The Kennedy Effect
Decades of polling for opinions on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy have consistently shown two-thirds of Americans believe Lee Harvey Oswald was part of a larger conspiracy. Who else was involved is a mixed bag: Castro, the Mafia, CIA and even Mossad. It is only the why that blends the usual suspects into a greasy soup of unappetizing contradiction.
For the record, this writer has come to believe, after many years of study of much of the both pro and con conspiracy material--and helped by my own lack of bias toward those viewed respectfully (i.e., Norman Mailer, but sorry Gerald Posner--a plagiarizer must be denied credibility--"Case Closed" ) or branded "conspiracy nuts", (i.e., Mark Lane and too many before and after him to mention) that Lee Harvey Oswald was no more than he said he was: a patsy.
But, for me, the why is the only key that can unlock the door to truth. To find that key, the search must begin twenty years before Dallas and make a u-turn through time to offer an explanation of the behavior of every U.S. President after.
In 1933, Major General Smedley Butler, at the time of his death the most decorated Marine in U.S. history, author of the 1935 book War is a Racket, in which he described the workings of the military-industrial complex, testified before a congressional committee of being approached by wealthy industrialists and pressured to take command of a a private army of 500,000 ex-soldiers dedicated to a coup to overthrow President Franklin D. Rooselvelt. The Business Plot, or Plot Against FDR, or White House Putsch are names historians have identified this conspiracy by. Though ridiculed by the Great Depression-era media (so like our current Great Resession media) the congressional committee declared that there was no question that the attempts were discussed, were planned, and might have been placed in execution when and if the financial backers deemed it expedient.
What those wealthy industrialists learned was: (1) their wealth and power shielded them from ever being punished even for treason and (2) to nevertheless avoid a presumtion an heroic and prominent (though outside their privileged class) military man would betray his country for their interests.
No more bold coups. Bribes were cheaper, but a much slower and tedious approach to achieve over years what they had failed to accomplish in the year of 1933. They patiently began their silent coup through seeking, contributing to and promoting their own candidates and appointments to all three branches of the federal government. First patriotism was abducted and redefined through the invention of a new enemy: Communism, which they milked for all the wealth-building wars (Korea, Vietnam, and the covert Congo, Nicaragua, El Salvador, etc.). By the Reagan-era, they had even kidnapped and redefined Jesus Christ (Ayn Rand's Immaculate Conception) to revive and entrench the failed army of 1933 throughout Washington D.C. under their syndicated dictatorship by 1983.
George Herbert Walker Bush was expected to fullfill the dreams of his great-grandfather and 1933 coup conspirator Samuel Prescott Bush, but proved to be too sensitive to betray the country he had actually defended in the last World War (perhaps the ghosts of Radioman Second Class John Delaney and Lieutenant Junior Grade William White, who perished after the Bush-piloted bomber was hit, haunted the lone survivor). Bush raised his benefactors' taxes. They did not kill him. They replaced him with William Jefferson Clinton, who rewarded them by gutting FDR's New Deal and with the complete surrender of the Democratic Party to their control.
Class Warfare was finally over, the Middle Class suppressed--and the only shots ever fired in the long war caused but one casualty: John Fitzgerald Kennedy. After JFK, every President understood the message of Dallas. LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton proved unwilling to die for the unprivilged masses. Bush II completed the work of his great-great-grandfather. Embedded traitors on the Supreme Court made sure he could and, after, banished the Republic to install international corporate fascism as the governing body of the United States of America.
President Kennedy, like FDR, was about to betray his class by scattering into a thousand pieces the instruments the rich and powerful had so patiently planted and cultivated since 1934. The quiet coup had to ratchet into a violent and singularly targeted coup de tat, utilizing all their embedded agents under a plan long reserved and rehearsed for just such a crisis. The 500,000 of 1933 had been reduced to less than a roomful of carefully groomed and rewarded members of the priviliged class and one from a selection of unaware monitored patsies, dependent on location of the President and ability for rapid response.
Kennedy died so that his successors would choose to live rather than be like him.
The warning of November 22, 1963 has worked thus far.
Which brings me to the great paradox that is Barack Obama. Is it just my imagination that he seems like one gone permanently tense, seemingly glancing furtively back over his shoulder, edgy. It is difficult for me to believe him to be less than a fearless man; yet he has uncharactoristically embraced and defended the Bush II wars and much of the horrible measures his predecessor employed. Under a shield of "moving forward", Obama refuses to encourage investigations of war crimes while he himself shuns torture. He strived to "give something to the American people" by crusading for heathcare reform, but makes us pay the healthcare vultures above fair market value for our own gift. He scorns the criminal syndicate that is Wall Street, yet won't sentence them make restitution of the wealth they scammed from us. And now, he has brought the elite into a national debt commission with what at least appears to be for no other purpose but to destroy the last surviving legacy of FDR's New Deal: Social Security.
Why? Obama does not seem one to value his own life above that of the best interests of his country. What has changed about the manifestation of "change we can believe in"?
And then I wonder: if President Kennedy had been threatened not only with the end of his own life, but that of his wife and children--would he have still stood in defiance of the bretheren of 1933?