L-I: J.F. Kennedy

Charles Brown CharlesB at SPAMCNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us
Mon Nov 22 08:56:11 MST 1999



That is a coincidence. I just happen to hear a talk radio of the author of a book that
just came out: _Coverup_ by Stewart Galinor ( not sure of this spelling).

To tell the truth , I don't read books on the assassination. There are documentaries
on it on television all of the time. The general scenario of the crime and surrounding
events is common knowledge.

A key fact that Galinor mentioned is the "Sepruder film". Some one caught Kennedy at
the moment he was shot on a home movie camera. That film shows clearly that Kennedy
lurched back and his brains spattered motor cycle cops behind him . This means he was
shot from the front. Lee Harvey Oswald was in a building way behind him, and could not
have shot him from the front.

Galinor also demonstrates that the Warren Report ( the official investigation of the
assassination) is definitely misleading on key facts, such as the direction of entry
of the fatal bullet ( it came from the front, but the Warren Report falsifies it as
the back). Galinor has hard physical evidence that the x-rays were falsified.  The
original autopsy was burned without plausible explanation by the chief physician of
the autopsy. There seems to be no doubt that there was a big whole in the back of
Kennedy's head , which means the bullet exited from the back, meaning he was shot from
the front, meaning it was physically impossible for Oswald to have shot him.

Galinor focusses very much on the medical evidence. But interestingly when asked of
the cause, he said first, exactly what I always say. Kennedy had just signed a Test
Ban Treaty with the Soviets. Then he pointed out that Kennedy had switched from a
conservative start , to more and more liberal, especially on war and military issues.
He was going to end the Viet Nam war, evidence coming out now is showing more and more
clearly.

We know Kennedy as a bourgeois liberal, but the military industrial complex and
extreme rightwing. considered him a dangerous liberal> I am not endorsing Kennedy. I
am pointing out that there was sufficient political motive in the minds of the
rightwingers and reactionaries in the military industrial complex/CIA to see it as
necessary.

I think the rightwing considered Kennedy's handling of the Cuban missile crisis as a
capitulation and not tough enough. If not a nuclear exchange, the cowboys in the U.S.
reactionary sectors probably thought the U.S. should have invaded Cuba and called the
Soviets bluff. Would the Soviets really have started a nuclear war ? Probably not. So,
the military hardnoses probably thought Kennedy should have ordered an invasion of
Cuba. This was another piece in an overall pattern of Kennedy becoming too
peaceseeking for the U.S. warlords.

The whole thing is really crystal clear. The coverup tactic of the ruling class agents
has been a funny kind of diversion. We actually already have the answer to the whole
whodunnit.  The diversion is to continue to discuss it as if there is a conspiracy to
uncover, or more conspiracy. But we have alreadyd uncovered THE conspiracy. All that
is left is to draw the political conclusions. But the monopoly media ( except for the
Stone movie and a few obscur(ed) books) continues to explore the facts with just the
suggestion that there is some bigger conspiracy maybe connected to Cuba or the Soviet
Union as perpetrators to be uncovered. But the answer is right under our noses
already, and they just continue to get us to look up into a mystery.

Again the important thing is to show that the U.S. is not the democracy it proclaims
itself to be.

When you think about it Lincoln was assassinated by rightwingers with similar motives:
to "ameliorate", from the reactionary point of view, and blunt the Radical Republican
impetus that would have followed the Civil War victory. Lincoln would have probably
led a more united assault by the Radical Republicans in Reconstruction. Johnson ( then
too) specifically pulled out federal troops at some key point that accelerated the
return to power of Southern reaction.

So, the U.S. has operated by coup d'etat at critical junctures. This they do not want
to be standard American history. So, they obfuscate, as described above on Kennedy.

Sometimes I wonder about FDR. He was old, but they could have poisoned him to
accelerate his death. There was a big difference between having Truman and having FDR
after the war. Again, FDR would have been almost unstoppable, and he wanted to have an
Economic Bill of Rights, and probably would not have started the McCarthyite purge ,
because he had been an ally with the  Soviets in the war, and must have known that
there were lots of Communists and Marxists in the New Deal. Of course, I am
speculating more on FDR, and it could have just been unfortunate timing of natural
causes.


Oliver Stone's movie has a lot of the facts on JFK. There was a prosecutor in New
Orleans who investigated and discovered a lot, but he was stopped eventually. But
Stone's movie portrays what that prosecutor found. A huge and abnormal % of people who
were witnesses at various levels died or were killed.

The investigation of the assassination of Martin Luther King has been officially
reopened by the federal government too. Someone just bragged that they ordered it, and
James Earl Ray didn't do it.

There is a difficult step in the overall project of debunking naivete about the
viciousness of the U.S. ruling class.  It also contributes to the hopelessness of
doing anything to change the system. This is especially true considering all the
radical leaders that were assassinated or imprisoned later on : Malcolm X, King, Black
Panthers, et al. Yet, I think we have to know firmly the horrible truth and build
courage to struggle in the face of the rutheless Big Brother nature of the U.S.
political system. The next radical surge in the U.S. will succeed only by  somehow
cognizing and strategizing  and getting around this  continuing hard  and murderous
realty.

There is a trend on the left now that continues to obscure this hard and dirty truth
in general by spreading skepticism about "conspiracy theories", labelling it
"conspiracism", mixing it up with bogus conspiracy theories in history. LM in England
generalizes this to panic mongering and moral panics. Instead of stirring up
dissatisfaction with capitalism and the system, they do the ruling class's work by
trying to quiet everybody down and poo pooing revelations about the horrors of the
system as panic mongering and overly emotional conspiracism.  I am just now seeing how
this is a major trend among rightwing "lefts" .


C.B.


>>> Abu Nasr <abu-nasr at usa.net> 11/21/99 07:29PM >>>
I just realised that Monday, 22 November 1999 is the anniversary of John
Kennedy's assassination in 1963.  Maybe, in "honour" of the occasion you could
give us a run-down on sources regarding the plot.

With revolutionary greetings!

Abu Nasr



"Charles Brown" <CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us> wrote:




>>> Abu Nasr <abu-nasr at usa.net> 11/19/99 09:58PM >>>
You're right about Oklahoma too.  Arab bashing was all over the place then,
they arrested a lot of "Arab looking people" at the time because they were
driving to airports just after the bombing!  Then, I read at the time, the
Clinton Administration banned Muslim religious people from taking part in the
big religious memorial ceremony (with Christian and Jewish clergymen) held in
Oklahoma City -- as if all Muslims are to be held guilty and Islam is to be
held guilty for some act, which, it turns out they (we, I,) had nothing to do
with!

((((((((((((

Charles: Oh and I forgot to mention, when another plane going to France
crashed near NYC a few years ago, the same thing occurred. There were people
talking about "Arab" terrorists. Sadly, we are swamped with this specific
anti-Arab, U.S. prejudice these days, as I am sure you are know. So, anytime
they come out with anti-Arab headlines, I am very suspicious. It is hard not
to be.

((((((((((

Abu: I confess to great ignorance on the J.F. Kennedy matter.  Other than the
Oliver Stone film and standard histories I know little.  I don't see a huge
difference between L. Johnson and Kennedy, but then I don't see much
difference between Diem (whom Kennedy had assassinated) and Ky and Thieu, the
south Vietnamese military leaders who succeeded Diem.  So sometimes these
bourgeois politicos do things that "normal" people find excessive even from
the bourgeois' own standpoint.  I suppose it's a kind of paranoia born of
being on the defensive at this stage in history (even though that fact is
hard
to discern, these days).  Also, the record seems to indicate that during the
Carribean Crisis (a.k.a. Cuban Missile Crisis) Kennedy almost alone among the
White House leaders opposed resourting to nuclear war.  So maybe some degree
of sanity was the distinction between him and Johnson!


((((((((((((((((((


Charles: Yes, I have not seen the Oliver Stone film all of the way through,
but from what I have heard , it is substantially correct.

On the missile crisis, it seems certain that the most reactionary sectors of
the U.S. ruling class, especially from within the military-industrial complex,
would have preferred invading Cuba. The Soviets sort of won the face off, in
that Cuba still exists today, and the U.S. gave up invasion for removal of
Soviet missiles. Being clear that it was reactionary U.S. elements who killed
Kennedy is important if only to be clear that there were those who would
launch a nuclear war with the Soviets within that ruling class. It keeps us
clear on how vicious the bourgeosie really are.


The struggle continues,

CB

((((((((((((((((9



With revolutionary greetings!

Abu Nasr

"Charles Brown" <CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us> wrote:


>>> Abu Nasr <abu-nasr at usa.net> 11/18/99 05:13PM >>>
Comrade Charles!

You're right, of course, capitalism is full of conspiracies.  We should put
nothing past them.  But I'm sure you'd agree, we do need really to know the
enemy and make sure of the facts.  Every mistake we make could cost us in
terms of how we are received by the people.

((((((((((

Charles: I agree, indeed. Your main point was not the Kennedy assassination ,
I know. But on that, we have plenty of facts and 35 years to deliberate on
them. The evidence is clear and convincing that it was a coup d'etat. Even
that would not be politically significant except for the central place in
U.S.
propaganda that it is such a democracy
(((((((((

That's why I brought up the EgyptAir issue.  Whatever happened to the plane,
the investigation is now a political matter, so we need to see and analyse
how
it is being presented in the media.  At the same time we should not rush to
conclusions without facts to back them up regarding what happened to the
plane.   Jim, I think, is right there.  It could make us look silly
unnecessarily.  At the same time, we must be aware of the class interests at
stake and keep our eyes and ears open to follow leads of whatever
conspiracies
do seem to materialise.

((((((((((9

Charles: I agree with you and Jim. The problem is they are putting the heavy
innuendos in the press before the facts can be considered soberly. The U.S.
news media is leaping to a conclusion to continue to foment anti-Arab
sentiments in the U.S. population. When the Oklahoma City Federal Building
was
blown up they had an Arab suspect in the headlines first. It turned out to be
an American homegrown fascist.

Comradely,

CB



     --- from list leninist-international at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


____________________________________________________________________
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1


     --- from list leninist-international at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


     --- from list leninist-international at lists.econ.utah.edu ---


____________________________________________________________________
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1


     --- from list leninist-international at lists.econ.utah.edu ---









More information about the Marxism mailing list