Looks like Shooter 2.5, myself, and the several other right-thinkers on the assassination of JFK get to prosecute Oswald for the umpteenth time over Thanksgiving Day.
perverting liberalism, I didn’t think it was possible for it to get any more perverted.
‘bout time we got a JFK thread. Tomorrow is the date. Today in other timezones.
Basically a good article, except that Oswald was no “New Left-type” communist (hippie, counter-cultural); he was an Old Left Stalinist type. Former Rumanian intelligence operative Ion Mihai Pacepa says the KGB inspired and promulgated most of the disinformation which distracted people from the fact that communist agent Oswald killed Kennedy. He also claims that Oswald was a loose cannon not operating under KGB control at the time.
It was unlikely that Oswald fired the shots that killed Kennedy.
Kennedy was killed by men who were afraid of him, likley men in our own government, or from the New Orleans Mafia.
THe kicker is that even expert miliary riflemen ( which Oswald was not) could not fire the shots in rapid succession with accuracy required, with the firearm used by Oswald. Only with the greatest difficulty could an expert rifleman duplicate Oswalds alleged shooting pattern. I am talking the best we have, champions.
So as far as I am concerned Oswald could not have done it, he was the patsy, the screen for others who have gotten cleanly away.
So this book is a lot of liberal punk bunk. Liberalism died when Neville Chamberlain waived a paper stating " Peace In our Time." The Kennedy years were simply a last death spasm of it. Piereson has in his writing taken a dead social movement ( liberalism) and attempted to breath new life into it, which is the purpose of his work. In truth liberalism is a Utopian philosophy which prevents people from coping with things as they are. It is a curse upon America.
Liberals want heaven NOW , and can't wait until they die. For that reason the try to create heaven on earth, a blasphemy in the face of God.According to them we humans need to be able to act without consequences to our actions. In essence that is liberalism.We should screw without having children, use drugs without penalty , kill without capital punishment, ad infinitum.
No, liberalism was dead the day it was born. Kennedy had little to do with it, except to give us one more reason as to why it should end as quickly as possible. His personal conduct outside of his marriage is only one manifestation of why that is so, among many others in his presidency.
No liberal has done lasting good, they only APPEAR to do it, and they work very, very hard on appearances, but not on the substance of doing good. True good can only happen when no thank you or acknowledgement for it is expected. That is hardly a liberal talking point, as you all may have noticed.
Piereson is full of himself, and his work is simply a bald attempt at the redefinition of history. He overates Kennedy, who if anything was a sordid, needy, tragic figure who managed to do a few things right when he acted conservatively. Most of what he did ended quite badly.
Yes, the two terrible Kennedy assassinations were carried out by (1) communist (though NOT “new leftist”) Lee Harvey Oswald, who was carrying out his own version of neo-Stalinist activism even if he was not under KGB operational control; (2) Palestinian fanatic Sirhan Sirhan, who murdered Bobby Kennedy for his sympathy toward Israel.
How ironic that liberals were able to misuse these assassinations, not to wage war against communists and anti-Israel fanatics, but to support the lurch leftward of the Demagogic Party.
As for the New Left, I believe that David Horowitz looks at the 1956 Khrushchev revelations of the Stalin horrors; American Communists (and many, many "Uncle Joe" admirers) became disillusioned with the Soviet system as well as ours. The red-diaper babies and other youths turned more toward Mao and to anarchy. "Bring it all down, man."
As I recall Professor Huntington's book, Who Are We?, there also, after decades of trying, was the emergence of the deconstructionists among our "intellectuals."
Traditional, patriotic Democrats were run out of the Democratic Party as the above mentioned Rats took over.
We average Joes and Janes were all kind of caught flat-footed. The men we respected were leading us "down the path" nightly on that fantastic new invention, TV; they were mostly journalists from The War. We trusted them.
Yep, of course a proto-Nazi (who subscribes to Worker and requested Gus Hall to act in his legal defense) is going to take a shot at Major General Edwin A. Walker. Sheesh.
‘Cept I’m STILL not convinced that Oswald did it - at least not all by himself..
Didn't Mrs. Kennedy refuse to change clothes that day by saying "Let them see what they've done?"
One could interpret this as an assumption that plotters had killed Kennedy. However, he had enemies, everyone knew that. Some organized. Some rather loud.
bump
I was in 1st grade, lived 40 miles of Dallas, LHO’s niece was in my class, her family lived about 2 blocks away and I later met his brother Robert. None of that has anything to do with my opinion, but I think LHO did not fire a shot that day and that he was set up.............a patsy.
JFK had a good friend that few today are aware of ... namely, Joe McCarthy. The two men saw eye to eye regarding the enemies of Western Civilization.
Now here is something to ponder. At the time of his assassination, Kennedy was being briefed on Golitsyn. Just who was Oswald working for, indeed? Classic KGB false flag recruit.
Excellent.And you know with the barrage of disinformation,much of it inspired and directed by the KGB, the Americans, on Left or Right fell for it. Everybody's an expert on the grassy knoll and how many shots coul of Oswald fired. Yeah, sure, New Orleans Mafia. Why, KKK, Stormfront.com, while we're at it. KGTB -> Castro -> Oswald -> KGB then working the MSM. Daniel Pipes' got it right. The Kennedy Assasination Cult is as reliable as the KGB misinformation campaigns once were, minus the expertise and the cunning.
Is there a person with an IQ over 65 that believes that Oswald was anything other than a pawn? This article is for soft minds.
I actually believe that Oswald was the assassin, though I don’t believe he worked alone. I’ve seen enough to convince me that he was a pawn in a KGB/Cuba plot with an assist from the US Mafia. I believe the mob was trading for help in starting up the South American drug trade through Cuba and retaliating for RFKs crack down while he was his brother’s AG. That doesn’t, in any way, detract from this writer’s point.
People on this thread seemed to like the article - I found it a huge reach - putting aside whether Oswald “did it” or not, the fact is he was a nut and a loose cannon and hardly one to base a political theory of the last 40 years on.
What happened to American liberalism? In my opinion it was co-opted by the communist enemy. The communists saw them as useful idiots and used and exploited them in the areas of civil rights, Viet-nam and others.
The left embraced communism and communism embraced the left. I really don’t think the story is that complicated. Scratch the surface of a liberal and you’ll find a hard core leftist/marxist/stalinist/maoist underneath. Right, Hillary?
JFK was the first president for whom I ever voted, and his assassination was felt as, first and foremost, a loss of energy driving what portended to be the advancement of a truly progressive (not at all in the Communist or socialist sense or Hillary's use of the word to hide a liberal) coming of age for a new and idealistic generation. The political persuasions of the assassin(s) were of little interest while the answer to the question, "Why?" was of first concern and, "Who?" followed in second place for prominence among us. Oswald was portrayed, and accepted, as a nut-case with ambiguous and irrelevant ideology and, most prominently, a tool. Johnson was high on the list of populous suspects, as was Nixon---and the putative "ideology" here was reduced to largely "personal" motives.
So, the author's intellectualizing is a distant, post-hoc confabulation of sensible events arranged to falsely suggest a cause and its effects.
At the time, it was plain and simple as Why?, Who? and, the one not yet settled, How?
It was not the Death of Kennedy, per se, that fueled the anger, one which was not directed at his assassin either. And, the anger of that young generation turned, not against Conservatives (as opposed to Liberals, and as the author suggests), but toward "The Establishment." The reason for this being the focus was not the ideology of Oswald, or anybody for that matter, but rather the fact that post-mortem machinations pulled the curtains back to expose the really seamy core of the then political and cultural establishment. The last straw was the sealing of the Warren Report from any form of public inspection. From that moment on, those "in power" were no longer trusted. That was the spawning of the american radical movement of the '60's.