HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » JFK Conference: Lisa Peas...

Tue Nov 12, 2013, 11:39 PM

JFK Conference: Lisa Pease Discussed the Real Harm of Corrupt Soft Power

As a Democrat, a DUer and as a citizen of the United States, I was proud to attend "Passing the Torch: An International Symposium on the 50th Anniversary of the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy" at Duquesne University.

One of the important speakers there I was privileged to meet and hear is Lisa Pease, who discussed "The Covert Corruption of Culture: How Our Reaction to JFK's Assassination and Cover-Up Determines Our Future." A researcher, writer and editor, her presentation examined our information environment and what it means for our selves, our nation, and our planet.



Lisa Pease defined culture as what we experience on a shared basis. She described a talk with a colleague from China who told her about "Hard Power" and "Soft Power." A nation's military and police forces are examples of Hard Power. Soft Power is wielded through the mass media, entertainment industries, and the arts. The latter create culture. And culture shapes belief.

Ms. Pease said she likes to correct inaccuracies in the press and encourages us to do likewise. One egregious example is the treatment afforded the assassination of President Kennedy. Not only have the basic facts and questions around Dallas been misrepresented, information that indicates a conspiracy behind the assassination have been suppressed by the nation's news media. Despite the biased coverage and propaganda, a majority of Americans do not believe the Warren Commission case against Lee Harvey Oswald.

Professional propagandists shape the national information environment. To help We the People preserve democracy, she recommends everyone read "1984" by George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair).



"That is the best book you all should read, because that is our future if we don't take back what's been done to us in the last, many years. 'Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past.' And I'm adding who controls culture, controls the present, because culture shapes our beliefs. Every day, every minute, everything you hear is input, and our brains are just recording it all and making assumptions, rightly or wrongly. The goal of my talk here is to help you make, maybe, better decisions about which inputs to let reach you and maybe when to recognize you are being propagandized. There is a culture war going on, specifically about this issue."



Ms. Pease has worked in the news and entertainment industry. She originally hoped that the assassination of President Kennedy was the result of a lone madman. After starting to research the assassinations of President Kennedy -- and later that of Malcolm X, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Robert F. Kennedy -- she realized that the facts indicated conspiracy and that the perpetrators had not been brought to justice. She wanted to talk about her work on the national news media, but after being invited to appear on television, she would see her segments left off of broadcasts. A booking agent explained to her the true picture: "Unless you support the Warren Commission, you will not get on television."

I can personally attest to Ms. Pease's contention regarding biased coverage. In 1993, during the 30th anniversary of the assassination of President Kennedy, I conducted a Content Analysis of New York Times coverage of the assassination anniversary as part of a college program. Using agreement by three coders, we examined the NYT coverage and found fully three-fourths of the paper's space that was devoted to Dallas went to one book, Gerald Posner's "Case Closed" which supported the Warren Commission's findings. Even though many important works were published around that year indicating conspiracy (including "Deep Politics and the Death of JFK" by Peter Dale Scott, "Destiny Betrayed" by James DiEugenio, and "The Last Investigation" by Gaeton Fonzi), they got near-zero coverage in the Paper of Record. In the 20 years since, much new has been learned. The Times, Washington Post and the few networks that produce most of the content Americans hear as news have stuck to the WC line.



"What's at stake are lives, literally lives, are at stake," Ms. Pease said. "By not reporting the truth about the assassination of President Kennedy, the media enabled the assassinations of others. Had the public known about the CIA's roles in coups and assassinations before Kennedy was killed, maybe we would have approached the Warren Report quite a bit differently. And, of course, by not prosecuting the agency for lying to the HSCA (House Select Committee on Assassinations), regardless, regardless -- i'm going to say it a third time -- regardless of whether the CIA was involved in the assassination, by not holding the CIA accountable for lying about anything to Congress is probably the worst mistake this country could make, because we cease to be a democracy when we give up oversight. We do not elect the people in the CIA. We do elect the people in Congress. And that is our only hold on this national security state. We need to hold our elected representatives accountable when they don't hold the national security state accountable. And that goes for all this stuff that's going on today with the NSA revelations. The former NSA director provably lied to Congress, it's right there on video; many of us have actually seen it. It's really important that man be held accountable, that agency be held accountable, because he's not just lying to congress, he's lying to all of us. That's not how democracy functions. These very types of lies that go unchallenged that led us to attack,
literally millions of innocent people in Iraq...These are people who have not done us any harm. Lies are killing people."



Ms. Pease cited several examples of important information that the nation's press have ignored from Kennedy Administration that are relevant for the public to know. Official documents from the CIA itself prove conclusively that President Kennedy and his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, were unaware of CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro -- assassination plans that began in 1960 under President Eisenhower and DCI Allen Dulles. Yet, the news media continue to repeat the canard that Kennedy ordered the plan. I'm proud to say, we on DU have discussed the Truth -- what Democracy most needs to survive.

51 replies, 10699 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 51 replies Author Time Post
Reply JFK Conference: Lisa Pease Discussed the Real Harm of Corrupt Soft Power (Original post)
Octafish Nov 2013 OP
iemitsu Nov 2013 #1
Octafish Nov 2013 #7
The Midway Rebel Nov 2013 #2
Octafish Nov 2013 #9
The Midway Rebel Nov 2013 #23
MinM Nov 2013 #24
Octafish Nov 2013 #28
The Midway Rebel Nov 2013 #30
Octafish Nov 2013 #32
zappaman Nov 2013 #34
Octafish Nov 2013 #35
Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #37
Octafish Nov 2013 #38
Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #39
Octafish Nov 2013 #40
Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #41
Octafish Nov 2013 #42
Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #43
Octafish Nov 2013 #49
Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #50
The Midway Rebel Nov 2013 #44
meanit Nov 2013 #51
avaistheone1 Nov 2013 #3
sabrina 1 Nov 2013 #5
hootinholler Nov 2013 #12
LineReply ^
Wilms Nov 2013 #4
Octafish Nov 2013 #18
Wilms Nov 2013 #22
Old and In the Way Nov 2013 #26
Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #31
leftstreet Nov 2013 #6
Octafish Nov 2013 #19
robertpaulsen Nov 2013 #8
Octafish Nov 2013 #27
hootinholler Nov 2013 #10
Octafish Nov 2013 #36
Pretzel_Warrior Nov 2013 #11
Octafish Nov 2013 #13
avaistheone1 Nov 2013 #14
bobthedrummer Nov 2013 #15
zappaman Nov 2013 #16
Octafish Nov 2013 #33
Mc Mike Nov 2013 #17
Octafish Nov 2013 #25
Mc Mike Nov 2013 #29
MinM Nov 2013 #20
Octafish Nov 2013 #21
solarhydrocan Nov 2013 #45
Octafish Nov 2013 #46
JohnyCanuck Nov 2013 #47
Octafish Nov 2013 #48

Response to Octafish (Original post)

Tue Nov 12, 2013, 11:51 PM

1. The curse of Cassandra.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iemitsu (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 13, 2013, 12:49 PM

7. The 'Why?'



The assassination of President Kennedy is, in my view, modern America's major turning point. Whether the murder was the objective of a coup plot or the tragic action of a lone madman, the country today is a very different place than what it was going to become had President Kennedy lived.

To support my contention, please contrast what John Fitzgerald Kennedy spoke of in his inaugural, a future where humanity could work together in peace to fight "the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself" with George Herbert Walker Bush, who said our nation has "more will than wallet" and shouldn't even try (of course, later, he would find all the money needed to bail out the S&Ls his son Neil and their cronies had looted).

What's even more troubling, we went from a nation that believed every human life has equal value to an empire where money trumps peace. That's not just un-American. That's Nazi.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Tue Nov 12, 2013, 11:56 PM

2. In before back and to the left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Midway Rebel (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 13, 2013, 02:14 PM

9. You're a person who says all this is a waste of time.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3812639



I disagree. To you and to all who tell me to, “Move on, it was just the brutal work of a lone nut,” I say, “That is exactly what J. Edgar Hoover and Allen Dulles wanted us to believe.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #9)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 09:54 AM

23. That picture you always post convinces me of nothing.

Last edited Thu Nov 14, 2013, 09:59 PM - Edit history (1)

When are you going to deal with the science that says LHO acted alone?

http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100shot5.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #9)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 10:03 AM

24. Here's another good one...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MinM (Reply #24)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 10:42 AM

28. Puff of Smoke

The Art and Science of Misrepresenting Evidence

How the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations
minipulated evidence to dismiss witness accounts of the assassination.


by Stewart Galanor
HistoryMatters.

Over six hundred people witnessed the assassination of President Kennedy. The FBI acting on behalf of the Warren Commission interviewed at least two hundred of them.

Regrettably, the Commission seemed unconcerned that the FBI reports on seventy of these interviews did not reveal if the witness had an opinion on the source of the shots. Nor did the Commission conduct an analysis of witness accounts or give any credence to those accounts of witnesses who thought the shots came from the grassy knoll.

SNIP...

At least seven witnesses saw a puff of smoke on the grassy knoll.

In May of 1966 I spoke with railroad workers Thomas Murphy and Walter Winborn, who were standing on the triple overpass at the time of the assassination. I asked Murphy, "Could you tell me where you thought the shots came from?"

Murphy. Yeah, they come from a tree to the left, of my left, which is to the immediate right of the site of the assassination.
Galanor. That would be on that grassy hill up there.
Murphy. Yeah, on the hill up there. There are two or three hackberry and elm trees. And I say it come from there.
Galanor. Well, was there anything that led you to believe that the shots came from there?
Murphy. Yeah, smoke.
Galanor. You saw smoke?
Murphy. Sure did.
Galanor. Could you tell me exactly where you saw the smoke?
Murphy. Yeah, in that tree. (See Cover-up, 59)


Walter Winborn told me he saw "smoke that come out from under the trees on the right hand side of the motorcade." The FBI agents who interviewed Winborn for the Warren Commission, however, did not mention in their report that he had seen smoke on the knoll.

Galanor. Did you tell them about that, that you saw smoke on the grassy knoll?
Winborn. Oh yes. Oh yes.
Galanor. They didn’t include it in their report.
Winborn. Well.
Galanor. Do you have any idea why they didn’t?
Winborn. I don’t have any idea. They are specialists in their field, and I’m just an amateur. (See Cover-up, 60)


S. M. Holland, a railroad signal supervisor, was standing on the overpass watching the motorcade move toward him. "I looked over toward the arcade and trees [the knoll] and saw a puff of smoke come from the trees." (19H480) Later Holland told the Warren Commission, "A puff of smoke came out about 6 or 8 feet above the ground right out from under those trees." (6H243) The Warren Commission ignored Holland’s testimony and never addressed the fact that five other railroad workers claimed to have seen smoke on the knoll at the time of the shots.

CONTINUED...

http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/Witness/artScience.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #28)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 08:52 PM

30. Puff of smoke? Yes, you blow lots of them.

More like clouds.

So JFK was shot with a musket?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Midway Rebel (Reply #30)

Sat Nov 16, 2013, 10:09 AM

32. Let's compare DU Journals to see who's contributed what...

Octafish on DU2 and DU3

The Midway Rebel: This Journal is Empty!

So who's blowing smoke?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #32)

Sat Nov 16, 2013, 03:53 PM

34. Undoubtably this was the weapon.



for real facts about the assassination of JFK, I recommend this site.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #34)

Sat Nov 16, 2013, 05:01 PM

35. Wow. Quoting a right winger on DU as an ''authority''...

Says a lot about you, zappaman.

McAdams in his own words...

http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/

Why I don't think he's real "authority" among "authoritarians" when it comes to Dallas:



It looks like they did. But the conduit for the attack was not Gus Russo. Russo was already unwelcome in the critical community because of his work on the wildly skewed 1993 Frontline documentary about Oswald. He had actually been attacked in public at a Dallas Conference the previous year by Cyril Wecht and this author. So what apparently happened is that the strategy was to use someone with a lower public profile. And then to lower that even further by having him attend the conference under a false name. We might have never learned about this operation if the perpetrator had used the name of say 'Jack Smith'. But he didn't. He used the name of 'Paul Nolan'. One day, the real Paul Nolan was surfing the Internet when he found out what had happened. He then posted the following message: "I was just doing some research over the 'net. I wanted to see if anything came up that had my name in it. Guess what? My REAL name is Paul Nolan! Apparently, some asshole wants to use my name as an alias."

SOURCE: http://www.ctka.net/2013/mcadams.html



For more specifics:



McAdams’ strategy is not a new one -- it involves attacking all of the witnesses; they are either weird, shady, unreliable, unqualified, possess bad memories…or are crazy. Or liars. Everyone else must have “misremembered”. Thank goodness we have the likes of McAdams, Mack, Reitzes, and Dave Perry to set us straight on the facts. After all, you would never, ever, ever see someone of Gary Mack’s unimpeachable integrity put out a TV re-creation of the assassination which places Jackie in the wrong position in the limousine, would you? Oops, I guess for Inside the Target Car Mack must have “misremembered” where Jackie was sitting.

SOURCE: http://www.ctka.net/reviews/mcadams_Cassano.html



So there are two examples of why I don't ascribe to John McAdams right wing views of President Kennedy's assassination and his views on those who don't believe the Oswald did it theory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #35)

Sat Nov 16, 2013, 06:10 PM

37. Do you understand that the genetic fallacy is a logical failure, Octafish?

As much as you indulge in it, I can't imagine that you do.

When anyone starts linking to McAdams as someone who makes sense on issues like climate change, creationism, and economics, I will join you in roundly mocking McAdams as a fruitbat. Because on those issues, he is.

But even a right-wing whackaloon can be right about an issue that isn't clouded by his bullshit religious mania. I don't think Jesus Christ has offered an opinion on who shot JFK. I could be wrong: it's been a while since I read the book. But as in all things in life, garbage in, garbage out. When McAdams isn't hampered by his religious convictions, when he is only dealing with the evidence, he's fine. When Jesus tells him to put his head up his ass, McAdams does. That's his gig and he is welcome to it.

But what does this do to impeach the credible evidence about Oswald's sole guilt in the death of JFK? Oswald was the sole owner and possessor of the rifle that killed JFK regardless of whether McAdams is right about climate change or not. It is a logical fallacy to say otherwise. It is a sign of your argument's inherent weakness that you must resort to these silly distractions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #37)

Sat Nov 16, 2013, 08:59 PM

38. That doesn't change the facts, Bolo Boffin: McAdams is a right winger.

And he sees the JFK assassination from a right wing -- read: CIA -- perspective.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #38)

Sat Nov 16, 2013, 09:23 PM

39. McAdams being a right winger doesn't change the facts either, Octafish.

If McAdams said you were standing in an ant bed, would you let them bite you to spite him?

Oswald acted alone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #39)

Sat Nov 16, 2013, 09:28 PM

40. That's what the right wingers McAdams, Hoover and Dulles said.

And because they blamed Oswald, the people who killed Kennedy got away with it.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #40)

Sat Nov 16, 2013, 09:34 PM

41. That's what the evidence says.

That is the only issue here. The evidence cannot help that right wingers or left wingers point to it. The evidence is clear. Oswald acted alone.

If McAdams, Hoover, and Dulles all said you were standing in an ant bed, would you let them bite you to spite them all?

ETA: 2 + 2 = 4, even if McAdams says so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #41)

Sat Nov 16, 2013, 09:51 PM

42. The evidence you cite, perhaps. The rest of the evidence, no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #42)

Sat Nov 16, 2013, 10:44 PM

43. 2 + 2 = 4, even if McAdams said so.

Nice picture. Oswald said he was down on the first floor eating lunch when the motorcade passed by. If that's supposed to be him, what's he doing up there? Why did he lie to police if that's him? Why didn't he say: "Hey, I was up in the doorway, surrounded by witnesses! Check it out, officers!"

But that's not him. That's Billy Lovelady.



Instead, Oswald lied about eating lunch with two other people. The one person he named was James Jarman. Jarman said that wasn't true.

ETA: By the way, this is yet another time I've shown you to be wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #43)

Sun Nov 17, 2013, 07:16 PM

49. McAdams says it's Lovelady.

Groden says it might be Oswald.

And I'm right about McAdams being a right winger.

And you are wrong, again, Bolo Boffin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #49)

Sun Nov 17, 2013, 08:36 PM

50. McAdams says 2 + 2 = 4.

How about you?

Who do you say is in that picture?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #32)

Sun Nov 17, 2013, 02:01 AM

44. That would be

you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Midway Rebel (Reply #30)

Sun Nov 17, 2013, 09:08 PM

51. So modern rifles don't make some smoke when fired?

Did they still use gunpowder in 1963?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Wed Nov 13, 2013, 02:36 AM

3. CIA Document #1035-960 Countering Criticism of the Warren Commission

 

The CIA did not approve of those who questioned the official verdict on President Kennedy’s assassination. The publication of the first wave of critical books, such as Sylvia Meagher’s Accessories After the Fact and Harold Weisberg’s Whitewash, led the CIA in 1967 to produce an internal document which stated its concerns and suggested ways to counteract the critics.

The document was released in 1977 as the result of a request under the Freedom of Information Act for access to Lee Harvey Oswald’s CIA file, no. 201–289248. The document is reproduced below.

http://22november1963.org.uk/cia-warren-report-critics




This document, dated Jan. 4, 1967, and marked PSYCH for Psychological Warfare, directs agents of the CIA to counter critics of the Warren Report by using "liaison and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors)" and "to employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics."


Ssssh, there must be no criticism of the Warren Report, better yet there must be no discussion at all of the JFK assassination or of the Warren Report, so says the CIA.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to avaistheone1 (Reply #3)

Wed Nov 13, 2013, 11:01 AM

5. Amazing to see what many people have suspected confirmed so clearly. Thanks for this post.

Not just on the JFK story, but on other major issues, perhaps the Internet has made it more clear to people, that there is a concerted effort to end discussions of 'inconvenient' issues. After a while you begin to wonder why the effort is so intense and why the arguments, the name calling etc all seem so similar.

Seeing that document confirms what people have concluded about the attempt to marginalize people who continue to question, that the effort is orchestrated.

I like it when we get proof of people's instincts.

Thanks for the post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 13, 2013, 02:38 PM

12. I'm not sure if the law was on the books back then

But clearly this is propagandizing the American Public, which I'm pretty sure was illegal at some point up until a couple of years ago.

It's stunning to see it so explicitly without having been punished.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Wed Nov 13, 2013, 10:49 AM

4. ^

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wilms (Reply #4)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 08:25 AM

18. REDLICH Memo Proves FBI Lied from Day One...

Lisa Pease brought something to my attention at the Duquesne Conference that I have never once seen mentioned on all the JFK coverage on the tee vee going on:

The FBI knew Oswald had not fired a rifle on Nov. 22, 1963

The tests that were done on Oswald’s paraffin cheek cast were the most sensitive. They would have detected nitrate even if he had scrubbed his face. That’s why Redlich wrote Dulles that there was “no basis” for claiming Oswald fired a rifle. That’s why FBI agent Courtland Cunningham came up with a ridiculous two-man scenario to create a false negative. One agent cleaned the gun and handed it to the other between shots. That’s the lengths they went to. Oh, and Cunningham also just lied. He said Oswald’s gun chamber was sealed so nitrate couldn’t escape. The reason we know that’s a lie is that the FBI agents ran the tests with Oswald’s rifle – not a similar one but the same exact rifle – and consistently got nitrate on their cheek. It was so bad they actually got nitrate on BOTH cheeks! See Gerald McKnight’s book Breach of Trust for a lot of details re that, if you’re interested.

SOURCE: http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/experts/who-is-the-problem-when-it-comes-to-jfk/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #18)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 09:40 AM

22. Thanks. New to me too. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #18)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 10:52 AM

26. I never knew this, Octafish.

Such an obvious detail that ought to be a significant point of evidence, supporting or disproving Oswald's role in the assassination.. Yet I never heard about this testing or even thought to ask about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #18)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 09:07 PM

31. I believe you are granting parrafin tests a degree of reliability they do not possess. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Wed Nov 13, 2013, 12:48 PM

6. DURec

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #6)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 08:40 AM

19. Where's a Reporter when you need one? CIA Lied to JFK, the Warren Commission, Congress...

...and yet, there has been near-zero coverage about that on any of the many tee vee specials getting aired this month.

At the Duquesne conference, Lisa Pease detailed:

CIA lied to President Kennedy about the Bay of Pigs.
CIA lied to President Kennedy about its plots with the Mafia to kill Castro.
CIA lied to Warren Commission about its assassination plots.
CIA lied to Congress by appointing Oswald's New Orleans handler to HSCA.
CIA lied to the Nation about Dallas and a whole lot else.

Yet, none of that gets the attention it merits from America's news media.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Wed Nov 13, 2013, 01:25 PM

8. The corruption of our culture also occurs through meme management.

I explored this subtle influence in my recent blog post:

Friday, November 8, 2013

JFK Was Assassinated By Space Aliens

Go ahead and laugh, the title is intended to be humorous. What I find personally amusing, as we approach the 50th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, is what a concerted effort our Radical Establishment Media (REM) is engaged in trying to convince the public that the Warren Commission really did get it right. That Lee Harvey Oswald really did act alone and did not conspire in any way, shape or form with any other individuals in arranging the assassination of JFK. That Jack Ruby in turn murdered Lee Harvey Oswald simply out of personal grief for the Kennedy family and did not conspire in any way, shape or form with the Mafia, law enforcement or any other organization or individuals with an interest in silencing Oswald. In the past 10 years, this concerted effort has shown some results. A poll earlier this year conducted by Associated Press-GfK shows 59% of Americans think multiple people were involved in a conspiracy to kill JFK, whereas a 2003 Gallup poll found 75% of Americans felt there was a conspiracy.



Part of the reason for this drop over the last decade is meme management. In order for the public to be convinced the Warren Commission was right, it is important that the perception of competing theories spelling out conspiracy not only be made to appear incorrect, but absolutely ridiculous. Generally, the REM will use this by taking some aspect of the JFK assassination that the general public regards in connection with conspiracy, like the grassy knoll, and applying it to the latest controversy of the day where a conspiracy hypothesis can be disproved. Dana Milbank of the Washington Post did this recently, by correctly disputing the Benghazi hypothesis posited by Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy In Media and former CIA officer Clare Lopez that the Obama administration "flipped our policy" and was arming al-Qaeda. (Really, Clare? Like you were completely unaware of any 'black ops' by your former employer at odds with the stated "policy" of previous administrations?) But then Milbank gilds the lily by describing their "lunacy" as being "around the grassy knoll." The clear implication is that the belief that a shot hit Kennedy from the front, all visual indications in the Zapruder film aside, should be disregarded as hallucinatory, otherwise noted journalists like Milbank will roll their eyes and say, "I've got an appointment back on Earth."

This sentiment expressed above has become a verbal shorthand among the REM and self-appointed "debunkers" hell-bent on pigeon-holing good conspiracy theories and bad conspiracy hypotheses into the same goofy trashcan of public perception. It is their go-to moniker for disrespecting any and all conspiracy research: 'tin foil hat'. The origin of this adjective is from mentally ill/traumatized people who believe that wearing tin foil on their head in the shape of a hat will prevent the transmission of voices into their head. While there is some scientific validity for the effectiveness of reducing radio wave radiation this way, it is the stated reason by a few unfortunate souls that this will prevent harassment by paranormal beings that has lead to the use of the phrase 'tin foil' for cheap laughs at the expense of any conspiracy theory deemed delusional by those who claim to speak for all things rational. Thus, in their mind, Grassy Knoll=Aliens.


more...

http://americanjudas.blogspot.com/2013/11/jfk-was-assassinated-by-space-aliens.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robertpaulsen (Reply #8)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 11:29 AM

27. Send problems to the HAC... CIA spookspeak for ''Health Alteration Committee.''

Great report, yours, on the "management" of ideas. Things must be getting much easier, with standards-based public education, fewer independent sources of news, fewer readers, and more of what Lisa Pease called "Crapaganda."

Here's light from William Blum:



Indonesia, 1957-1958: War and pornography

“I think it’s time we held Sukarno’s feet to the fire,” said Frank Wisner, the CIA’s Deputy Director of Plans (covert operations), one day in autumn 1956. 1 Wisner was speaking of the man who had led Indonesia since its struggle for independence from the Dutch following the war. A few months earlier, in May, Sukarno had made an impassioned speech before the US Congress asking for more understanding of the problems and needs of developing nations like his own. 2

SNIP...

In 1975, the Senate committee which was investigating the CIA heard testimony that Agency officers stationed in an East Asian country had suggested that an East Asian leader be assassinated “to disrupt an impending Communist [sic] Conference in 1955”. 3 (In all likelihood, the leader referred to was either Sukarno or Chou En-lai of China.) But, said the committee, cooler heads prevailed at CIA headquarters in Washington and the suggestion was firmly rejected.

Nevertheless, a plane carrying eight members of the Chinese delegation, a Vietnamese, and two European journalists to the Bandung Conference crashed under mysterious circumstances. The Chinese government claimed that it was an act of sabotage carried out by the US and Taiwan, a misfired effort to murder Chou En-lai. The chartered Air India plane had taken off from Hong Kong on 11 April 1955 and crashed in the South China Sea. Chou En-lai was scheduled to be on another chartered Air India flight a day or two later. The Chinese government, citing what it said were press reports from the Times of India, stated that the crash was caused by two time bombs apparently placed aboard the plane in Hong Kong. A clockwork mechanism was later recovered from the wrecked airliner and the Hong Kong police called it a case of “carefully planned mass murder”. Months later, British police in Hong Kong announced that they were seeking a Chinese Nationalist for conspiracy to cause the crash, but that he had fled to Taiwan. 4

In 1967 a curious little book appeared in India, entitled I Was a CIA Agent in India, by John Discoe Smith, an American. Published by the Communist Party of India, it was based on articles written by Smith for Literaturnaya Gazeta in Moscow after he had defected to the Soviet Union around 1960. Smith, born in Quincy, Mass. in 1926, wrote that he had been a communications technician and code clerk at the US Embassy in New Delhi in 1955, performing tasks for the CIA as well. One of these tasks was to deliver a package to a Chinese Nationalist which Smith later learned, he claimed, contained the two time bombs used to blow up the Air India plane. The veracity of Smith’s account cannot be determined, although his employment at the US Embassy in New Delhi from 1954 to 1959 is confirmed by the State Department Biographic Register. 5

Elsewhere the Senate committee reported that it had “received some evidence of CIA involvement in plans to assassinate President Sukarno of Indonesia”, and that the planning had proceeded to the point of identifying an agent whom it was believed might be recruited for the job. 6 (The committee noted that at one time, those at the CIA who were concerned with possible assassinations and appropriate methods were known internally as the “Health Alteration Committee”.)

CONTINUED...

http://williamblum.org/chapters/killing-hope/indonesia



Mehr licht, Herr robertpaulsen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Wed Nov 13, 2013, 02:34 PM

10. I have to disagree with one thing...

And I'm adding who controls culture, controls the present,


Who controls culture, controls the future, not the present. Cultural shifts are like steering a large ship, they don't turn on a dime. Change the culture today and the decisions based on that culture shift occur tomorrow.

I think we would do well to remember that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hootinholler (Reply #10)

Sat Nov 16, 2013, 05:45 PM

36. That's the realm of belief.

Remember how Ronnie Reagan would make stuff up as fact from his dim memories of movies he saw or, on occasion, acted in? I believe he read Claude M. Bristol, who popularized the concepts of mind over matter (belief over reality):

The Magic of Believing

He may not've guessed it, but Pruneface and Bristol may have hit the quantum nail on the head. It would explain all the efforts to manipulate human beliefs through culcha, cults and all the rest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Wed Nov 13, 2013, 02:36 PM

11. GOD, I am sick of this JFK shit

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pretzel_Warrior (Reply #11)

Wed Nov 13, 2013, 02:57 PM

13. Thanks for your input, Pretzel_Warrior.

Odd opinion, yours, for a DUer, let alone a Democrat.

A few important things to know about the assassination of President Kennedy:

President John F. Kennedy was proud to be a Liberal Democrat who worked every day he was in office to keep the peace and to make life better for all Americans. As President, Kennedy worked to make ours a stronger nation and this a better world.

Many in the country opposed him for his Liberal perspective on civil rights. Kennedy ordered the integration of more than college campuses, he ordered the FBI and Secret Service to hire African American agents.

Others opposed his Liberal policies towards other nations and regions. Kennedy favored economic development of the Third World, rather than the past approach of siding with a particular nation's strongman or oligarch to more economically steal the natural resources. In Africa, his policies were to help people learn to feed themselves, read to their kids, and take care of the sick and elderly. That policy, Kennedy believed, would make the United States longer and better allies. Most, if not all, of his successors returned to the traditional policy of stealing all that a nation had to offer.

JFK also made enemies with the most frightening elements of the psychology that is the United States. The monied elite that owns the contracts and politicians that put the pork on the table for their sponsors are no strangers to violence. They make their biggest money off of the most horrible thing there is.

So, for his less than three years as President, John F. Kennedy faced the War Party, the military-industrial-governmental complex that did all it could to make the Cold War Hot.

Still, the War Party tried to have war over the Bay of Pigs. Kennedy said, "No."

The War Party tried to have war over the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy said, "No."

The War Party tried to have war in Vietnam and southeast Asia. Then, as well, Kennedy said, "No."

Of course, all along -- even when they pushed for nuclear war with the Soviet Union -- President Kennedy said, "No."

The War Party presented Kennedy with Operation NORTHWOODS, a plan that suggested the US Government kill Americans and make it look like Cuba did it as a pretext for war with Cuba and the Soviet Union. Kennedy said, "No." And he fired the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who submitted it.

Then came November 22, 1963 and Dallas.

After President Kennedy was dead, the War Party made out like Lee Harvey Oswald did it. And the FBI, CIA and Warren Commission (as revealed through Dulles' "Mighty Wurlitzer" left a trail of "fixed" evidence to make it out Oswald was working for Cuba and its master, the Soviet Union.

Yet, that is merely a falsehood perpetuated by the nation's political elite and mass media. For according to the records of the United States Government, Oswald worked for the United States.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pretzel_Warrior (Reply #11)

Wed Nov 13, 2013, 03:05 PM

14. Simple then, I suggest you ignore the thread

 

and get lost.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pretzel_Warrior (Reply #11)

Wed Nov 13, 2013, 05:29 PM

15. GOD isn't a DUer, and questions about the assassination of President Kennedy aren't fecal matter.

 

In fact, many informed questions need to be ANSWERED in this post-Wikileaks, Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden world.
K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobthedrummer (Reply #15)

Wed Nov 13, 2013, 05:31 PM

16. "GOD isn't a DUer"

I find that rather presumptuous.
Do we know this for sure?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobthedrummer (Reply #15)

Sat Nov 16, 2013, 03:50 PM

33. Good people don't play 'God' with other human beings.

For the Bush family, "Money trumps peace." That's evil. Epic Empire Evil.

#t=7

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Wed Nov 13, 2013, 08:42 PM

17. Thanks again, Octa.

Always great information in your posts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mc Mike (Reply #17)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 10:29 AM

25. You are most welcome Mc Mike! What Lisa Pease learned about JFK and Indonesia...

"No wonder Sukarno doesn't like us very much. He has to sit down with people who tried to overthrow him." - President Kennedy, 1961

And after President Kennedy was no longer in office, they did.



JFK, Indonesia,
CIA & Freeport Sulphur


by Lisa Pease

EXCERPT...

1958: CIA vs. Sukarno

"I think its time we held Sukarno's feet to the fire," said Frank Wisner, then Deputy Director of Plans for the CIA, in 1956. By 1958, having failed to buy the government through the election process, the CIA was fomenting a full-fledged operation in Indonesia. Operation Hike, as it was called, involved the arming and training of tens of thousands of Indonesians as well as "mercenaries" to launch attacks in the hope of bringing down Sukarno.

Joseph Burkholder Smith was a former CIA officer involved with the Indonesian operations during this period. In his book, Portrait of a Cold Warrior, he described how the CIA took it upon themselves to make, not just to enact, policy in this area:

before any direct action against Sukarno's position could be taken, we would have to have the approval of the Special Group-the small group of top National Security Council officials who approved covert action plans. Premature mention of such an idea might get it shot down ...

So we began to feed the State Department and Defense departments intelligence ... When they had read enough alarming reports, we planned to spring the suggestion we should support the colonels' plan to reduce Sukarno's power. This was a method of operation which became the basis of many of the political action adventures of the 1960s and 1970s. In other words, the statement is false that CIA undertook to intervene in the affairs of countries like Chile only after being ordered to do so ... In many instances, we made the action programs up ourselves after we had collected enough intelligence to make them appear required by the circumstance. Our activity in Indonesia in 1957-1958 was one such instance.


When the Ambassador to Indonesia wrote Washington of his explicit disagreements with the CIA's handling of the situation, Allen Dulles had his brother John Foster appoint a different Ambassador to Indonesia, one more accepting of the CIA's activities.

In addition to the paramilitary activities, the CIA tried psychological warfare tricks to discredit Sukarno, such as passing rumors that he had been seduced by a Soviet stewardess. To that end, Sheffield Edwards, head of the CIA's Office of Security, enlisted the Chief of the Los Angeles Police Department to help with a porno movie project the CIA was making to use against Sukarno, ostensibly showing Sukarno in the act. Others involved in these efforts were Robert Maheu, and Bing Crosby and his brother.

The Agency tried to keep its coup participation covert, but one "mercenary" met misfortune early. Shot down and captured during a bombing run, Allen Lawrence Pope was carrying all kinds of ID on his person to indicate that he was an employee of the CIA. The U.S. Government, right up to President Eisenhower, tried to deny that the CIA was involved at all, but the Pope revelations made a mockery of this. Not cowed by the foment, as Arbenz had been in Guatemala, Sukarno marshalled those forces loyal to him and crushed the CIA-aided rebellion. Prior to the Bay of Pigs, this was the Agency's single largest failed operation.

CONTINUED...

http://www.realhistoryarchives.com/collections/hidden/freeport-indonesia.htm



Emphasis above mine.

PS: Thank you for the kind words, Mc Mike. I also am very and truly sorry about the loss of your Friend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #25)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 08:36 PM

29. I didn't know of Ms. Pease until reading your posts and MinM's.

She's an xcellent writer, and has a ton of in depth historical knowledge. The link discussing the intel connections of many high profile pro WC journos was interesting. An 'obvious truth' shouldn't need so much butressing, and it's tough to figure a legit motive for so many agency assets to be interested in promoting the 'obvious truth'.

It's blatant the way the CIA and the Dulles bros acted how they wanted, making policy instead of carrying out policy, in nation after nation, as you described above. Subverting democracy here and abroad, killing one national leader after another. But they are above suspicion in the Kennedy killing, it really angers people when someone tries to add two and two up, on this subject.

Maheu involvement in the Sukarno smear is interesting, because of his involvement as the go-between between intel and Trafficante, Lansky, Roselli, Giancana on the assassination plots the media are incorrectly attributing to the Kennedys to smear them. Always talking about 'Operation Mongoose', when it's just a re-tooled Bill Harvey - run ZR RIFLE. The media has frequently garbled LBJ's quote 'we were running a damned murder incorporated' (meaning intel, not Johnson and Kennedy), incorrectly quoting it as 'they were running a damned murder incorporated' (meaning the Kennedys).

Allen Pope reminds me of the Hasenfus incident in Iran Contra, and the Watergate burglars. Cut out the labels on your clothing, but carry your pay-stubs and W-2s when you're on the operation. I believe Oswald did carry Ferrie's library card, despite Zap's 'refuting evidence' on this site, for the same reason.

I saw the very beginning of NOVA on PBS this week, where they altered the Zapruder footage even further for the intro teaser, showing the SS man run and jump on the car, covering Jackie, cutting out the part where she climbed on the back. A seemless looking edit. The program was sponsored by the bircher David Koch, usually so famous for censoring PBS content and academic research at universities. Also saw shit head Schieffer on CBS's morning show today saying when he overlooked Dealey from the TSBD, it struck him that 'you wouldn't need to be a very good shot' to commit the assassination from that vantage point. Ms. Pease's 'corrupt soft power' in action.

Thanks for your good reporting of events, and the research on the Posner media coverage phenomenom in '93. I appreciate your sympathy about my friend's passing. I still get a laugh thinking about some of the truly funny things he said and did. I hope passing of time helps you and your friend's loved ones get some relief from your loss.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to MinM (Reply #20)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 08:50 AM

21. James Galbraith said only Readers can get a true picture of Dallas and its 50-year aftermath...

JFK After 50 Years

By Prof. James K Galbraith
Global Research, November 12, 2013
Austin American-Statesman

I never met President Kennedy although I have a letter from him, on my ninth birthday in 1961, expressing hope that I might grow up to be as good a Democrat as my father “but possibly of a more convenient size.” On the day he was shot I was at school. I remember above all Mother’s gray face, and the small clumps of men gathered on the Cambridge sidewalks, talking quietly as we drove home.

Dad was in Washington. His message home was, “it’s the worst day of my life.” Realizing that the White House would no longer be hers, he arranged for Mrs. Kennedy to stay at Averell Harriman’s house in Georgetown. A few days later, he wrote a first draft of President Johnson’s address to Congress. It was not the one Johnson used.

For thirty years afterward I barely thought about those days. In our family – I now realize – they were walled off by pain. Vietnam, Watergate, career, marriage and divorce came and went. And then, by happenstance in 1993, I started thinking again. There were by that time some 600 books on the assassination, or so I heard.

I read perhaps one-tenth that number, in those days when the topic gripped me. What did I learn? That contested history is hard. Length does not correlate with depth. Authorities and endorsements mean nothing. Footnotes matter. To plumb the murder of John F. Kennedy you have to know how to read.

I have contributed to the history. One issue concerned Kennedy’s decision, made in October 1963 with the support of Robert McNamara, to order the withdrawal of all US advisers from Vietnam by the end of 1965. The fact of that decision was later suppressed. To re-establish it, even with clear evidence, took a battle among historians that lasted fifteen years. And the battle goes on. On October 27, Jill Abramson published a long essay in The New York Times Book Review that includes this statement: “…the belief that [Kennedy] would have limited the American presence in Vietnam is rooted as much in the romance of “what might have been” as in the documented record.”

CONTINUED...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/jfk-after-50-years/5357874?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=jfk-after-50-years

Thank you, MinM! Readers are Leaders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Sun Nov 17, 2013, 03:32 AM

45. great post- some want more info and some do not.

Who wouldn't want more?

A country that tolerates this:



and this:

The United States has been involved in and assisted in the overthrow of foreign governments (more recently termed "regime change" without the overt use of U.S. military force. Often, such operations are tasked to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Regime change has been attempted through direct involvement of U.S. operatives, the funding and training of insurgency groups within these countries, anti-regime propaganda campaigns, coups d'état, and other activities usually conducted as operations by the CIA. The U.S. has also accomplished regime change by direct military action, such as following the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1989 and the U.S.-led military invasion of Iraq in 2003.

2.1 Communist states 1944–89
2.2 Syria 1949
2.3 Iran 1953
2.4 Guatemala 1954
2.5 Tibet 1955–70s
2.6 Indonesia 1958
2.7 Cuba 1959
2.8 Democratic Republic of the Congo 1960–65
2.9 Iraq 1960–63
2.10 Dominican Republic 1961
2.11 South Vietnam 1963
2.12 Brazil 1964
2.13 Ghana 1966
2.14 Chile 1970–73
2.15 Argentina 1976
2.16 Afghanistan 1979–89
2.17 Turkey 1980
2.18 Poland 1980–81
2.19 Nicaragua 1981–90
-2.19. 1 Destablization through CIA Assets
-2.19. 2 Arming the Contras
2.20 Cambodia 1980–95
2.21 Angola 1980s
2.22 Philippines 1986

3 Since the end of the Cold War

3.1 Iraq 1992–96
3.2 Afghanistan 2001
3.3 Venezuela 2002
3.4 Iraq 2002–03
3.5 Haiti 2004
3.6 Gaza Strip 2006–present
3.7 Somalia 2006–07
3.8 Iran 2005–present
3.9 Libya 2011
3.10 Syria 2012–present

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_U.S._regime_change_actions


Can't really call themselves a "Constitutional Republic".

Seems there's the same split on every board- those who want more info and those who do not. And lots of those who do not also want to prevent others from learning more. Then there are those that don't give a crap about much of anything.

Authoritarian vs. Freedom. The new/old fight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to solarhydrocan (Reply #45)

Sun Nov 17, 2013, 01:25 PM

46. The Difference.

Those who would shut down discussion and those who encourage discussion.

Why would someone -- in particular, "Democrats" or, generally anyone who cares about Justice -- want the nation to "Move on!" from Dallas without answering ALL the questions?

There's a lot to discuss and learn. For example:

Poppy Bush brought up JFK Assassination and ''Conspiracy Theorists'' at Ford Funeral

Why would a former president want to deride anyone who disagreed with the Warren Commission theory that Oswald acted alone during a eulogy for another former president -- one who was the first unelected president and also happened to be a member of the Warren Commission?

Instead, we should discuss:

Gerald Ford: Warren Commission skeptics "no problem"

I'd also like to see DUers and all who care about Democracy discuss the muzzled national press corps since Dallas -- a topic forbidden to free discussion on the national airwaves:

CIA memo: Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report

Not trying to cast aspersions on the fine men who lied America into illegal, unnecessary and disastrous wars for private profit over the past 50 years, but it's important that we continue to ask "Why?" It's even more important that We the People learn the answers and set the nation on a better course for the next 50.

Thank you for noticing, solaryhydrocan! Thanks also for caring!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Original post)

Sun Nov 17, 2013, 05:25 PM

47. K&R n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnyCanuck (Reply #47)

Sun Nov 17, 2013, 06:55 PM

48. Lisa Pease said we need an honest news media to get Democracy back...

...yet only one side gets heard: "An agent told me: 'If you don't say Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, you won't get on television,'" Lisa Pease said.

DemocraticUnderground, also, is an important part of that battleground, she said. Lots of readers from her site come from DU, she said, after we post articles. Several of the other presenters at Duquesne said the same thing to me, Octafish from DU.

Here's an important example of what Ms. Pease was talking about:

If TIME-LIFE were honest, they'd address CIA-Mafia assassination plots.

Instead, they write glowingly about a self-described "debunker" who has demonstrated loyalty to CIA. "Trust us. We're innocent. There's nothing in those documents or in this documentary record of lies and obstruction of justice."

Of course, TIME-LIFE doesn't mention the importance of CIA officer George Joannides, who was part of the CIA anti-Castro activities in New Orleans at the same time Lee Harvey Oswald came in contact with same. Nor does TIME-LIFE mention how CIA pulled Joannides out of retirement to take over CIA-Congress "liaison" duties with the the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) and how he failed to inform our Representatives of his previous ties. Nor does TIME-LIFE mention the long unclassified and the newly declassified records that show CIA lied to President Kennedy and Attorney General Kennedy after they ordered them to stop those programs that were started by CIA director Allen Dulles in the Eisenhower Administration. That was all covered at the Duquesne conference.

All that would be in TIME, if they were they honest. Instead we get John McAdams, friend of Welfare for the Wealthy and War Inc.

For those interested in learning more.

Thank you, JohnyCanuck. Ad astra per aspera...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread