On the 40th Anniversary of the Death of President Kennedy and a Look at Mind-Control
 
Siegfried Othmer, Ph.D.
OpEdNews.com
As we observe the 40th anniversary of the assassination of John Kennedy, some of us find ourselves transported back to those days because it was for us a politically formative event.
 
For a long time thereafter, we were occupied with the issue of whether the assassination was a conspiracy. One thing we know for sure is that it rapidly became one---a conspiracy of secrecy about what the government knew. This secrecy has continued more or less to this day. It moved even Bertrand Russell to ask at the time, if this was all the work of one lone assassin, then why must we have all that secrecy about the particulars? So the best evidence that there was something to hide was the fact that it was being assiduously hidden.
 
It was clearly important to maintain the faith of a shaken public in the integrity of its government. And we are aware of the myriad ways in which something can be rendered ridiculous in the public eye. So it was important to discredit the conspiracy theory---clearly the primary function of the Warren Commission. Just like the public was protected from the knowledge that President Roosevelt was an invalid, and that President Kennedy was a very sick man as well as a philanderer, it now needed to be protected from the disagreeable reality that the assassination could potentially expose.
 
This reality subsequently came to light in the Watergate scandal, as we gained insight into the nether world in which CIA talents could be recruited for quasi-governmental causes. These darker recesses of our government and its hangers-on were obviously involved as well at the time of the earlier assassination. Everywhere the light was shined into the darkness, more unsavory evidence came to light. As a matter of historical accuracy it may be important to know whether Oswald acted alone. As a matter of public policy, however, it is enough to know that solid evidence in support of contemporaneous conspiracies did exist. In this larger context, it is a misdirection to look for a monolithic conspiratorial entity, or to insist upon a sturdy chain of evidence, or even a smoking gun. The investigation revealed rogue operations of various stripes, and each of them was capable of taking the President out without qualms when presented with the opportunity. There were as many good candidates for such a conspiracy as there were characters in the bar scene in Star Wars.
 
Similarly, the killing of Martin Luther King looked very much like it was the result of a conspiracy. Only in this case, as race was involved, it was even more crucial to suppress the conspiracy theory. Had this hypothesis been thoroughly aired, the FBI might well have its reputation singed, the integrity of our government would have been impugned, and our society might well have come apart at the seams. After all, it nearly did.
 
And there is even good reason to believe that the killing of Robert Kennedy was a conspiracy as well. But because Robert Kennedy was only a candidate for President, that hypothesis was much easier to bury at that point than had been the case with his brother.
 
In all of these instances, it was the obligation of the press no less than of the government itself to preserve the public faith in the integrity of its institutions. Events that were so contrary to our democratic traditions had to be treated as isolated anomalies, much like the assassination or Yitzhak Rabin in Israel. We could thus rally ourselves and move on. This postponed a necessary discussion about the realities of power in Washington.
 
Only one person can be President, but many can constrain his freedom of action. Less bloody ways have been found to direct the course of government since 1963, and the myriad ways in which the government has been made subservient to non-governmental or quasi-governmental interests has only increased. The problem is that the loyalties of these disparate power centers do not reach from shore to shore. Their interests are frequently antithetical to the public interest. Their influence marbles through the instrumentalities of government to the point where no sharp demarcation remains between the private and the public sphere. Collectively, these forces eclipse the practical import of our democratic means of shaping governmental purpose. The stirring slogans of freedom and democracy are still reverently invoked, but the realities of power relationships are something else.
 
Just to bring this abstract discussion closer to home, I want to bring evidence to bear of which I have some personal knowledge. Sue Ford, someone whom I have known for years, has been trying to tell her incredible life story, one that almost defies belief. She reports that she had been “groomed” from childhood on to serve as a consort of Presidents in order to be a conduit of information for her sponsors, whoever they are. In the early post-War years, the emerging capability of mind control through the splitting of the personality in early childhood---either through simulated or actual trauma---presented an opportunity not heretofore available. People could effectively be enslaved without their knowledge or consent, and employed on ventures in altered states that would not be subject to later recall.
 
It could not have been known at the time that these techniques of compartmentalization of personalities can break down through subsequent events such as head trauma or a psychotic break, or through re-integrating processes such as holotropic breathwork, hypnotherapy, other psychotherapy, or neurofeedback. Gradually, these deliberately created multiple personalities are re-discovering parts of themselves they had no idea existed. Of course, these processes of self-discovery appear to have all the features of what is labeled as mental illness. And that is how these people are treated.
 
We have here the equivalent in the secular world of the scandal that has recently plagued the Catholic Church---of the appropriation of children for purposes not their own. One would not have thought it possible that a scandal of such a large scale could have gone on for decades without coming to the attention of the culture at large. Each case was treated as isolated, or as a case of mental illness. The point had to be reached where these people were taken seriously, and seen collectively as victims of a campaign of disinformation. The same thing must now be confronted by the culture at large with regard to the menace of mind control. We must begin to connect the dots among the myriad reports of similar treatment by people who do not know each other, and who could not have compared notes. Yet their stories have striking commonalities.
 
Just as with the assassination of John Kennedy, it may be impossible now to establish the chain of actual events, and to prove the truth of particular bizarre claims by these victims. But that is not necessary in order to appreciate the entire context of a refined means of man’s effective enslavement---right here in the modern world---and of its use as a rogue instrument of control at the highest levels of our government.
 
And now let’s close the loop: Given the bizarre and erratic nature of Oswald’s actions prior to the assassination, it is not unlikely that he himself, an obvious American intelligence asset at one point, had been an object of mind control. Perhaps he was even another exemplar of mind control gone terribly wrong. This may ultimately have been the secret that needed to be kept: Yes, Oswald may have acted alone in the overt sense, but he may have been imbedded in a web of control of which he himself may have been only dimly aware. Or we may have witnessed the early evidence of the breakdown of that control. Of course it is easy even now to render that theory utterly ridiculous and absurd.
 
Siegfried Othmer, Ph.D.
www.eeginstitute.com