JFK Inauguration, 1961

The Iron Mountain Conspiracy

The Iron Mountain Conspiracy

THE IRON MOUNTAIN CONSPIRACY

When you speak about a shadow government, you have to tread lightly since no one can really pinpoint who is in the background dictating policy. We always tend to think of some noir-type of control, with shadowy figures in smoke-filled rooms meeting somewhere in Switzerland. While the romanticism can entertain the conspiracy minded, the shadow government conducts it’s business openly with a few of the same players.
This way there can be meetings behind closed doors to discuss policies and ideas that are quite simply enabling continuity of world government instead of sovereign government that we believe we are a part of.
The Oliver Stone film ‘JFK’ suggests that a conspiracy involving criminal elements of our government, the CIA, the FBI, perhaps people associated with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all in the service of the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us about, might have conspired to kill John F. Kennedy because he was going to sharply change the direction of American foreign policy.
The people considered Kennedy a man of peace; however, a full and lasting peace achieved through peaceful means was a red flag for those who pocketed money from the business of war.
In terms of the military-industrial interests, there had to be a demand for their products and there had to be wars or ‘police actions‘ for those products to be bought and sold. Thus, preparation for warfare and some form of warfare had to continue. Mind you, all of these proposed wars had to be done while carefully avoiding a nuclear exchange.
That was a dilemma. However, for those who were making decisions in the background, the new direction was simple: it was merely a old idea made new again. It was the ideal of a dawn of a new age, a world government that would enforce new international and worldwide law with a newly formed militarized police force that would put all of those great war mechanisms to good use.
Even before the end of World War II, the newly structured confrontation between the world of Communism and the West was the product of ex-Nazis who made deals with American intelligence in order to avoid hanging in The Hague. Nazi Intelligence operatives and scientists were brought to the United States in exchange for information they allegedly had about Russian plans to declare war on the United States.
One Nazi in particular was Reinhard Gehlen, Hitler’s master spy who had built up an intelligence network in the Soviet Union. “Gehlen inflates Soviet military capabilities at a time when Russia is still rebuilding its devastated society, in order to inflate his own importance to the Americans (who might otherwise punish him). In 1948, Gehlen almost convinces the Americans that war is imminent, and the West should make a preemptive strike,” writes Steve Kangas.
This alone was the reason the United States employed enormous intelligence agencies like the CIA that had the power, invisibly, to wage underground warfare, economic as well as military, anywhere – including methods of warfare never before imagined. These conflicts had to be tactically designed as to not trigger nuclear mutually assured destruction or else tremendous loss of life could occur, and there was always the much-desired pocketing of trillions of dollars made in the manufacturing of war equipment.
It was at this time that the plans for the New World Order were being proposed.
The New World Order had been the vision of the Nazis and most of what they envisioned was a golden age of peace after a long fought war to keep rogue nations in a collective and controlled under one government.
A world government.
During World War II and almost two decades after, there were American elitists that shared many of the views of the Nazis. Many of them were champions of a New World Order. CIA director Allen Dulles was one of the chief enablers of Nazi intelligence within the CIA.
Earlier, when Dulles was a leading diplomat and spy, he teamed up with his brother, John Foster Dulles, a Wall Street insider, and created a financial-intelligence apparatus to assist the Nazis. So Dulles had long-standing, friendly relations with Nazis.
Another family that had a long history with the Dulles family was the Prescott Bush family. Both were powerful families that held many beliefs in common. Both families hated Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency to the point of organizing a coup to get him out of office.
They were both opposed to the United States entry into World War II; they both invested in Hitler’s war effort against the United States, Both families were responsible for the grooming of Richard Nixon to try and beat Kennedy for President. Both had mutual financial and political involvement in the attempt to overthrow Fidel Castro in Cuba in the Bay of Pigs fiasco.
In 1961, the Kennedy administration ordered a “Top Secret” study to determine what problems the United States would face if the world moved from an era of war to a golden age of peace.
Wikipedia writes: “After the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy had fired CIA director Allen W. Dulles, Deputy Director Charles P. Cabell, and Deputy Director Richard Bissell, and turned his attention towards Vietnam. Kennedy had also stripped the CIA of responsibility for paramilitary operations like the Bay of Pigs and turned them over to the U.S. Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which, as Commander in Chief, Kennedy could more directly control.
By 1962 proposals to spark war were brought forward to the President for review. One such document was the Operation Northwoods document.
Operation Northwoods was simply a document that featured a number of proposed false flag operations where military intelligence and the CIA would attack American citizens and then blame the attacks on Cuba. Kennedy rejected the proposals.
Now here is where we delve into conspiracy territory.
By 1963, it was proposed that there needed to be a committee that would meet in secret to come up with alternatives to war, without bankrupting the military industrial complex. This was once again part of the 1961 proposal to rein in the Communists and go into an era of peace with them.
By 1963, the selection of specialists had been made.
This study group consisted of 15 experts in various academic disciplines who were selected for their expertise in their various fields. The first and last meetings were in an underground nuclear survival retreat called Iron Mountain.
In ‘Iron Mountain; A Hoax or Betrayal?‘, Paula Demers writes: “In 1963, the same year as the selection of specialists for this “Top Secret” study, President John F. Kennedy made an astounding statement. On November 13, while speaking at Columbus University, Pres. Kennedy stated, “The high office of the President of the United States of America has been used to foment a plot to destroy America’s freedom, and before I leave office, I must inform the citizens of their plight! Ten days later, President John F. Kennedy was shot and killed.
The Iron Mountain report was submitted to President Johnson in 1966. Johnson claimed that the plans that were discussed in the report would take a generation and a half to fully implement. The plan was abandoned.
The “Report from Iron Mountain” was leaked to the mainstream press in 1967. It argued that though world peace was a nice idea, the economy of war was such a vital part of global stability, it was difficult to come up with substitutes.
The report was literally a blueprint of proposed manufactured crises that the government could employ during peace time in order to keep the war and military busy and the people demanding for protection from threats. The report claimed that a gradual implementation of such crises would guarantee the need for basic social controls. There are those who believe that the proposals in the report have been employed for 45 years conditioning the American people for acceptance of a New World Order.
The very same New World Order supported and championed by the Dulles and Bush families.
The report detailed ways to create or manufacture crises that could be substitutes for war, literally a way to keep the military in business due to public demand over fear of being harmed or killed.
The report actually admits that war or crisis is a “general social release.” According to the report:
It provides ‘the release and redistribution of undifferentiated tensions’. In other words it is a type of therapy. It is a ‘generational stabilizer’ that enables the “deteriorating older generation” to “maintain control of the younger, destroying it if necessary’. It clears ideology. It is a basis for international understanding. However, there are noted substitutions for war, that when gradually brought into society can have the same effect.
This is pointed out as a “silent weapon” strategy which in turn creates a form of war that has no exchange of gunfire or bombs.
According to the report, one of the silent weapons that a government can use on its people is a complete destabilization of the economy.
Economic surrogates for war must meet principal criteria. They must be “wasteful,” in the common sense of the word, and they must operate outside the normal supply-demand system.” — Report from Iron Mountain
This leads to a failure of government social programs and could create a social war that has to be kept from escalating by a militarized police force.

Obama Civilian Security

In a speech given in July of 2008, Barack Obama stated that America could not continue to rely on the military in order to achieve the national security objectives his administration had set. He spoke of a civilian national security force that’s “just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.
Now we see a police force in America that is being gradually militarized. It is now normal to see police agencies around the country receive combat gear and military armored vehicles with immense firepower capabilities.
The Report from Iron Mountain also proposes that the United States be disarmed and it will be carried out in three stages. Internal security forces provided by the United Nations will honor and enforce a treaty that will be signed where guns must be surrendered by citizens in order to maintain peace.
The Iron Mountain report also states that in order for this to happen there will also have to be a focus on religious authority and their ability to convince their flocks to follow the law. However, there is also a section that states that if the religious authorities’ rebel there would have to be a way to expose religious organizations as corrupt and this way there would be no agonizing over the moral obligations of a government to religious freedom.
The solution of today’s problems requires an approach which is ruthlessly candid, with no agonizing over religious, moral or cultural values.” — Intelligence Operations Research — (Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars)

Clergy Response Teams

Another alternative to war, and a crisis that could spark a demand for government protection and unity with a World Government would be a manufactured “space menace.”
It has been hotly argued that such a menace would offer the “last, best hope of peace,“ by uniting mankind against the danger of destruction by “creatures” from other planets or from outer space. Experiments have been proposed to test the credibility of an out-of-our-world invasion threat; it is possible that a few of the more difficult-to-explain “flying saucer” incidents of recent years were in fact early experiments of this kind.
If so, they could hardly have been judged encouraging. We anticipate no difficulties in making a “need” for a giant super space program credible for economic purposes, even were there not ample precedent; extending it, for political purposes, to include features unfortunately associated with science fiction would obviously be a more dubious undertaking.” – Report from Iron Mountain
Finally, another silent weapon in the quiver for government is an environmental doomsday scenario according to the report.
Nevertheless, an effective political substitute for war would require “alternate enemies,” some of which might seem equally far- fetched in the context of the current war system. It may be, for instance, that gross pollution of the environment can eventually replace the possibility of mass destruction by nuclear weapons as the principal apparent threat to the survival of the species.
Poisoning of the air, and of the principal sources of food and water supply, is already well advanced, and at first glance would seem promising in this respect; it constitutes a threat that can be dealt with only through social organization and political power.
But from present indications it will be a generation to a generation and a half before environmental pollution, however severe, will be sufficiently menacing, on a global scale, to offer a possible basis for a solution.”—Report from Iron Mountain
Report from Iron Mountain was on the New York Times bestseller list and was translated into fifteen different languages. Controversy exists concerning whether the book is the result of a hoax authored by Leonard Lewin or the real result of a secret government panel.
From Wikipedia’s entry on The Report from Iron Mountain:
U.S. News & World Report claimed in its November 20, 1967 issue to have confirmation of the reality of the report from an unnamed government official, who added that when President Johnson read the report, he ‘hit the roof’ and ordered it to be suppressed for all time. Additionally, sources were said to have revealed that orders were sent to U.S. embassies, instructing them to emphasize that the book had no relation to U.S. Government policy.
On November 26, 1976, the report was reviewed in the book section of the Washington Post by Herschel McLandress, which was the pen name for Harvard professor John Kenneth Galbraith. Galbraith, who also had been a member of the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations), said that he knew firsthand of the report’s authenticity because he had been invited to participate in it. Although he was unable to be part of the official group, he was consulted from time to time and had been asked to keep the project a secret. Furthermore, while he doubted the wisdom of letting the public know about the report, he agreed totally with its conclusions.
However, there is a discrepancy and that is the New York Times reported that the Report on Iron Mountain was a clever hoax and should not be believed. However if it is a hoax then it most certainly feels like it is real because of what is happening today.
Keep in mind that both Kennedy and Johnson allegedly knew of the report and several other reports that were submitted as alternatives to war, alternatives that would be manufactured over time. Johnson believed that it would take at least a generation and a half to have full impact on the people.
Statistically, a generation is about 30 years. Add another 15 for the half and you get 45 years. The proposal was first created in 1961. Johnson received in 1966 and the public was aware of the report in 1967.
Proposals of a gradual bankrupting of the system, a three-stage disarming of the world, a manufactured environmental doomsday and the announcement of a “space menace” are all part of our lives today. It has been in our literature, our news stories, it is deeply rooted into the mass consciousness.
Kennedy rejected those proposals. He then spoke of the secret societal plans for a world government. He was assassinated in 1963.
If the proposals were taken seriously by world government advocates, and with 45 years to program the nation for these proposals to work, we can speculate that these manufactured crises are with us today – and that what was spoken of in ‘Iron Mountain’ a generation and a half ago is being used against us now.
Some have been fulfilled while others are still awaiting their fulfillment.

Iron Mountain- The Blue Print For Tyranny 1/14

Remembering Jack Kennedy

the last man ,that TIRED to DO SOMETHING ...for ALL MANKIND !!!  ...hey folks ..hows IT going fer US ...now ? .....wit these "elites"   we got spewing "their" shit ALL over THIS Planet ( & off )  ..hows that working fer us ,huh  hows thum ass pipes "working "   out :o

Remembering Jack Kennedy

JohnFK
Killing Kennedy mattered. It changed America’s direction. Things might have been different had he lived.
November 22, 1963 remains a stain on America’s legacy. It was Friday. A light rain fell.
Kennedy spent the night at the Texas Hotel. A platform was set up outside. He came out. He made some brief remarks.
“There are no faint hearts in Fort Worth,” he said. “I appreciate your being here this morning. Mrs. Kennedy is organizing herself. It takes longer, but, of course, she looks better than we do when she does it.”
He addressed “the willingness of citizens of the United States to assume the burdens of leadership.”
His motorcade traveled to Carswell Air Force Base. He took a 13 minute flight to Dallas. Rain ended.
The plastic bubble atop his car was left off. Lyndon and Mrs. Johnson accompanied him in a separate car.
The procession headed downtown. It wound through Dallas en route to the Trade Mart. Kennedy was scheduled to speak at a luncheon.
Crowds along the route waved. His car turned off Main Street at Dealey Plaza. It was around 12:30PM. The procession passed the Texas School Book Depository.
Gunfire was heard. Kennedy was struck. His car sped to Parkland Memorial Hospital. It was a few minutes away. It was too late. He was given his last rites. Around 1PM, he was pronounced dead.
The New York Times headlined in bold type across the top of its front page: “KENNEDY IS KILLED BY SNIPER AS HE RIDES IN CAR TO DALLAS; JOHNSON SWOWN IN ON PLANE”
“Gov. Connally Shot; Mrs. Kennedy Safe”
“President is Struck Down by a Rifle Shot From Building on Motorcade Route – Johnson, Riding Behind, Is Unhurt”
Less than an hour earlier, police arrested Lee Harvey Oswald. He was a convenient patsy. He had nothing to do with killing Kennedy.
He alone remains officially blamed. The Big Lie persists. Lots of evidence refutes it.
Plato once said:
“Strange times are these in which we live when old and young are taught falsehoods in school.”
“And the person that dares to tell the truth is called at once a lunatic and fool.”
On November 29, 1963, Lyndon Johnson established the Warren Commission. On September 24, 1964, it delivered its 888-page report.
Three days later, it released it publicly. It pronounced a bald-faced lie. It said Oswald acted alone.
It later published 26 volumes of supporting documents. They included testimonies or depositions of 552 witnesses.
Its distortions included over 3,100 exhibits. It went all out to conceal truth and full disclosure.
All records are in the National Archives. Included are unpublished reports. They’re sealed until 2039.
They’re no longer applicable under the 1966 Freedom of Information Act and 1992 JFK Records Act.
Nothing released ahead will change the official story. The Big Lie persists. It remain etched in stone. It’s for others to challenge it.
The Commission’s job was suppressing truth. It was coverup. It was stacked with insiders. They included:
  • Chief Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren
  • Senator Richard Russell (D. GA)
  • Senator John Sherman Cooper (R. KY)
  • Representative Hale Boggs (D. LA)
  • Representative Gerald Ford (R. MI)
  • former CIA director Allen Dulles, and
  • former WW II Assistant Secretary of War/World Bank president/prominent presidential advisor John J. McCloy.
Testimonies were taken in secret. Sanitized versions were published.
Peter Dale Scott coined the phrase “deep politics.” It means “in every culture and society there are facts which tend to be suppressed, because of the social and psychological costs of not doing so.”
Scott noted “the ability of the government to establish a guilty party or parties immediately, and the press and media consumption of that product to the exclusion of all other possibilities.”
The Warren Commission’s mandate was “to validate what was already decided by the FBI on the day in question.”
“In Oswald’s case, FBI and CIA documents described him as five feet, ten inches, weighing 165 pounds.”
“But it contradicted the actual height and weight of the man picked up and charged being slightly shorter and weighing 140 pounds.”
“It appears someone had already decided who was going to be charged before the police found Oswald in the Texas Theater.”
He was named within 15 minutes from when Kennedy was shot. It was impossible to know that soon. The official story was bogus.
Jim Marrs book titled, “Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy” discussed a Cartha DeLoach memo. He was FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover’s close aide.
He said then Congressman Gerald Ford may have been the bureau’s Warren Commission informant. He had close CIA ties.
It was later learned he reported to Hoover. He did so secretly. He admitted instructing the Commission to move Kennedy’s back wound up several inches. A lower location disproved the single gunman theory.
A subsequent Commission report was titled “A Presidential Legacy and the Warren Commission.”
It said the investigation put “certain classified and potentially damaging operations in danger of being exposed.”
The CIA hid or “destroy(ed) some information, which can easily be misinterpreted as collusion in JFK’s assassination.”
Family spokeswoman, Penny Circle, said Ford approved the text. Before his death, he publicly said the CIA destroyed or hid critical secrets related to the killing.
He suggested a “conspiracy.” He barely stopped short of admitting one. Commission conclusions were rubbish. They hid dirty truths. They were too disturbing to reveal.
Jim Fetzer has done extensive research on Kennedy’s assassination. He said the following:
“The weapon Oswald is alleged to have used cannot have fired the bullets that killed JFK.”
“The ‘magic bullet’ theory is provably untrue and was not even anatomically possible.”
“JFK was hit four times – in the throat from in front, in the back from behind, and in the head from in front and behind.”
“X-rays were altered. A brain was substituted, and photos and films were faked to conceal the true causes of his death.”
Fetzer cited “more than 15 indications of Secret Service complicity in setting JFK up for the hit.”
“Two agents assigned to the limousine were left behind at Love Field. The flat-bed truck for reporters that should have preceded the limo was cancelled.”
“The motorcycle escort was cut down to four and was instructed not to ride ahead of the rear wheels.”
“Open windows were not covered. The manhole covers were not welded, and the crowd was allowed to spill into the street.”
“…Vehicles were in the wrong order, with (Kennedy’s) Lincoln first, when it should have been in the middle.”
“This was such a blatant violation of protocol that any security expert would have detected it.”
The Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) destroyed the Presidential Protection Records. It did so to eliminate important evidence.
Kennedy’s route was changed days before he arrived. Included was a strictly prohibited 90 degree turn.
After gunfire struck him, driver William Greer pulled to the left. He stopped the vehicle.
“At Parkland Hospital, (Secret Service) agents got a bucket of water and a sponge, and washed brains and blood from the crime scene.”
Kennedy’s “limousine was taken back to Ford. (It) was stripped to bare metal and rebuilt.”
Doing so destroyed important evidence. It included the windshield. It had “a through-and-through bullet hole.”
Kennedy was shot from in front and behind. He was struck four times.
The Warren Commission claimed he was hit twice. The Commission claimed the bullet striking Kennedy in the back passed through his neck, then exited from his throat.
It struck Governor Connally. It shattered a rib. It damaged his right wrist. It embedded itself in his left thigh.
Fetzer called this explanation “a most unlikely scenario that is known as the ‘magic bullet’ theory.”
To make it remotely plausible, Commission member (then Congressman) Gerald Ford “had the description of the wound to the back changed from ‘his uppermost back.’ ”
The weapon Oswald was accused of firing couldn’t have killed Kennedy. His death certificate and autopsy said high-velocity bullets above 2,600 fps killed him.
Oswald’s Mannlicher-Carcano rifle had a muzzle velocity of 2,000 fps.
Even with a more powerful weapon, “the shots themselves were highly improbable,” said Fetzer.
“(T)he simple expedient of locating where the bullet hit JFK’s back is enough to establish the existence of a conspiracy has not inhibited those who want to obfuscate the facts.”
Pseudo-documentaries air on TV. They obscure what happened. They hide vital truths.
They stick to the long ago discredited lone gunman explanation. “Authentic evidence, once separated from (fabrications), refutes it,” said Fetzer.
“The demise of the ‘magic bullet’ (theory) alone establishes conspiracy.”
“Creating a false photographic record of the assassination was crucial to the cover-up.”
“As much thought was given to concealing the truth from the public as was given to executing the assassination itself.”
“By removing some events and adding others, the home movie known as the Zapruder film became the backbone of the cover-up.”
“As long as it was taken to be authentic, it would be impossible to reconstruct the crime.”
Much has been written about Kennedy. James Douglas contributed some of the best. His book titled “JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters” debunked mainstream myths and much more.
He showed how Kennedy threatened the military-industrial complex. He had to go. “(T)he CIA’s fiingerprints (were) all over the crime and the events leading up to it,” said Douglas.
The lone gunman theory long ago lost credibility. A state-sponsored coup eliminated Kennedy. He changed during his time in office. He evolved from cold warrior to peacemaker.
The Bay of Pigs fiasco chastened him. He refused authorizing another attempt to remove Castro.
He supported Palestinian rights. He opposed Israel’s nuclear weapons program. He offended energy giants. He wanted the oil depletion allowance cut or eliminated.
RFK waged war on organized crime. JFK’s first executive order expanded the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). He was a gradualist on civil rights. He believed integration was morally right.
He favored Federal Reserve reform. His Executive Order 11110 authorized replacing Federal Reserve notes with silver certificates if the occasion arose to do so.
It’s believed he ordered Treasury Secretary C. Douglas Dillon to begin issuing United States notes. Perhaps he had in mind replacing Federal Reserve ones altogether. He was assassinated to soon to know.
He deplored the CIA. He fired director Allen Dulles and his deputy General Charles Cabell.
He once said he wanted to “splinter the (agency) into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.” It was reason enough to kill him.
He increasingly opposed imperial wars. Initially, he sent troops and advisors to Southeast Asia. He opposed sending more to Laos.
He told his Geneva Conference representative, Averell Harriman:
“Do you understand? I want a negotiated settlement in Laos. I don’t want to put troops in.”
He opposed deploying nuclear weapons in Berlin. He was against using them in Southeast Asia.
He once called Pentagon generals “crazy” for suggesting it. He refused to attack or invade Cuba during the 1962 missile crisis. He said he “never had the slightest intension of doing so.”
He urged abolishing all nuclear weapons. He knew using them is lunacy. He favored general and complete disarmament.
He opposed Pax Americana enforced dominance. He signed the Limited Test Ban Treaty with Soviet Russia.
Weeks before his assassination, he signed National Security Memorandum 263. It called for removing 1,000 US forces from Vietnam by yearend. He wanted them all out by December 1965.
He underwent a spiritual transformation. It bears repeating. He switched from cold warrior to peacemaker.
He was at odds with Pentagon commanders, CIA, most congressional members, and nearly all his advisors.
He understood his vulnerability. He paid with his life. He was favored to win reelection. Imagine if he had two full terms.
Imagine a new direction. Imagine deploring war. Imagine turning swords into plowshares.
Imagine a world at peace. Imagine nuclear disarmament. Imagine ending the Cold War a generation earlier.
In June 1956, he addressed Harvard’s commencement. He was Massachusetts junior senator at the time.
He ended by quoting an English mother. She wrote the Provost of Harrow saying: “Don’t teach my boy poetry. He is going to stand for Parliament.”
“Well, perhaps she was right,” said Kennedy. “But if more politicians knew poetry, and more poets knew politics, I am convinced the world would be a better place in which to live on this commencement day of 1956.”
Killing JFK, RFK, MLK, and Malcom X “decapitat(ed) America’s left,” said Fetzer. In the 1970s, the nation began shifting right. Progressive charismatic leaders were gone.
None exist today. Their absence is sorely missed. It lets America get away with murder and then some.
Dark forces run things. War on humanity persists. Peacemakers aren’t around to stop it. Survival hangs in the balance.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

JFK, 9/11, and the Deep State: Hard Evidence in a Post-Snowden World


jfkblackwhite
This year, the 50th anniversary of JFK’s assassination, saw Edward Snowden and Glenn Greenwald cast a sweeping spotlight over pervasive, illegal “deep state” spying on US citizens and allies.
Widespread public awareness of these “state crimes against democracy” is a game-changer for re-opening the past as well as the present.
To honor President Kennedy, the 9/11 Consensus Panel today highlights a scholarly work that meticulously exposes the Warren Commission’s cover-up of his state-crime murder.
Oliver Stone wrote that James W. Douglass’ “JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why it Matters”
“is the best account I have read of this tragedy…it deserves the attention of all Americans; it is one of those rare books that, by helping us understand our history, has the power to change it.”
Jim Douglass, whose work with the “unspeakable” helps us to grasp the ruthless nature of the deep state, writes:
“Dallas laid the foundation for 9/11. If you understand JFK’s murder, you understand it all – including the obvious truth that buildings don’t just fall down the way the U.S. government said they did. The JFK story is a lens of truth through which we can see our world and how to change it.”
JFK scholar Craig Ciccone compares the events:
“The more I delved into 9/11, the sicker I became. The similarities between both cases – from the actual events to the “official” investigations – are frightening.  Like the JFK case, 9/11 boasts the unapologetic ignoring of the laws of physics and aerodynamics; the destruction of evidence; countless attempts to make the evidence fit a predetermined story; undeniable conflicts of interest of the investigating body; and the preposterous handling of the eye- and ear-witnesses.”
Similarly, Dr. David Ray Griffin’s scholarship shows that 38 years later, the deep state either permitted 9/11 to happen, or caused it to happen.
The 9/11 Commission Report (described by Harper’s Magazine as a “whitewash,” defrauding the nation) contrived a cover-up that has been soundly refuted by many peer-reviewed engineering, physics, and chemistry studies.
2013 also saw the release of Massimo Mazzucco’s expansive landmark documentary, replete with 9/11 witness testimonies, now joining the engineering classic, “Experts Speak Out.”
The peer-reviewed evidence of the 23-member 9/11 Consensus Panel is available in Dutch, Spanish, Italian, French, and English.