The movie Seven Days in May was published in 1962 and made into a film in 1963. The story was about a military-led coup d'état carried out by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The issue was fairly simple, the Chairman was highly critical publically of a treaty between the Russians and ourselves to end the Cold War. The military were vehemently opposed fearing the Russians would cheat because, well, they were Russians--the same mentality we see today in the power-elite.
All this followed, in my view, one of the most critically important speeches ever made by any sitting President, President Dwight Eisenhower's Farewell Address in it he accurately sees the pattern emerging of not just the Military-Industrial-Complex but the entire complex of government activities related to war. Ike wanted peace while recognizing the need for a strong military. But the U.S. military and its associated endeavors gradually eclipsed and went beyond civilian control and became an independent force. I believe that Eisenhower struggled with his Generals because it is clear to anyone who looks at the history of the next Administration that they had every intention to launch a holocaust beyond the imagining of anyone. Eisenhower was directly responsible for balancing the right-wing generals and fascist anti-communists against reality. There is always a strong element of fantasy within American society that wants to see the world in terms of "good guys" (us) and "bad guys" (them--usually Russians). Eisenhower dealt with reality in balancing generals, countries, national leaders against the need to defeat Germany in a war. He was what we call today that rare breed--a "realist." In his Address, he often used "balance" and that is what a realist does. He or she takes all matters into consideration and tries to balance the many forces at work none of which are "good" or "bad" in the eyes of a true realist. All of us are capable of evil and good it depends on our circumstances as science in recent years has shown conclusively--it is not our genes it is our circumstances that can trigger genes if that person is seriously stressed. A realist knows this intuitively because he or she has made a close study of human beings.
For Ike, Russia was a threat and a rival--but it was also a ruling elite that had factions that could be used, as he did, to make a stable peace which he and Khrushchev were able to fabricate. President Kennedy came into office pretending to be the more hawkish candidate because he understood that the propaganda in the media would work in favor of belligerence as it almost always does. But once in office he turned around quite a lot. He became, like Ike a realist. Two things opened his eyes. First, was the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba which featured Cuban refugees who were either part of the highly corrupt (run by U.S. organized crime) government in Cuba that Castro overthrew or among the middle classes who profited from the dollars that came in from the gambling and prostitution rings that dominated the Cuban economy at the time. These people were willing to form an invasion force to "invade" Cuba and were told by the CIA that they would, if they established a beachhead in Cuba, aided by U.S. bombing and other help. The attack itself, the CIA told them, would force President Kennedy into acting--he would not dare leave "freedom fighters" languishing on a beach or what they viewed as an evil regime who cut a serious hole in the pockets of Meyer Lansky and others (remember the CIA and organized crime had a close working relationship starting with the precurson OSS during WWII).
All this followed, in my view, one of the most critically important speeches ever made by any sitting President, President Dwight Eisenhower's Farewell Address in it he accurately sees the pattern emerging of not just the Military-Industrial-Complex but the entire complex of government activities related to war. Ike wanted peace while recognizing the need for a strong military. But the U.S. military and its associated endeavors gradually eclipsed and went beyond civilian control and became an independent force. I believe that Eisenhower struggled with his Generals because it is clear to anyone who looks at the history of the next Administration that they had every intention to launch a holocaust beyond the imagining of anyone. Eisenhower was directly responsible for balancing the right-wing generals and fascist anti-communists against reality. There is always a strong element of fantasy within American society that wants to see the world in terms of "good guys" (us) and "bad guys" (them--usually Russians). Eisenhower dealt with reality in balancing generals, countries, national leaders against the need to defeat Germany in a war. He was what we call today that rare breed--a "realist." In his Address, he often used "balance" and that is what a realist does. He or she takes all matters into consideration and tries to balance the many forces at work none of which are "good" or "bad" in the eyes of a true realist. All of us are capable of evil and good it depends on our circumstances as science in recent years has shown conclusively--it is not our genes it is our circumstances that can trigger genes if that person is seriously stressed. A realist knows this intuitively because he or she has made a close study of human beings.
For Ike, Russia was a threat and a rival--but it was also a ruling elite that had factions that could be used, as he did, to make a stable peace which he and Khrushchev were able to fabricate. President Kennedy came into office pretending to be the more hawkish candidate because he understood that the propaganda in the media would work in favor of belligerence as it almost always does. But once in office he turned around quite a lot. He became, like Ike a realist. Two things opened his eyes. First, was the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba which featured Cuban refugees who were either part of the highly corrupt (run by U.S. organized crime) government in Cuba that Castro overthrew or among the middle classes who profited from the dollars that came in from the gambling and prostitution rings that dominated the Cuban economy at the time. These people were willing to form an invasion force to "invade" Cuba and were told by the CIA that they would, if they established a beachhead in Cuba, aided by U.S. bombing and other help. The attack itself, the CIA told them, would force President Kennedy into acting--he would not dare leave "freedom fighters" languishing on a beach or what they viewed as an evil regime who cut a serious hole in the pockets of Meyer Lansky and others (remember the CIA and organized crime had a close working relationship starting with the precurson OSS during WWII).
Kennedy realized what was happening and refused to use the U.S. military to help the stranded Cubans and they were arrested or killed. Eisenhower, for whatever reason may have not blocked prior CIA overthrow attempts most notably Iran in 1953 and Gautemala in the following year. This deeply shocked not just the CIA but the Pentagon. Later, in 1962 with the Cuban Missile Crisis came and the U.S. Joint Chiefs recommended that a first strike against the Soviet Union be launched in which the calculus was that 150 million people would be slaughtered and on 40 million Americans would die--these monsters actually thought that was a "victory" and why not--they would be deep inside bunkers. The writer of Seven Days in May knew this as did Stanley Kubrick when he made Dr. Strangelove around the same time. Kennedy, rather than launch a strike, sought to negotiate and of all his around him only his brother Robert supported negotiation. The negotiation with Khrushchev worked and the two leaders became pen-pals writing each other heartfelt and beautiful letters concerning ending the Cold War, obviously this scared both of them.
The failure to kill of the Soviet Union and firmly establish the USA as the sole superpower, i.e., ruler of the world, was unacceptable to the Pentagon and the CIA and there followed a campaign of right-wing hatred for Kennedy in the press. He was seen, by the ignorant public, propagandized through years of anti-Russian propaganda (now revived by "the left") to do "something" about Kennedy. I believe in November of 1963 a conspiracy led by the CIA and the Pentagon probably using assets and assistance from some organized crime leaders , the Secret Service and the Dallas mayor and Police Department and, also, in coordination with then Vice-President Johnson pulled off the first American Coup d'état in US history. There was a failed attempt against President Roosevelt but it was foiled at the last moment by General Smedly Butler.
Thus the Cold War continued and Johnson, I believe, against his better judgement agreed to give the military a smaller war against the Vietnamese people and continued Kennedy's program for détente just in a much slower way and felt emboldened to do something about Civil Rights. I think the plotters agreed to "allow" Johnson to pursue those policies in exchange for their war which proved to be a big money-maker for the Military-Industrial-Complex and a source of rapid promotion for the officer corps in the Pentagon. They may not have had the Russian Empire is ruins but money talks and bullshit walks and they were happy.
The plotters, most of which we can now call "the Deep State" (DS) because no President from JFK onward could rule without the approval of the DS, realized that the Vietnam War was growing increasingly unpopular and public order was being disrupted by hippies, left-radicals, and chaos in the ghettos began to fret because Senator Eugene McCarthy had forced Johnson out of re-election, and, later, emboldened Senator Robert Kennedy to make his bid for power which was highly successful and it became clear than another Kennedy would probably beat Nixon in the 1968 election putting their rule in jeopardy and opening up a can of worms, not just when he was elected, but because Kennedy looked like he was going to revive populism and democratic-socialism and ally himself with Martin Luther King who was a Marxist and critic of capitalism and the permanent war state that the U.S. had become and still is. In 67-8 King had decided to put together an alliance of non-whites, poor whites, and the anti-war movement to create a solid political force. If you'd been around in those days you would know that this was a real possibility and that it would upend U.S. political culture even more than the hated Roosevelt did. Kennedy would have destroyed the CIA and their allies and reformed the Pentagon. This could not stand so both Kennedy and King had to die and they did within a month or so thus beginning the destruction of the authentic left in the USA after the FBI's Cointelpro program of "dirty tricks" finished off the left and divided it from their roots--the rest the peculiarities of identity-politics did the rest as we can see today.
The second coup d'état occurred during the Watergate period as a result of Nixon's interest in the Kennedy assassination(s). Watergate was in view of several writers, most notably Russ Baker in his book Family of Secrets and Roger Stone, a close friend of Nixon who I knew and had some deep discussions with in the 80s. The "burglars" were mainly senior operatives of the CIA who put take across the door to the DNC headquarters in the Watergate complex so that the tape could be seen by the security guard could see it--many more details too numerous to go into but you can read Baker's book for more info. It wasn't just Nixon's efforts to uncover secrets on JFK or UFOs, it was also the fact Nixon was determined to end Vietnam and make peace with China, accelerate the movement to end the Cold War with Russia and his tacit support for socialist-leaning policies like a guaranteed annual income and wage and price controls and, above all, his wanting the Presidency to make the decisions, not the Deep State. I believe Nixon was stupid and did not see what was going on until too late.
I watched, while on vacation in Provincetown, Nixon's speech through a shop-window and realized while watching this that I had just seen a coup d'état. Now, I was convinced, along with everyone else, that Nixon deserved impeachment yet, my intuition (which is pretty good) told me this was a coup. I forgot about that until I began to be more interested in the subject after reading Baker's book and saw clearly why my intuition was correct.
The plotters, most of which we can now call "the Deep State" (DS) because no President from JFK onward could rule without the approval of the DS, realized that the Vietnam War was growing increasingly unpopular and public order was being disrupted by hippies, left-radicals, and chaos in the ghettos began to fret because Senator Eugene McCarthy had forced Johnson out of re-election, and, later, emboldened Senator Robert Kennedy to make his bid for power which was highly successful and it became clear than another Kennedy would probably beat Nixon in the 1968 election putting their rule in jeopardy and opening up a can of worms, not just when he was elected, but because Kennedy looked like he was going to revive populism and democratic-socialism and ally himself with Martin Luther King who was a Marxist and critic of capitalism and the permanent war state that the U.S. had become and still is. In 67-8 King had decided to put together an alliance of non-whites, poor whites, and the anti-war movement to create a solid political force. If you'd been around in those days you would know that this was a real possibility and that it would upend U.S. political culture even more than the hated Roosevelt did. Kennedy would have destroyed the CIA and their allies and reformed the Pentagon. This could not stand so both Kennedy and King had to die and they did within a month or so thus beginning the destruction of the authentic left in the USA after the FBI's Cointelpro program of "dirty tricks" finished off the left and divided it from their roots--the rest the peculiarities of identity-politics did the rest as we can see today.
The second coup d'état occurred during the Watergate period as a result of Nixon's interest in the Kennedy assassination(s). Watergate was in view of several writers, most notably Russ Baker in his book Family of Secrets and Roger Stone, a close friend of Nixon who I knew and had some deep discussions with in the 80s. The "burglars" were mainly senior operatives of the CIA who put take across the door to the DNC headquarters in the Watergate complex so that the tape could be seen by the security guard could see it--many more details too numerous to go into but you can read Baker's book for more info. It wasn't just Nixon's efforts to uncover secrets on JFK or UFOs, it was also the fact Nixon was determined to end Vietnam and make peace with China, accelerate the movement to end the Cold War with Russia and his tacit support for socialist-leaning policies like a guaranteed annual income and wage and price controls and, above all, his wanting the Presidency to make the decisions, not the Deep State. I believe Nixon was stupid and did not see what was going on until too late.
I watched, while on vacation in Provincetown, Nixon's speech through a shop-window and realized while watching this that I had just seen a coup d'état. Now, I was convinced, along with everyone else, that Nixon deserved impeachment yet, my intuition (which is pretty good) told me this was a coup. I forgot about that until I began to be more interested in the subject after reading Baker's book and saw clearly why my intuition was correct.
A small coup occurred during the Iranian hostage crisis due to two events. The first was the Deep State's sabotage of the attempted rescue of the hostages thus discrediting President Carter who everyone in Washington which was now aligned completely with the Deep State hated. In addition, the Reagan campaign through the work of William Casey, later Reagans CIA director, to make a deal with the Iranian government that in exchange of not releasing the hostages until after the election, the Reagan administration would agree to re-arm Iran these things were later revealed during the Iran-Contra investigation which stalled badly but that's another story. This guaranteed Reagan's win.
The third coup d'état was, as most people suspect, the events of 9/11. This event followed the publication of the Project for a New American Century's famous manifesto in which stated that, to paraphrase, that U.S. society had few things to unify it and was in danger of splitting apart along cultural, tribal, racial and regional lines and/or descend into rampant hedonism. The only thing that could make the country continue in a healthy way was a common purpose. So far so good--but that common purpose was, they believed, a global war to dominate the world. They believed, as many did in Washington since WWII, that "someone" would dominate the world since these people believed that life was about dominance/submission, and it would be better for the world if it were us and not the Chinese. This idea was not only the central point of the neoconservative movement that authored the document but of liberals as well--the difference was only in method. The neocons believed we should dominate the world through aggressive military action around the world and the liberals thought it should be more gradual mainly through economic and cultural (soft-power) means with military activity only when "easy" to do.
The third coup d'état was, as most people suspect, the events of 9/11. This event followed the publication of the Project for a New American Century's famous manifesto in which stated that, to paraphrase, that U.S. society had few things to unify it and was in danger of splitting apart along cultural, tribal, racial and regional lines and/or descend into rampant hedonism. The only thing that could make the country continue in a healthy way was a common purpose. So far so good--but that common purpose was, they believed, a global war to dominate the world. They believed, as many did in Washington since WWII, that "someone" would dominate the world since these people believed that life was about dominance/submission, and it would be better for the world if it were us and not the Chinese. This idea was not only the central point of the neoconservative movement that authored the document but of liberals as well--the difference was only in method. The neocons believed we should dominate the world through aggressive military action around the world and the liberals thought it should be more gradual mainly through economic and cultural (soft-power) means with military activity only when "easy" to do.
Within the first day the culprit for the 9/11 attacks was named, Osama Bin Laden, without investigation, without evidence--it was just announced by an unknown person, presumably an intel officer, who stated that's who did it and, after that, all the networks and media state it as fact very much in the same way that John Kennedy's murderer was quickly established as Lee Harvey Oswald without evidence (there is still no evidence that he did it or was even in the place they said he was). It is enough, during the rule of the Deep State for the media to announce something from the operatives that run the State that something is true and then it's true. Any doubt, any contrary evidence is excluded. Any journalist or academic or official is killed or destroyed should he or she actively dissent from the dictats coming out of Washington. There is absolutely no evidence for the government's story on those events whether it is who was in the airplanes, or how the buildings fell--only conjecture usually based on clearly fabricated evidence which the books I recommend will clearly show and have never been contradicted seriously since there was NO forensic-based investigation of the events--the actual "investigation" was a whitewash like the Iran-contra scandal with Lee Hamilton presiding over both "investigations" -- you can read the report yourself and the evidence for the story is simply not there--most of the testimony was about covering asses as I saw very quickly during the hearings and turned them off knowing Washington body language and symbolic language since my life has centered around Washington. Read for yourself the sources I will site below.
9/11 was not really a coup d'état exactly. It was a direct assault on culture. It create now a wall-to-wall from left-to-right and around the block story that is clearly and obviously false that is not written very deep into the cultural fabric just at a time when external threats were fading and there was pressure to reduce military expenditures aimed, primarily, at an enemy that ceased to exist. Even though both political parties were firmly and inexorably allied with the Deep State, the people would eventually question why we needed such large expenditures for "security" for an enemy that was gone. The general idea about a terrorist "threat" was floated in the 80's by a variety of right-wing sources close to the intelligence community (part of the Deep State, obviously). In that same period the US supported radical Islamic terror groups to fight the USSR's foolish entry into the Afghan morass through using Saudi money and radical activists to train and man these forces with CIA and Pentagon help to bleed the Soviets. In addition, this began the close association between the U.S., Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. There had always been a close association between Islamic radicals and the CIA since the 50s to counter nationalism and secularism which the U.S. rightly feared would lead to socialism which is the perennial enemy of the U.S. power-elite at all levels. Thus it was no big deal to turn Afghanistan into rubble by supporting a war in Afghanistan and leaving in place various elements including the U.S./Saudi creation of Al-Qaeda. Like Oswald, who had been associated with U.S. intelligence including the CIA and FBI, Al-Qaeda proved to be the perfect patsy in the 9/11 case. Any close look at the actual evidence, the actual lives of the alleged hijackers would alert you to that fact--a close look also at Mueller's FBI as testified by a number of whistleblowers would also show some real evidence to completely sink the official story. But I'm not interested in examining evidence in this post--the major line of all these "conspiracies" which are actually only one conspiracy have been drawn in innumerable books all of which the New York Times and other Deep State propaganda organs will not and cannot review other than use the CIA invented term "conspiracy theorists" to describe critics of any official story.
Unless you investigate these events and work the information that has been systematically withheld from the American public, you have NO IDEA at all what is actually going on in the halls of power in the global Empire that is centered in Washington. Without clarity about the nature of the actual government that actually governs how can you understand the bizarre twists and turns we've seen in recent years in particular as a result of the Deep States expansion into much of the world and more deeply within the cultural as well as political economy of our own country. The news-media that is thought of as the guardian of our freedom is actually the guardian of our psychological jail cell. There is no need to be the obnoxious police state that Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Mao's China, Mussolini's Italy all instituted to control the public--we have a full spectrum media that creates a mythological framework mainly through entertainment that has created a fictional world of good guys and bad guys when anyone who has had even a whiff of social science and psychology knows that that's not the way the world works or has ever worked. The news-media backs up the bullshit.
Unless you investigate these events and work the information that has been systematically withheld from the American public, you have NO IDEA at all what is actually going on in the halls of power in the global Empire that is centered in Washington. Without clarity about the nature of the actual government that actually governs how can you understand the bizarre twists and turns we've seen in recent years in particular as a result of the Deep States expansion into much of the world and more deeply within the cultural as well as political economy of our own country. The news-media that is thought of as the guardian of our freedom is actually the guardian of our psychological jail cell. There is no need to be the obnoxious police state that Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Mao's China, Mussolini's Italy all instituted to control the public--we have a full spectrum media that creates a mythological framework mainly through entertainment that has created a fictional world of good guys and bad guys when anyone who has had even a whiff of social science and psychology knows that that's not the way the world works or has ever worked. The news-media backs up the bullshit.
The world that created Sever Days in May no longer exists. The ideals expressed in that movie no longer exist in Washington but have over the decades ceased to exist. That world of responsible civil servants is gone. There are a few still in the vicinity of power, mainly in the military, who still feel an allegiance to the Constitution but they can only drag their feet on stopping the worse excesses of power. Senior officers stopped the widening of the war in the Middle East and continue to do so. Unlike the Kennedy years the maniacs are in the civilian leadership not the military.
Also, what give me hope is that since the Iraq invasion the Deep State has split among several factions not just on policy making but some of this is personal among the powerful players. They all agree that the Empire must continue to expand but sharply disagree on tactics. Most of the factions are completely opposed to the U.S. Constitution and democracy. They are all in favor of an oligarchy dominated by the rich and tempered by those who have the legal right and skills to enforce order through the force of arms--no so much in the military but the growing community of contractors and gangsters that operate outside the law and are not vulnerable to the law.
Also, what give me hope is that since the Iraq invasion the Deep State has split among several factions not just on policy making but some of this is personal among the powerful players. They all agree that the Empire must continue to expand but sharply disagree on tactics. Most of the factions are completely opposed to the U.S. Constitution and democracy. They are all in favor of an oligarchy dominated by the rich and tempered by those who have the legal right and skills to enforce order through the force of arms--no so much in the military but the growing community of contractors and gangsters that operate outside the law and are not vulnerable to the law.
There is no such thing as the USA anymore as it once was before 1963. There are no Constitutional guarantees to anything. You can be arrested for any reason and held indefinitely or killed at the pleasure of the Deep State and, increasingly, even the police. Who can also legally take your money and property without an actual way of you getting it back. They can legally stop your car, and finding a tiny bit of marijuana or even large amounts of case seize your car and the cash with long-drawn out legal requirement for you to get it back. Most cops won't do that because they are decent human beings. Most people are, in fact, decent human beings. But if they want to and if their careers depend on them violating your rights they will do so in the same way as the press will falsely report that Iraq had WMDs even though nearly all of them knew that was not the case.
JFK-case:
The best and most complete writer who uses great scholarship from hundreds of excellent researchers is Jim DiEugenio who wrote the following books in order of dates (latest first):
JFK-case:
The best and most complete writer who uses great scholarship from hundreds of excellent researchers is Jim DiEugenio who wrote the following books in order of dates (latest first):
- The JFK Assassination (with Oliver Stone)
- Destiny Betrayed: JFK, Cuba, and the Garrison Case
- Reclaiming Parkland: Tom Hanks, Vincent Bugliosi, and the JFK Assassination
by James Douglass: JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters--perhaps the most emotionally moving book on the case which puts the JFK murder into a larger political and cultural perspective.
RFK
by Lisa Pease (will be published in Nov. 2018--I know here work so I'm putting it here): A Lie Too Big to Fail: The Real History of the Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy
by William Turner and Jonn Christian The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy
From the Guardian from 2008 "New evidence challenges official picture of Kennedy shooting"
from the Mary Ferrell foundation a compendium of info including the "smoking gun" i.e., RFK was killed by a bullet to the back of his head according to the Coroner in the case, Thomas Noguchi. In fact, you don't need to read anything else for the entire edifice of the whole official story about this and all other cases to fall throught--because if this was a conspiracy than the entire state apparatus was involved: The Robert Kennedy Assassination
from the Mary Ferrell foundation a compendium of info including the "smoking gun" i.e., RFK was killed by a bullet to the back of his head according to the Coroner in the case, Thomas Noguchi. In fact, you don't need to read anything else for the entire edifice of the whole official story about this and all other cases to fall throught--because if this was a conspiracy than the entire state apparatus was involved: The Robert Kennedy Assassination
MLK
by William Pepper: The Plot to Kill King: The Truth Behind the Assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.
9/11:
by David Ray Griffin: The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé
by James Corbett--the ever amusing 5 minute version: 911: A Conspiracy
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth: best website presenting the basic facts and still active--most other sites have either faded away and given up or may contain misinformation.
No comments:
Post a Comment