Speaker 1: Get ready.
Speaker 2: Thirtieth day of January twenty twenty six, allegedly according to
Speaker 2: that thing we call a calendar, And here's me going
Speaker 2: live early on a Friday. And I'm not going to
Speaker 2: try the experiment I have in mind for the Friday
Speaker 2: night shows this week, but perhaps in two weeks we'll
Speaker 2: try a little experiment and see we can improve communications.
Speaker 2: But up until we start taking calls at eight pm Eastern,
Speaker 2: I've got a piece of JFK stuff to play for you.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: This is not mine, and it was actually produced around
Speaker 2: the thirtieth anniversary of the JFK assassination. Michael Parente wasn't
Speaker 2: the first to the only person to poke holes, you know,
Speaker 2: into the lone gunman theory, that's for sure, but he
Speaker 2: took a different approach, and one that did shape quite
Speaker 2: a bit of what it is. I thought afterwards. Thirtieth anniversary,
Speaker 2: obviously is nineteen ninety three. I had been in for
Speaker 2: about five years and was starting to get sophisticated enough
Speaker 2: after studying the baseline evidence to begin looking at other
Speaker 2: people's points of view.
Speaker 3: And this is.
Speaker 2: Well, Michael PARENTI will introduce it himself and explain it
Speaker 2: himself in about a forty seven minute presentation here, so
Speaker 2: hopefully we can fit the whole thing in before we
Speaker 2: get to the live Friday night show.
Speaker 4: I've been looking at history, and I've been impressed and
Speaker 4: depressed by the fact that history is really a chronicle
Speaker 4: of immense atrocities.
Speaker 5: What we have in history is.
Speaker 4: The fact that when surplus value develops, when there's more
Speaker 4: than a subsistence economy, you have some portion of the
Speaker 4: population that will do everything it can to enslave and
Speaker 4: to expropriate the labor of the rest of the people,
Speaker 4: whether it's a slave society as an ancient Greece and Rome,
Speaker 4: or feudal society where people were reduced to serfs, or
Speaker 4: in capitalist society where people are driven to the edge
Speaker 4: of insecurity and made to work faster and harder. And
Speaker 4: one of the things that's used in that arrangement is
Speaker 4: a very conscious instrument of control that's very necessary, and
Speaker 4: that instrument is called the state.
Speaker 2: Okay, this is very basic presentation and is necessary. I
Speaker 2: know some of you are going, oh, sounds like a
Speaker 2: whole bunch of liberal crap, and maybe, but then again,
Speaker 2: you know, nineteen ninety three, how old was I.
Speaker 3: Let's see.
Speaker 2: Eighteen twenty one years old. Yeah, I was twenty one
Speaker 2: years old, and I was particularly moved by somebody making
Speaker 2: relevant and rational statements. And yeah, uh uh for you
Speaker 2: a trumpy people, you know, sorry, but there was stuff
Speaker 2: before the idiocy. And for you liberals, you can have
Speaker 2: yourselves all day with this.
Speaker 3: I don't care. This is reality.
Speaker 2: And uh, Parente laid it out perfectly in my mind.
Speaker 4: That is what they do is set up a state,
Speaker 4: an organization that has a as Max Weeber, who wasn't
Speaker 4: a Marxist, as Max Weber called it, an organization that
Speaker 4: has a monopoly on the legitimate uses of force and violence,
Speaker 4: on the use of legitimate force and violence.
Speaker 5: But that's what we have today.
Speaker 4: We also have developed, in modern times some democratic features,
Speaker 4: some means of trying to fight back and restrain this
Speaker 4: arbitrary power. What are we trying to say that, along
Speaker 4: with government, we also have a thing called the state.
Speaker 4: And along with governance, along with policies, and along with
Speaker 4: those things, we have this other instrument. Even in a
Speaker 4: democratic state, and that instrument, whether it's in democratic France
Speaker 4: or democratic England, or democratic Germany or democratic Italy all
Speaker 4: or democratic USA or democratic can in all these countries,
Speaker 4: all of them have these other instruments and agencies that
Speaker 4: act like a bunch of gangsters, that act repressively, that
Speaker 4: use surveillance, that use every dirty trick in the book
Speaker 4: on equal enforcement of tax laws, name it, the bringing
Speaker 4: in of drugs into whole neighborhoods and communities, trumped up
Speaker 4: murder charges, assassination that you have in the middle of
Speaker 4: these democracies, you have the state within the state known
Speaker 4: as the national security state. And that state is capable
Speaker 4: of the most unspeakable crimes that you can think of.
Speaker 4: And those crimes are perpetrated against their own people. They're
Speaker 4: perpetrated against people all around the world. Not long ago,
Speaker 4: I got a letter from a woman who's been a
Speaker 4: community organizer in Chicago, and she said, with grief in
Speaker 4: her heart, she said, I remember the sixties. I remember
Speaker 4: the tremendous democratic organization and leadership that was developing in
Speaker 4: the Latino and African American communities.
Speaker 5: And I remember those leaders and.
Speaker 4: Everything on one of them today is either dead shot
Speaker 4: by the police or in marrying prison on trumped up charges.
Speaker 4: And I remember the demoralization that took place, the shattering
Speaker 4: of those organizations. And after those organs organizations were shattered
Speaker 4: and demoralized, then in came the drug traffickers.
Speaker 5: And those drug.
Speaker 4: Traffickers, the thing I remember the most about them is
Speaker 4: that they were aided and abetted by the FEDS, by
Speaker 4: the federal.
Speaker 5: Agents themselves. And this is what happens.
Speaker 4: That is, we are dealing with the state that was
Speaker 4: engaged in domestic counterinsurgency, and it was more interested in
Speaker 4: having a population that was unorganized and demoralized than a
Speaker 4: population that was organized that was effectively fighting for its
Speaker 4: democratic rights. Because if it's organized and it's effective and
Speaker 4: it's powerful, it will start making demands and start pursuing
Speaker 4: its interest and it will start cutting in on the
Speaker 4: interests that those police and those coppers and those undercover
Speaker 4: people and those forces of military and law and order
Speaker 4: are dedicated to protecting, protecting the status quo, protecting those
Speaker 4: with property against who those who don't have it. And
Speaker 4: by the way, for the last thousand years, we've had
Speaker 4: theorists who've made that point, except they make it proudly.
Speaker 4: Adam Smith said, as the divisions of property become increasingly unequal,
Speaker 4: it is more and more necessary to have a state
Speaker 4: to defend those who have property from those who do not.
Speaker 5: John Law, The purpose of.
Speaker 4: The state is to defend those who have property from
Speaker 4: those who do not. James Harrington, you can go on,
Speaker 4: James Madison, Alexander Hamilton. The only difference was that when
Speaker 4: Mark said it, he said to defend those who have
Speaker 4: property from those whose labor is expropriated by those who accumulate.
Speaker 5: Wealth off their labor, who have all the property. He
Speaker 5: changed it a little bit and he said it.
Speaker 4: Wasn't just plves and have nots, it was halves taking
Speaker 4: it from those who produced it and created the haves.
Speaker 4: And throughout the world, dominant economic interests today have enlisted
Speaker 4: the efforts of assassins and torturers as we talk at
Speaker 4: this moment.
Speaker 5: The CIA and other such agencies in this country and
Speaker 5: other countries.
Speaker 4: Have sponsored violence, tortured death squads, drugs in scores of
Speaker 4: countries from zay Yea to Angola, to Mozambique to Olsalvagtor,
Speaker 4: to Guatemala, to Indonesia to a stem Moore, and you
Speaker 4: go on and on to Western Europe to the USA,
Speaker 4: to Chicago and Detroit and Boston and New York. They
Speaker 4: are systematically targeted in many countries, the clergy, the peasant leaders, intellectuals, journalists,
Speaker 4: student leaders, labor union leaders, workers and any community activists
Speaker 4: and such.
Speaker 5: Tens of thousands have.
Speaker 4: Been murdered and assassinated to prevent social change, to destroy
Speaker 4: any kind of redistributive politics, any kind of government, any
Speaker 4: kind of social movement that is not willing to reduce
Speaker 4: its people to economic fodder. And with NAFTA, with the
Speaker 4: North American Free Trade Agreement, we now see the third
Speaker 4: worldization of the us A will continue full speed ahead.
Speaker 4: The gangst The nature of the state is cloaked by
Speaker 4: the democratic facade and by the democratic substance of the government.
Speaker 4: I mean, there is some democratic substance there. Democratic victories
Speaker 4: have been one, we have struggled, and certain things have
Speaker 4: been one.
Speaker 5: And yet in the midst of this, the state still
Speaker 5: goes on.
Speaker 4: And what is so compelling about an issue like drugs.
Speaker 5: As Michael Levine's point out, is.
Speaker 4: That it's not that we're saying the government is not
Speaker 4: doing enough about drugs or they're losing the war against drugs.
Speaker 4: Is that the government or elements in it are active
Speaker 4: perpetrators and purveyors of drugs. And what it is so
Speaker 4: compelling about the JFK assassination is how nakedly the gangster
Speaker 4: nature of the state is revealed.
Speaker 5: It is an awakening.
Speaker 4: And to know the truth about the JFK assassination is
Speaker 4: to create a delegitimating force that calls into questions the
Speaker 4: entire state system and the entire social order it represents.
Speaker 4: And this is why for thirty years the mainstreams press
Speaker 4: has suppressed or dismissed out of hand in the findings
Speaker 4: about JFK's death, the findings of independent investigators like Peter Dale, Scott,
Speaker 4: Harold Weisberg, Carl Oglesby, Mark Lane, Anthony Summers, Philip Millinson,
Speaker 4: Jim Garrison, Cyril Weckt, and dozens and dozens of others.
Speaker 4: They're called assassination buffs.
Speaker 5: They're not buffs.
Speaker 4: Even that word is a limiting and marginalizing and diminishing term.
Speaker 4: A buff is a kind of a hobby pursuer.
Speaker 5: You're seeing.
Speaker 4: It's a kind of a quirky person who follows quirky
Speaker 4: little interests.
Speaker 5: Would you talk about Holocaust buffs? Would you know? They
Speaker 5: are serious investigators of a very.
Speaker 4: Serious crime which leads to all sorts of serious understandings
Speaker 4: about the criminal nature of the state. And this is
Speaker 4: why they relentlessly, the mainstream media, and the opinion leaders
Speaker 4: and the political leaders of this country relentlessly attack or
Speaker 4: ignore this literature.
Speaker 5: And this is why they give.
Speaker 4: Fulsome gushing ready publicity to the likes of Gerald Posner
Speaker 4: with his Bookcase Closed, which got.
Speaker 5: Put into every major magazine.
Speaker 4: I couldn't put the TV on all week without seeing
Speaker 4: in the guy's face and hearing him blather these kind
Speaker 4: of cliche statements whose credibility are dependent on you being
Speaker 4: totally ignorant of what the investigators for thirty years have
Speaker 4: been uncovering and the questions that have been raising.
Speaker 5: And we did a.
Speaker 4: Grotesque, idiotic whitewash of the whole thing.
Speaker 5: And this is why they savage.
Speaker 4: They savaged all of A Stone's movie JFK, a movie
Speaker 4: that was very accurate about the specifics of the murder,
Speaker 4: a movie that reached millions of people that broke through
Speaker 4: that thing that they were keeping down, the only movie
Speaker 4: in the history of Hollywood. And I wrote a book
Speaker 4: called Make Believe Media, which is about TV and films,
Speaker 4: So I think I know something about films At least,
Speaker 4: I did spend the better part of a year reading
Speaker 4: a lot of literature. It's the only movie that I
Speaker 4: know of that was attacked six months before it was
Speaker 4: ever released in the Washington Post and the New York
Speaker 4: Times and in Time and Newsweek, and attack relentlessly for
Speaker 4: a year after it was released. And this is also
Speaker 4: why in this past week they kept up the relentless
Speaker 4: propaganda campaign with the thirtieth anniversary of the Kennedy assassination
Speaker 4: to show.
Speaker 5: That Oswald was the loan assassin.
Speaker 4: And they're always limiting the question, just as the Warren
Speaker 4: Commission did a priori did it was Oswald alone assassin?
Speaker 4: Did he act alone? Did he or did he not
Speaker 4: act alone? Meanwhile, all the serious investigations investigators have a
Speaker 4: different question. It's not that he was not at all
Speaker 4: one of the people who shot Kennedy. He did not
Speaker 4: act at all, although he was involved in another way.
Speaker 4: He was involved as a fall guy. And this is
Speaker 4: why they do this. If you want to know why,
Speaker 4: you just listen to them. It's not my analysis, it's
Speaker 4: what they say. The propagandists of the right and the
Speaker 4: center know why they've got to trash this issue and
Speaker 4: contain it. Listen to what Tom Wicke of the New
Speaker 4: York Times had to say. Now he's never written a
Speaker 4: movie review in his life. JFK came out and Tom Wicker,
Speaker 4: who is a columnist, a Washington columnist for the New
Speaker 4: York Times, suddenly became a movie reviewer, and instead of
Speaker 4: getting the usual movie review length of eight hundred words,
Speaker 4: he got two thousand words.
Speaker 5: It's the whole page with pictures, Nola. And in that review,
Speaker 5: he tells us.
Speaker 4: That if the quote wild assertions in all of A
Speaker 4: Stone's movie are taken at face value, Americans will have
Speaker 4: to accept the idea that most of the nation's major
Speaker 4: institutions conspired together and carried out Kennedy's murder In an era,
Speaker 4: Wicker goes on, in an era when mistrust of government
Speaker 4: and loss of confidence in institutions the press not the
Speaker 4: least are widespread and viruling, such a suggestion seems a
Speaker 4: dubious public service.
Speaker 5: So truth on I'm not true has nothing to do
Speaker 5: with it. He's saying.
Speaker 4: The question is institutional legitimacy. Wicka understands the heart of
Speaker 4: the matter. A full revelation about the murder would be
Speaker 4: a serious attack upon the legitimacy of the dominant institutions
Speaker 4: of state and class, the press not being the least
Speaker 4: of one of those institutions, a faithful servant of it,
Speaker 4: the system that New York Times writers faithfully defended. Playing
Speaker 4: before mass audiences, the movie JFK did not finger a
Speaker 4: cabal of malevolent perpetrators, but in fact pointed the finger
Speaker 4: at the National Security State.
Speaker 5: Itself as the murderer damage control.
Speaker 4: You know, back in nineteen seventy eight, the House Select
Speaker 4: Committee reported, in fact, after an investigation, that there was
Speaker 4: more than one assassin shooting Kennedy then, and there therefore
Speaker 4: was a conspiracy. In response, the Washington Post immediately editorialized
Speaker 4: in nineteen seventy eight, quote, could it have been some
Speaker 4: other malcontempt who mister Oswald met casually?
Speaker 5: It gets better? It gets better with.
Speaker 4: Could not as many as three or four societal outcasts
Speaker 4: with no ties to any one organization have developed in
Speaker 4: some spontaneous way a common determination to express their alienation
Speaker 4: in the killing of President Kennedy. It is possible that
Speaker 4: two persons, acting independently, attempted to shoot the president at
Speaker 4: the very same time.
Speaker 5: It is possible. It's not at all likely.
Speaker 4: So sometimes those who deny conspiracies create the most convoluted.
Speaker 5: Fantasies of all.
Speaker 4: David Garrow, who wrote a biography of Martin Luther King, benignly,
Speaker 4: patronizingly looks at you, at the public mind, and he
Speaker 4: says that the evidence pointing to a conspiracy to murder
Speaker 4: Martin Luther King now at large. You see what it
Speaker 4: is a large majority of the American people do believe
Speaker 4: in assassination conspiracies.
Speaker 5: That allows events to have large.
Speaker 4: Mysterious causes instead of small idiosyncratic ones. I would say
Speaker 4: the Washington Post had the most mysterious cause of all
Speaker 4: a few minutes ago. They like that, They like the
Speaker 4: large causes, you see. But the question of conspiracy has
Speaker 4: to be decided by an investigation of evidence, not by
Speaker 4: a priori unscientific and patronizing presumptions about the public mind.
Speaker 4: In any case, the evidence in King's assassination doesn't involve
Speaker 4: large mysterious causes.
Speaker 5: But very immediate actualities.
Speaker 4: And the investigators, like Peter Dale, Scott and how A
Speaker 4: Weisberger Mark lane Is, they weren't impelled by some yearnings,
Speaker 4: you see.
Speaker 5: They were impelled by questions.
Speaker 4: Of evidence, by things that didn't just seem to make
Speaker 4: sense by very immediate empirical things which drew them into
Speaker 4: this more and more, but which these people who never
Speaker 4: read that evidence don't have to deal with, and so
Speaker 4: they can fashion all these theories. The independent investigators demolished
Speaker 4: the Warren Commission. The first and most effective, perhaps was
Speaker 4: how A. Weisberg's book Whitewash and the Other and then
Speaker 4: the other one by Mark Lane rushed to judgment right there, terrific,
Speaker 4: written twenty five years ago. Let's focus on a small
Speaker 4: part of the actual conspiracy. I can't obviously go through
Speaker 4: it all, it would take ages. Let's start with Oswald.
Speaker 4: If you watch television this week, you again, for the
Speaker 4: seventy eighth time, heard that Oswald was a loner and incompetent,
Speaker 4: not very bright.
Speaker 5: You heard he was emotionally disturbed.
Speaker 4: Joe Posma got on there, turning instant psychiatrists, and he said,
Speaker 4: the abby Oswall was a very disturbed young boy. He
Speaker 4: had a very disturbed childhood. And he was a passive aggressive,
Speaker 4: I said, a passive aggressive, a passive aggressive assassin. That
Speaker 4: explains why use a rifle which couldn't shoot straight. He
Speaker 4: also was a leftist Alexander Coburn has joined the right
Speaker 4: and the center and in a column and the examiner
Speaker 4: said he was a leftist. The truth is something else.
Speaker 4: Lee Hobby Oswald. All his IQ tests show that he
Speaker 4: was above average intelligence. He was a bright guy, a
Speaker 4: quick learner. O. Lee Hobby Oswald spent most of his
Speaker 4: adult life not as a lonely drifter, but directly linked
Speaker 4: to the US intelligence community. At the age of eighteen,
Speaker 4: in the US Marines, he had secret security clearance and
Speaker 4: he was working at Marine Air Control in Atsugi Base
Speaker 4: in Japan. Atsugi was a top secret base where the
Speaker 4: CIA launched some of its U two flights and did
Speaker 4: other kinds of COVID operations in China. The next year,
Speaker 4: at the age of nineteen, he was assigned to El
Speaker 4: Toro Air Station in California with security clearance to work radar,
Speaker 4: and here he emerged. Certain strange things began to happen.
Speaker 4: He emerged as a babbling Russo file and Soviet Communists.
Speaker 4: He started playing Russian language records at blast level in
Speaker 4: his barracks. He started addressing his fellow Marines in Russian.
Speaker 4: He read Russian books and touted Soviet Communism as quote,
Speaker 4: the best system in the world. He called his fellow
Speaker 4: Marines comrades. Now, the US Marine Corps nineteen fifty eight
Speaker 4: was not exactly known as a bastion of liberal tolerance
Speaker 4: and free thinking. My buddy Bernard Livingston wrote a book
Speaker 4: called Closet Red. He tells of his experiences in the Army,
Speaker 4: where they had to filter out anybody who had funny opinions,
Speaker 4: who had pink oish opinions, or whatever else. They had
Speaker 4: to be reported that the Army constantly, and I'm sure
Speaker 4: the Marines constantly surveils anybody who might outspokenly or actively
Speaker 4: begin to say or act certainly in the way he did.
Speaker 4: But in this instance Oswald's Marine commanders didn't mind. He
Speaker 4: kept his security clearance, He kept all the radar records.
Speaker 4: He could see what was going in and out, and
Speaker 4: knew all about the things that were happening there, and
Speaker 4: a wealth of sensitive radar information and otherighly sensitive information
Speaker 4: from sensitive.
Speaker 5: Basis black operations, as they will call.
Speaker 4: Well, if Oswald was a Soviet spy or a Cuban spy,
Speaker 4: as some people now claim, he certainly had a novel
Speaker 4: way of building a couver other odd things began happening.
Speaker 4: In February nineteen fifty nine, lee hobby Oswald failed the
Speaker 4: Marine Corps proficiency test in Russian. Six months later he
Speaker 4: was practically fluent in Russian.
Speaker 5: Only.
Speaker 4: In nineteen seventy four, a document that was dislodged from
Speaker 4: the Warrant Commission that had been secreted. Thanks to Howrod
Speaker 4: Weisberg's legal efforts got the document out, it was shown
Speaker 4: that Oswald had attended the US Army Monterey School of Languages. Now,
Speaker 4: Monterrey is not open to anyone who just happens to
Speaker 4: have a hobby, a language hobby.
Speaker 5: You go only for.
Speaker 4: Serious training, and you are sent by the government and
Speaker 4: it must be related to government work in a language
Speaker 4: picked by the government, which is related to specific assignments.
Speaker 4: So Oswald learned Russian at the US Monterey School of Languages.
Speaker 4: Another odd thing, Oswald was given an early discharge from
Speaker 4: the Marines because his mother had injured her foot. Let's
Speaker 4: call it this dependency discharge. Your parent needs you. A
Speaker 4: jar had fallen on her toe, and he was immediately
Speaker 4: he put in the request and he got it within
Speaker 4: a week. His fellow Marines were astonished at the velocity
Speaker 4: of the release.
Speaker 5: It also so happened that the jaw fell on her
Speaker 5: foot a year before the discharge, but she was happy.
Speaker 5: It wasn't healing right. You know.
Speaker 4: This was only one of a number of very strangely
Speaker 4: favorable treatments that the US government began to give Lee
Speaker 4: Harvey Oswald. He then defected to the USSR. But how
Speaker 4: Philip Mellinson raises the question. To get to Russia in
Speaker 4: those days.
Speaker 5: It would have cost one five hundred dollars.
Speaker 4: Lee Hobby Oswald's bank account showed a deposit of only
Speaker 4: two hundred and three dollars. He got after he arrived
Speaker 4: in London and was there. He left London and went
Speaker 4: to Helsinki on October eleventh, in a day when there
Speaker 4: were no available commercial flights that would have allowed him
Speaker 4: to make it in one day. He had some kind
Speaker 4: of private transportation to get to Helsinki. In Russia, he
Speaker 4: announced that he was renouncing his US citizenship and that
Speaker 4: he had lots of secrets that he was going to
Speaker 4: give to the Soviets. He even went into the US
Speaker 4: embassy and announced that and made sure they all knew it.
Speaker 4: The Soviets didn't bite. They let him stay, but they
Speaker 4: at no time thought he could be an agent of
Speaker 4: many use to them. They kept him under constant surveillance.
Speaker 4: He worked in a factory. He showed no particular interest
Speaker 4: in guns, but he belonged to the factory's gun club.
Speaker 4: He used to join in the rabbit shoots, and he
Speaker 4: could never hit the rabbit. That always someone had to
Speaker 4: come behind him and shoot the rabbit while he was firing,
Speaker 4: otherwise they would have been there all day.
Speaker 5: It was a joke.
Speaker 4: He was a miserable marksman, as he had been in
Speaker 4: the US Marines. He had been flagged again and again
Speaker 4: on the They missed the whole target a number of times,
Speaker 4: you get the flag. So Lebby Oswald's show was a
Speaker 4: couldn't hit the.
Speaker 5: Side of a bond.
Speaker 4: Now, if Leharvey Oswald was really a defector and not
Speaker 4: a US spy, then US intelligence could well have taken
Speaker 4: the view that his was one of the most damaging
Speaker 4: defections in history. Now, what's done in all defections, especially
Speaker 4: those connected with definitely those connected with government and military,
Speaker 4: is that there's a damage assessment. No damage assessment was
Speaker 4: ever made on Oswald's defection. This did come out in
Speaker 4: the Warrant Commission in the House Select Committee. Why there
Speaker 4: was no damage assessmentsion.
Speaker 5: I guess it was just overlooked. We don't know.
Speaker 4: After two and a half years, he applies to return
Speaker 4: to the US. This is after renouncing his citizenship, announcing
Speaker 4: he was going to give away secrets, and instead of
Speaker 4: being grabbed when he comes out and tried as a
Speaker 4: trader of the US accepts him back.
Speaker 5: And he says he was never debriefed.
Speaker 4: In fact, he was the pri in Harlem, in Amsterdam,
Speaker 4: but the CIA has no record of debriefing him.
Speaker 5: Head doesn't doesn't know who he is, never touched him,
Speaker 5: was never near him.
Speaker 4: And their explanation before the commission was that there were
Speaker 4: so many tours coming out that there was nothing particularly
Speaker 4: about him that would would would catch our attention. One
Speaker 4: might wonder what is needed to catch your attention a
Speaker 4: defector of secrets and all after the assassination, the CIA
Speaker 4: claimed that they suspected that he was a Soviet spy,
Speaker 4: they still didn't from debrief from them.
Speaker 5: That makes it even more curious.
Speaker 4: He gets he gets out of Russia, and what does
Speaker 4: the State Department do? They give him money, they give
Speaker 4: him money to travel back to the US.
Speaker 5: And get set up.
Speaker 4: They pay all his travel and moving expenses and those
Speaker 4: of his wife's. He's given back his passport with full
Speaker 4: rights to travel anywhere and denounce the US government again
Speaker 4: someplace else. His wife is exempted from usual immigration quotos.
Speaker 5: No way, no exclusion for.
Speaker 4: Having belonged to the Soviet Compsamol was the Communist youth organization,
Speaker 4: which is a violation of US immigration laws.
Speaker 5: Yes, she was allowed in. Once back in Dallas, the.
Speaker 4: Rvy Oswall settles in under the wing of one George
Speaker 4: de moorin Child, a right wing Russian with CIA ties,
Speaker 4: and this begins a whole pattern that.
Speaker 5: Goes on in Dallas and New Orleans.
Speaker 4: Namely the forays out into the public eye as a leftist.
Speaker 4: Once back in Dallas, the rvy Oswall settles in under
Speaker 4: the wing of one George de moorin Child, a right
Speaker 4: wing Russian with CIA ties, And this begins a whole
Speaker 4: pattern that goes on in Dallas and New Orleans, namely
Speaker 4: the forays out into the public eye as a leftist.
Speaker 4: He starts a one person Fair Play for Cuba organization
Speaker 4: in New Orleans, never has another member, never recruits another member.
Speaker 4: All his time in New Orleans and in Dallas, he
Speaker 4: never once contacts a single member of the Communist Party
Speaker 4: or any other left organization, although he writes lots of
Speaker 4: letters to the Communist Party USA and to the Socialist
Speaker 4: Workers Party.
Speaker 5: Two groups which at that time weren't even talking to
Speaker 5: each other. Day, dear comrades, how are you? We fight
Speaker 5: bowart and we go on. Yes, what should I do?
Speaker 5: And this and that? Send me instructions.
Speaker 4: You know, he blazes a trail local TV fistfights inflammatory
Speaker 4: incidents leaflets. One of the leafless shows that his organization
Speaker 4: was on Camp Street and the very same building that
Speaker 4: Guy Banister had his office. Guy Banister was an FBI agent,
Speaker 4: and a whole bunch of other Cuban McGray right wing
Speaker 4: groups were there, and his personal relations were with right
Speaker 4: wing anti communist Cubans or with right wing crypto fascists
Speaker 4: or CIA types or others. So, while he supposedly was
Speaker 4: this leftist, and if you ever heard any of the
Speaker 4: tapes of him speaking and explaining what communism was or socialism,
Speaker 4: was this laughable. It's this little rope, superficial thing. While
Speaker 4: he was leftist, in fact, all his personal associations were
Speaker 4: with right wing people linked to the intelligence community.
Speaker 5: He also knew Jack Ruby.
Speaker 4: Now they would have us believe that this man who
Speaker 4: couldn't hit the side of the barn, took a man
Speaker 4: link a khar Khan, a rifle whose sights were not
Speaker 4: even set, an Italian weapon, by the way, which the
Speaker 4: Italian said, the weapon that never killed anyone on purpose, and.
Speaker 5: He fired and killed the President of the United States.
Speaker 4: That he would forego shooting President Kennedy when he had
Speaker 4: a full body shot of him coming right at him
Speaker 4: down Houston Street, right toward the right, toward the Texas
Speaker 4: Book Depository, where he could where he could go at him,
Speaker 4: go at him like a shooting gallery that's coming closer
Speaker 4: and closer, perfect the ideal thing.
Speaker 5: He didn't shoot him.
Speaker 4: Then he waited until the car turned at one hundred
Speaker 4: and ten degree angle down Elm Street, and as he
Speaker 4: went by and had only his head in a little
Speaker 4: portion of his shoulders, and then firing through the trees,
Speaker 4: he rapidly got off three shots in a few seconds,
Speaker 4: something which the best marksmen in the country were not
Speaker 4: able to emulate until after much practice, and after the
Speaker 4: sights on the manlinka karkana, were reset and brought into
Speaker 4: a laboratory and fixed in there, and they had all
Speaker 4: sorts of remarks to make about the awful performance of
Speaker 4: this rifle.
Speaker 5: By the way, right through a tree that was later
Speaker 5: cut down.
Speaker 4: We are asked to believe that a bullet would go
Speaker 4: through John Kennedy, pose in mid air for two seconds,
Speaker 4: changed directions, and wound Governor Connolly in two places, and
Speaker 4: then reappear intact on a stretcher, fallen out of Connolly's body.
Speaker 5: By the way, that's not true. It did not ever reappear.
Speaker 4: On the stretcher as if fallen out of somebody's body.
Speaker 4: It had reappeared wedged into the side of the stretcher.
Speaker 5: It obviously had been pushed in there.
Speaker 4: So this was a bullet that jumped out of Connolly's
Speaker 4: body and.
Speaker 5: Wedged itself in the side of the stretcher.
Speaker 4: This magic bullet had a lot of magic in it.
Speaker 4: We're asked to believe that a treasure of physical evidence
Speaker 4: the interior of the limousine, the presidential limousine itself, which
Speaker 4: would have all sorts of evidence, bits of strappedn or
Speaker 4: whatever else from bullet, parts of blood, lines of fire,
Speaker 4: which was which was just accidentally taken instantly, torn out, destroyed,
Speaker 4: and totally rebuilt.
Speaker 5: That this was not a deliberate cover up.
Speaker 4: But we're asked to believe that Kennedy's brain just disappeared.
Speaker 4: That the X ray, which now shows a reconstructed head
Speaker 4: with no exit wound, is oddly taken with no lower,
Speaker 4: with no jaw, so it could be anybody's. You can't
Speaker 4: do any kind of dental identification to see if that
Speaker 4: x ray is President Kennedy's.
Speaker 5: That the autopsy was just botched innotantly.
Speaker 4: We're asked to believe that Jack Ruby a gambler and
Speaker 4: gangster with links to the Cuban exiles and an acquaintance
Speaker 4: of Oz Walls. He once worked for Congressman Richard Nixon
Speaker 4: for the House and American Activities Committee in Chicago when
Speaker 4: his name was still Jack Rubinstein before he changed it
Speaker 4: to Ruby. We're asked to believe that he just took
Speaker 4: it upon himself to kill Oswald because he was so
Speaker 4: moved by the suffering that Oswald had caused the Kennedy family.
Speaker 4: Although Ruby, in his a year later in jail, repeatedly
Speaker 4: kept alluding to the fact that you don't know the
Speaker 4: whole story.
Speaker 5: There's much more behind all of this.
Speaker 4: There's something really deep and sinister here in all this,
Speaker 4: and he was just simply dismissed.
Speaker 5: By a media that was taking its cues.
Speaker 4: We're asked if the twenty one witnesses, persons otherwise related
Speaker 4: to the case in some close way, with some information,
Speaker 4: privy to some conversations, whatever else, or who met violent
Speaker 4: deaths were part of a colossal coincidence like the one
Speaker 4: the Washington Post was talking about that later on in
Speaker 4: nineteen seventy eight, the second round of killings that started
Speaker 4: after the House Select Committee investigation, sixteen more who died violently.
Speaker 4: They just happened to coincidentally violent debts, including one of
Speaker 4: them being George de Moronschild himself killed by a gun
Speaker 4: blast to the head three hours after a House Assassinations
Speaker 4: Committee investigator had tried to contact him. He was being
Speaker 4: set up for an interview. He was being set up
Speaker 4: for a lot more than that. George Morinschild was not
Speaker 4: only close to Oswald, but in his telephone book there
Speaker 4: was found an inscription or an insert to George Pappy
Speaker 4: Bush that he was a close friend of George Bush.
Speaker 5: And there was a correspondence between them.
Speaker 4: The sheriff's office in Palm County, Florida found that his
Speaker 4: shooting was very strange.
Speaker 5: And it was ruled a suicide.
Speaker 4: William Sullivan a third FBI, third guy in the FBI,
Speaker 4: who was supposed to appear before the House Committee to
Speaker 4: talk By the way, Sullivan was on CIA. According to
Speaker 4: rober Murrow, he was on the CIA payroll. He was
Speaker 4: shot right outside his home by a man who claimed
Speaker 4: to have mistaken him for a deer he was. He
Speaker 4: was charged with misdemeanor and released in custody of his father,
Speaker 4: a state policeman, sam Jan Kanno, who died from natural
Speaker 4: causes when his heart stopped beating after a bullet went
Speaker 4: through it one day before he was to testify about
Speaker 4: MOB and CIA connections while and while under government protection.
Speaker 4: And by the way, what comes out of this whole
Speaker 4: thing is the incredible linkages between the CIA and MOB
Speaker 4: families and MOB figures again and again, because after all,
Speaker 4: the Mob is very functional. They can do the kind
Speaker 4: of dirty things that the CIA may sometimes want them
Speaker 4: to do. There are even some on the left like
Speaker 4: Noam Chomsky and Alexander Coburn, who argue that this whole
Speaker 4: interest in the assassination comes from a Kennedy revival.
Speaker 3: Hey, okay, here's the problem.
Speaker 2: There's a couple of facts in Parente stuff that were
Speaker 2: lesser known at the time and have been developed greater since. Like,
Speaker 2: we know a lot more about g and Kanna's death,
Speaker 2: we know a lot more about the guy who mistakenly
Speaker 2: shot somebody thinking they were a deer.
Speaker 3: We know a lot more about this stuff. Now.
Speaker 2: Parente was dealing with this in nineteen ninety three. So
Speaker 2: if you add in the updated facts, the argument remains
Speaker 2: the same except one problem in my mind, and that
Speaker 2: is this over focus on the CIA. It is the
Speaker 2: intelligence community. It is that whole entire apparatus, not just
Speaker 2: the CIA, and certainly not the CIA proper.
Speaker 3: But this is an.
Speaker 2: Adjustment that comes to you many years later and with
Speaker 2: a lot of work.
Speaker 4: The Camelot yearning, the yearning for lost Messiah, I'm getting close.
Speaker 4: These are close right From Chomsky, co Vern and Chomsky
Speaker 4: and others. They challenged the notion that Kennedy was assassinated
Speaker 4: for intending to withdraw from Vietnam or under the CIA
Speaker 4: or in the Cold War. These things could not have
Speaker 4: led to his downfall because they were not true. Kennedy
Speaker 4: was a co warrior, a counterinsurgent to wanted a military
Speaker 4: withdrawal from Vietnam only with victory. I have argued similarly
Speaker 4: in my book Democracy for the Few, that in fact,
Speaker 4: indeed Kennedy was a co warrior and a counterinsurgent, and
Speaker 4: that he should not be romanticized as a progressive. Chomsky, Coburn,
Speaker 4: and others claimed that the change of administration that came
Speaker 4: with Afk's assassination had no large scale effect on policy,
Speaker 4: not even on tactics.
Speaker 2: Okay, so there is the largest issue, which is that
Speaker 2: a guy like Parente believed in Kennedy not being progressive enough. Therefore,
Speaker 2: but it wasn't progressiveness, it was not liberalism. It was
Speaker 2: a matter of pragmatism. Kennedy was willing to go to
Speaker 2: war when it made sense to go to war, but
Speaker 2: when it was senseless or it was just to propagate idiocy,
Speaker 2: like they wanted in Germany, like they wanted in Lauts,
Speaker 2: like they wanted in Cuba, with the constant in Vaine
Speaker 2: Asian being called for because killing is a business, and
Speaker 2: business was very good and that's what you have to
Speaker 2: wrap your mind around. It's not this oh liberal fantasizing.
Speaker 2: Kennedy's not a liberal, not even close. And you know,
Speaker 2: until we went crazy in recent years, there was a
Speaker 2: liberal sort of construct who could try to wrap it
Speaker 2: around Kennedy and it didn't fit. It fit when it
Speaker 2: came to being progressive and less, you know, the racist
Speaker 2: jackassery of the former Conservatives.
Speaker 3: It fit there. But outside of that nothing.
Speaker 2: This guy's practically a Republican, an old school Republican, not
Speaker 2: a Trump era republican, not a post War on Terror
Speaker 2: idiocy republican, but a regular old died in the wall.
Speaker 2: You know, we believe in business and people's right to
Speaker 2: make themselves Republican. That fantasy, Yeah, that's what Kennedy was.
Speaker 2: Not a progressive, not a liberal, but also not a
Speaker 2: hardliner and not an idiot who just wanted to throw
Speaker 2: away people's lives to accomplish nothing but filling the coffers
Speaker 2: of people whose business it was to prop it off
Speaker 2: of blood and torture.
Speaker 4: In other words, if Kennedy had lived, he likely would
Speaker 4: have fabricated a Tonguin gulf as his belly. He would
Speaker 4: have introduced ground troops in a massive land war, as
Speaker 4: Lyndon Johnson did, he would have engaged in the merciless
Speaker 4: Bee fifty two carpet bombings of Laos, Cambodi, and Vietnam,
Speaker 4: as Richard Nixon did, He would have risked destroying his
Speaker 4: own electoral base, proving himself a mass murder as bad
Speaker 4: as Nixon. Chomsky and Coburn don't tell us how they
Speaker 4: know that. All we know is the one surviving Kennedy.
Speaker 4: The Robert Kennedy, in fact, went a different way. He
Speaker 4: became an anti war critic. He opposed the war, He
Speaker 4: broke with the Johnson administration, and he said that his
Speaker 4: brother's administration, his administration, had committed terrible mistakes. The evidence
Speaker 4: we do have, in fact, is that John Kennedy observed
Speaker 4: Cambodian neutrality and negotiated to see fire and coalition government
Speaker 4: in Laos, which the CIA.
Speaker 5: Refused to honor.
Speaker 4: They preferred to back a right wing faction that continued
Speaker 4: the war.
Speaker 5: Chomsky says much about troop withdrawals.
Speaker 4: Who just wrote a whole book on this, Camelot Revisited
Speaker 4: and all that, but he says very little about troop escalation,
Speaker 4: other than to offer Roger Hillsman speculation that Kennedy might
Speaker 4: well have introduced US troops ground troops in South Vietnam.
Speaker 5: Maybe so, maybe not.
Speaker 4: In fact, the same Hillsman noted in The New York
Speaker 4: Times not long ago, and Chomsky doesn't note it that
Speaker 4: in nineteen sixty three, Kennedy was the only person in
Speaker 4: his administration who opposed the introduction of US ground troops.
Speaker 4: He was the only thing preventing an escalation of the war.
Speaker 4: Forget the question of withdrawal.
Speaker 5: Or not withdrawal. He was a barrier in that sense.
Speaker 4: Whether or not, there are certain left analysts who think
Speaker 4: Kennedy was or wasn't a progressive or liberal and thinks
Speaker 4: that the CIA had no reason to kill him, or
Speaker 4: other people had no reason to be dissatisfied him. The
Speaker 4: fact is, do they see it that way? You know,
Speaker 4: entrenched interests are notorious for not seeing the world the
Speaker 4: same way that left analysts do. In nineteen sixty three,
Speaker 4: people in right wing circles, including elements in various intelligence organizations,
Speaker 4: did not believe that Kennedy could be trusted with the
Speaker 4: nation's future. Some months ago, on a San Francisco talk show,
Speaker 4: I heard a guy come on. It was on KGO
Speaker 4: and he said, I never said this before. I never
Speaker 4: said it. It's the first time of saying it. But
Speaker 4: I worked for Army intelligence, and in nineteen sixty three
Speaker 4: I was in Japan, and when he in, the accepted
Speaker 4: word around then was that Kennedy would be killed because
Speaker 4: he was messing too much with the intelligence community. And
Speaker 4: when word came of his death, we were all I
Speaker 4: could hear with delighted comments.
Speaker 5: Like we got the bastard.
Speaker 4: What JFK's enemies saw something was What they saw was
Speaker 4: something different from what Chomsky and Coburn have seen. They
Speaker 4: fixed on Kennedy's refusal to provide air coverage the Bay
Speaker 4: of Pigs, his refusal to go in with US forces,
Speaker 4: his unwillingness to launch another invasion of Cuba is no
Speaker 4: invasion guarantee to KHRUSHEV on Cuba. His atmospheric test band
Speaker 4: treaty with Moscow. His American University speech calling for a
Speaker 4: re examination of our Cold War attitudes towards the Soviet Union.
Speaker 4: His unwillingness to send ground forces in a massive form
Speaker 4: into Vietnam, his anti trust suit against General Electric, his
Speaker 4: fight with US steel over price increases, his challenge to
Speaker 4: the Federal Reserve Board, his warm reception at labor conventions,
Speaker 4: his call for racial equality and responsiveness to civil rights leaders,
Speaker 4: reluctant responsiveness, his talk of moving forward in a new frontier.
Speaker 4: Erwin Nole, the Progressive says that he admits he has
Speaker 4: no idea who killed Kennedy, but this doesn't keep him
Speaker 4: from asserting that the Oliver A. Stone film was manipulative
Speaker 4: and that Stone provided false answers.
Speaker 5: How do you know that, Erwin, if you have no
Speaker 5: idea who killed Kennedy?
Speaker 4: And the remarkable thing about Erwin Nole and Nom Chomsky
Speaker 4: and Alexander Koburn is they don't know a damn thing
Speaker 4: about the criticisms and investigation that's been made. We've said
Speaker 4: this again and again, and the rebuttals in the Exchange
Speaker 4: in the Nation, almost every one of them said, Alexander
Speaker 4: Coburn doesn't know anything about this case. He doesn't know
Speaker 4: anything about le Hobby Osrol. Really he doesn't know.
Speaker 5: Just some of the questions I brought up.
Speaker 4: They don't know any and they never deny it. They
Speaker 4: never say anything. They go on with their patronizing comments. Well,
Speaker 4: Chomsky patronization and condescension Coburn with vitriol and venom.
Speaker 5: They go on attacking.
Speaker 4: Those who supposedly are idealizing Kennedy. Erwin Noel shows he's flexible,
Speaker 4: though he says he allows that the Warrant Commission did
Speaker 4: a hasty, slipshod job of investigation.
Speaker 5: I disagree. The Commission did a brilliant job of investigation.
Speaker 4: It sat for fifty one long sessions over a period
Speaker 4: of several months, much longer than most major investigations. It
Speaker 4: compiled twenty six volumes of testimony and evidence. It had
Speaker 4: the investigative resources of the FBI.
Speaker 5: And CIA at as command.
Speaker 4: From being hasty and slipshod, it painstakingly crafted theories that
Speaker 4: moved toward its foreordained conclusion that Oswald was the assassin.
Speaker 4: It framed an argument and moved unfailingly to fulfill that argument.
Speaker 4: It failed to call witnesses who saw something different from
Speaker 4: what it wanted to hear, who saw who not only heard,
Speaker 4: but who saw people on the Grassy Knoll shooting.
Speaker 5: It failed to call them.
Speaker 4: It ignored or reinterpreted what little conflicting testimony that did
Speaker 4: creep into its proceedings. All this took deliberate effort. It
Speaker 4: was carefully crafted, painstakingly. A hasty, slipshod investigation would show traces.
Speaker 5: Of randomness in its errors.
Speaker 4: Some would go this way, some would go that way,
Speaker 4: but the Commission's distortions consistently moved in the same direction
Speaker 4: in pursuit of a prefigured hypothesis, the gullible US public
Speaker 4: that Irwin Knowle talks about Noel, who condemns all of
Speaker 4: a Stone for playing on the gullibility of the American people.
Speaker 5: See, he's not gullible. He's cool. He doesn't fall for this.
Speaker 5: He's so cool, didn't even go see the movie. You see,
Speaker 5: the US public has not bought the official explanation.
Speaker 4: Seventy eight percent say they believe there was a conspiracy
Speaker 4: in both Chomsky and Coburn, Coburn in the Nation, Chomsky
Speaker 4: and Z Magazine, and again in a letter in exchange
Speaker 4: with me. Both of them dismissed that fact and point
Speaker 4: out the same identical analog. They point out that, in fact,
Speaker 4: over seventy percent of the people also believe in miracles.
Speaker 4: So what does that prove and what has that got
Speaker 4: to do with the question at hand? That people can
Speaker 4: have a stupid opinion about one thing doesn't mean they're
Speaker 4: stupid about everything. In fact, Chomsky and Coburn are themselves
Speaker 4: evidence of that. In any case, the comparison is between
Speaker 4: two different things. They're comparing the public's gollibility about miracles
Speaker 4: with the public's unwillingness to be gullible about the official
Speaker 4: line of it being fed and shoved in their.
Speaker 5: Faces for thirty years.
Speaker 1: That takes.
Speaker 5: That's not gullible it at all. Ezion D.
Speaker 4: Koburn and Nom Chomsky have told us that we must
Speaker 4: not reduce great developments in history to conspiracy, for then
Speaker 4: we lose sight of institution, class, and other systemic factors
Speaker 4: of American capitalism. I don't need them to tell me
Speaker 4: about systemic factors in American capitalism. I use a structural
Speaker 4: analysis in all my writings. But investigating the JFK conspiracy,
Speaker 4: we are not looking for an escape from something unpleasant
Speaker 4: and difficult. That's psychiatrist nom Chomsky speaking. But we're hitting
Speaker 4: upon the nature of state power and what is supposedly
Speaker 4: to be a democracy. Conspiracy is not something that's in
Speaker 4: contradistinction to structural analysis.
Speaker 5: It is part of it.
Speaker 4: These guys will use conspiracy. They will use legitimacy, They
Speaker 4: will finance elections, they will use publicity campaigns, they will
Speaker 4: set up liberalist organizations, they will set up alternative trade
Speaker 4: union movements.
Speaker 5: They will use assassins and death squads.
Speaker 4: They will use every single conceivable thing there is. And
Speaker 4: this was one of the things they used when they
Speaker 4: had someone who was giving them trouble, when they had
Speaker 4: someone who was standing in their path because he was
Speaker 4: a little too bright and too shiny. When they had
Speaker 4: an agenda to save Southeast Asia from communism, they would
Speaker 4: kill one of their own.
Speaker 5: And that is a tremendous revelation.
Speaker 4: It was a startling revelation of the American public to
Speaker 4: make them realize what kind of a gangster government and
Speaker 4: national security state we really have in this country and
Speaker 4: what it does around the world. A structuralist position should
Speaker 4: not discount the role of human agency in history. Institutions
Speaker 4: are not self generating forces. The great continuities of corporate
Speaker 4: and class interest, that's Coburn's phrase, do not happen of
Speaker 4: their own accord like reified disembodied social forces.
Speaker 5: Neither empires nor.
Speaker 4: National security institutions come into existence and fit apps and mindedness.
Speaker 4: Although the British elite used to say that the British
Speaker 4: Empire was accumulated in the fit of apps and mindedness.
Speaker 4: Give me a break, Give me a break, as these
Speaker 4: guys plotted and killed and brought armies in and destroyed,
Speaker 4: and bribed and murdered and lied and did all the things,
Speaker 4: and plundered these countries and plundered and plundered them absent minded.
Speaker 5: God knows when you focus your attention what you would do.
Speaker 4: There's a conscious interest being pursued here, and the evidence
Speaker 4: for it is the state itself. These things, these events
Speaker 4: are created by willfully intended policymakers who pursue specific interests.
Speaker 5: It is the essence of the state and.
Speaker 4: The function of state institutions to act as conscious agents
Speaker 4: in recreating the conditions of politico economic hegemony. That's what
Speaker 4: it's there for. That's what they're paid to do. To
Speaker 4: achieve their goals. State leaders, especially those within the national
Speaker 4: security state, will resort to every necessary form of mass manipulation, deception,
Speaker 4: and violence, even against one of their own whom they
Speaker 4: have come to see as a liability. Conspiratorial action is
Speaker 4: not brothers and sisters, is not something separate and exclusive
Speaker 4: of institutional presence. In fact, there's a constant interplay between
Speaker 4: the two. And by the way, this is all this
Speaker 4: call for constructural analysis, institutional analysis. Where's the institutional analysis
Speaker 4: in the Nation. All you get, all you get are
Speaker 4: all conspiracies, incite, intrigues, events, happenings, articles that preoccupy, when
Speaker 4: imediate policies, issues, events, personality, secret deals, all that kind
Speaker 4: of stuff. All of them are vastly lesser magnitude than
Speaker 4: jfk assassination. Yet, and yet in thirty years, the Nation
Speaker 4: and the Progressive have never published a single word by
Speaker 4: investigators like Peter Dale, Scott and such, except a letter
Speaker 4: to the editor once in a while. Let me quote
Speaker 4: from Peter's book Deep Politics. He raises this question of conspiracy,
Speaker 4: and he points out that ge William Domhoff makes a
Speaker 4: point very much like coburns. He says, and Peter, I think,
Speaker 4: makes a point very much like the one I made
Speaker 4: which I was quoting from, which was in my exchange
Speaker 4: with Chomsky and Z Magazine about and also with them,
Speaker 4: I mean with Chomsky and also in the Nation. In
Speaker 4: my exchange with Coburn, I made this point that conspiracy
Speaker 4: and institution are not mutually exclusive, and they never have
Speaker 4: answered or addressed that point, either to rebut it or
Speaker 4: to accept it, or to see how it doesn't apply
Speaker 4: here or does apply whatever, They just ignore it. Tom
Speaker 4: Hooff points out if conspiracy means that these men, meaning
Speaker 4: the ruling elites, are aware of their interests, know each
Speaker 4: other personally, meet together privately and off the record, and
Speaker 4: try to hammer out a consensus on how to anticipate
Speaker 4: and react to events and issues, then they there is
Speaker 4: some conspiring that goes on in the Council for Foreign Relations,
Speaker 4: not to mention the Committee for Economic Development, the Business Council,
Speaker 4: the National Security Council, and the central intelligence agencies. But
Speaker 4: then Domhoff Scott goes on to show to Domhoff Shares
Speaker 4: that same kind of resistance that Coburn and Shopsky have
Speaker 4: to the idea that an assassination conspiracy could have a
Speaker 4: lasting impact on our political arrangements. We all have a
Speaker 4: tremendous tendency to want to get caught up in believing
Speaker 4: there's some secret, evil cause.
Speaker 5: For all of the obvious ills of the world.
Speaker 4: Conspiracy theories encourage a belief that if we get rid
Speaker 4: of a few bad people, everything will be well in
Speaker 4: the world.
Speaker 5: He's quoting Domhoff.
Speaker 4: Then, Peter Answys, I believe that a true understanding of
Speaker 4: the Kennedy assassination will lead not to a few bad people,
Speaker 4: but to the institutional and parapolitical arrangements which constitute the
Speaker 4: way we are systematically governed. The conspiracies I see as operative,
Speaker 4: in other words, are part of our policical structure, not
Speaker 4: exceptions to it.
Speaker 5: That's Peter Dale Scott.
Speaker 4: What the left critics do is that they mistaken the
Speaker 4: low political value of the victim JFK, whom they hate
Speaker 4: and detest, their big fears that you're going to like him,
Speaker 4: with the high political importance of the issue and the
Speaker 4: implications for democracy, the revelation of the gangs, the nature
Speaker 4: of the state.
Speaker 5: I mean.
Speaker 4: Captain Alfred Dreyfus back in eighteen ninety four was a
Speaker 4: conservative militarist. Clemenceau once conjectured that of his name had
Speaker 4: not been Dreyfus, he would have been an anti dreyfussade.
Speaker 4: Does that mean that the political struggle waged in La
Speaker 4: Fair Dreyfus was a waste of time? The issue was
Speaker 4: quickly drawn between the right and the left, between those
Speaker 4: who stood with the army and those who stood with
Speaker 4: the republic itself.
Speaker 5: And with justice. The same with Benino Aquino.
Speaker 4: Aquino was a member of the privileged class in the Philippines.
Speaker 4: He promised no great structural changes. He was even more
Speaker 4: conservative than Kennedy. Does this mean that the Filipino people
Speaker 4: should have dismissed the conspiracy that led to his assassination
Speaker 4: as an event of no experience, So just another ruling
Speaker 4: class pig, what do we care? Instead, they used it
Speaker 4: as ammunition against the hated Marcos regime, as a revelation
Speaker 4: of what that government was really doing. Archbishop Romero of
Speaker 4: El Salvador, he was a member of the Salvadoran aristocracy.
Speaker 4: He could not have made it to the top of
Speaker 4: the church hierarchy otherwise. When he was ordained, they came
Speaker 4: with presents, they hugged and kissed him, And the minute
Speaker 4: he opened up his mouth and made some critical remarks
Speaker 4: about the war and some favorable remarks about the poor,
Speaker 4: he was assassinated. I doubt if he hadn't been assassinated,
Speaker 4: the Salvador In history would have been much different. Does
Speaker 4: this mean that solidarity groups in this country and El
Speaker 4: Salvador should not have tried to make his murder an
Speaker 4: issue that revealed the homicidal gangst the nature of the
Speaker 4: Salvadoran state. Instead of seizing the opportunity, some left wrights
Speaker 4: condescendingly ascribe a host of mass psychology, motivations, and emotional
Speaker 4: needs to those of us who are concerned about the
Speaker 4: JFK assassination. The psychologize about our illusions, our false dreams,
Speaker 4: our longings from messiahs and father figures, and our inability
Speaker 4: to face unpleasant realities the way they can. They deliver
Speaker 4: patronizing admonitions about our conspiracy, captivation, and Camelot yearnings. They
Speaker 4: urge us not to escape into fantasy. They are the
Speaker 4: cognushinti who guide us and out left us on the
Speaker 4: JFK assassination, a subject about which they don't know a
Speaker 4: goddamn thing and whose significance they will never be able
Speaker 4: and have not been able to grasp. I have a
Speaker 4: different name for our interests. It is not JFK worship.
Speaker 4: It's not Camlot yearnings as the left critics would say.
Speaker 4: It's not big evils and conspiracy titillation, as the mainstream
Speaker 4: media would say. Our interest is born of democratic struggle,
Speaker 4: a desire to know what is going on, a desire
Speaker 4: to have rulers who are worthy of.
Speaker 5: Our name and the name of democracy.
Speaker 6: Thank you, New Year, same extra value mules at McDonald's.
Speaker 6: Now get a savory stutage, m muffin with a bus
Speaker 6: hash Browns.
Speaker 2: And Okay, due to some last minute repairs, we're gonna
Speaker 2: start about ten minutes late on the call in show,
Speaker 2: and I got to create.
Speaker 3: A little spot for our friend b Pete to join
Speaker 3: with us.
Speaker 2: And I think we're going to try an experiment in
Speaker 2: a week or two, might be, might be a couple
Speaker 2: of weeks from now, because I want to make sure
Speaker 2: we got a full on, but we might try a
Speaker 2: different way for me and be Pete to connect. And
Speaker 2: we're gonna connect the show to the X platform, because
Speaker 2: why the hell not. You know what, I got a
Speaker 2: constant little bill. It's one of my little bills I
Speaker 2: pay for this network, and we got a blue check mark.
Speaker 2: I think we're gonna start using Twitter spaces and see
Speaker 2: how that grabs some new people. I'm probably gonna get
Speaker 2: more pissed off hump Trump and Trump humping whatever, jackasses
Speaker 2: and deranged liberals. But what the hell I mean, I
Speaker 2: can only work with what speaks English anymore, I guess,
Speaker 2: and and the bots and such, so.
Speaker 3: Let's see what happens. We'll go over there.
Speaker 2: Who knows, maybe we'll find some woers. But anyway, this
Speaker 2: has been a tribute to Michael Parenti obviously, and if
Speaker 2: you didn't know who he was or anything else, that's
Speaker 2: your damn fault, and it's a big fault. Nineteen ninety
Speaker 2: three gave that lecture JFK and the Gangster State, and
Speaker 2: I even let a McDonald's commercial play halfway through at
Speaker 2: the very end, not because I wanted to, but what
Speaker 2: the hell. It's one of the last things on YouTube
Speaker 2: that doesn't seem to be tainted.
Speaker 3: With AI, so screw it.
Speaker 2: The call in show will begin after I drop off
Speaker 2: the stream completely, and I'm testing the phone lines. They
Speaker 2: are working, so you will be able to call in,
Speaker 2: and I was able to physically fix the broken phone.
Speaker 2: But I don't know how long this thing's gonna last.
Speaker 3: I need to buy a.
Speaker 2: New one, and y on and on it goes. Plus
Speaker 2: we're gonna get into videos starting in April, one way
Speaker 2: or another.
Speaker 3: I went and finally got into an.
Speaker 2: MRI machine today, and of course it's kind of predictable
Speaker 2: what happens. You know, I'm getting tired of being asked,
Speaker 2: why are you still alive? Why are you still walking around?
Speaker 2: It's fun, but not so much fun. Also, how is
Speaker 2: it that you removed shrapnel from yourself when you were
Speaker 2: shot in the leg when you were younger? I am
Speaker 2: tired of teaching doctors things and most people that listen
Speaker 2: to this what's left of you?
Speaker 3: Anyway?
Speaker 2: You don't care what I have to say anyhow, So
Speaker 2: screw it. Let's have a little fun. Maybe we'll talk
Speaker 2: about I don't know, beer and wine and women and
Speaker 2: song and things that make you throw up in the
Speaker 2: next couple hours here on the OCHLI dot com radio network,
Speaker 2: which will be live all the way to past midnight,
Speaker 2: when the Uncle Show will conclude, because eleven to twelve
Speaker 2: pm Eastern will be the Uncle Show. Ten to eleven
Speaker 2: pm Eastern, we'll be Aaron Franz in the Age of Transitions,
Speaker 2: and for the next of what remains of up until
Speaker 2: ten pm Eastern. From eight say pm to ten pm Eastern,
Speaker 2: although it's already eleven after, you'll get the Ocelli effect
Speaker 2: with live call ins and my co host VPT and
Speaker 2: hopefully I don't pass out in the process of this show.
Speaker 2: I got one eye closed. Now I got problems. Apparently
Speaker 2: I got some broken bones too, and I'm just, you know,
Speaker 2: struggling to breathe with them and walk around with them.
Speaker 5: But what the hell?
Speaker 2: My suffering doesn't matter. Nobody moves, nobody cares, and I'm
Speaker 2: being erased anyway.
Speaker 3: So I'm in a great mood.
Speaker 2: Hopefully you are too, stick around, because the o'elli effect is.
Speaker 3: About about to get started.
Speaker 5: Conversation. You are the effect.
Speaker 7: The decider is broken, revelation, the conversation. Let's stop lines
Speaker 7: show effect.
Speaker 1: Revelation, a devastation, revelation.
Speaker 5: Effect.
Speaker 8: You are the effectation to sell the fact revelation conation.
Speaker 9: Titian through convers oh shall effect revelation.
Speaker 8: The fas is gone and forgotten.
Speaker 9: I'll sell you a fact beyond this place of rat
Speaker 9: and sears a little horror of the shame.
Speaker 7: And yet the mercy of years finds it shall find
Speaker 7: me afraid.
Speaker 8: And that's not a bra deicate, not.
Speaker 5: The scroll.
Speaker 1: I am the master of my fate.
Speaker 8: I am the chanted of my soul. Funny of fact revelation,
Speaker 8: protect the propaganda horse, continued cashing in and teach us
Speaker 8: about religion, keeping score at home. Are people you'd like
Speaker 8: to see even by wolves, dis dropped dying soon.
Speaker 7: The tangles are Jacko Tips and his continued ghost stormy
Speaker 7: touring streak says God sparred him and decided a firefighter
Speaker 7: dies in BA.
Speaker 9: Revelation conversation Olly a fact, you are the effect.
Speaker 5: You are the.
Speaker 9: Effect relation through conversation, all praise, no straight same revelation
Speaker 9: through conversation, through conversation, all raised restraints.
Speaker 8: I tell you affect revelation through conversation, through conversation, all restraints.
Speaker 9: I'll tell you effected revelation through conversation.
Speaker 8: God as the dead from cold all whatever got me
Speaker 8: from my indocorable soul. In the constant circumstance, I have
Speaker 8: not winced.
Speaker 9: No cry allows a chance ahead, bloody about.
Speaker 8: You are the effect, the actually effect, compilation through conversation, revelation.
Speaker 1: Conversation effect. You are the effect.
Speaker 8: You are the effect. Revelation through conversation, Ball's praise, no.
Speaker 9: Street revelation through conversation, revel through conversations, no restraints, all effect.
Speaker 8: Revelation through conversation through conversation, all raised, no restraints effect revelation.
Speaker 8: Through conversation, you a