Skip to main content

The JFK Files: Government Scarcely Sanctions Truth

As illustrated by their latest article on the recently-released JFK files, news giant CNN legitimately has some of the world's most articulate charlatans.

Don't allow that adjective, however, to eclipse the noun.

The modifier is scarcely ever more important.

Anyway, in expected fashion, CNN reporters have found a way to smear President Donald Trump yet again, associating him with another reviled fraction of the population that has long been the target of smear campaigns: conspiracy theorists.

The article reads, "Still, Trump's decision to keep some documents secret is likely to keep conspiracy theories alive, fueling those who have long questioned official conclusions about the assassination and argued that the government has helped cover up the truth."

But don't forget about fellow entertainment network Fox News, as they have followed suit in their own unique style, implicitly understating the volume of popular opposition to the findings of the Warren Commission:

"But a segment of the public never bought into the official explanation of Kennedy's assassination, citing video clips, interviews and science experiments in an attempt to prove Oswald, who was himself assassinated two days after Kennedy, did not act alone." 

A 2013 Gallup poll actually places this segment around sixty-one percent of the American public.



This is hardly a measly "segment" of the public.

It is plainly never surprising to read the always-uninspired literature churned out by the mainstream media giants. 

Both CNN and Fox News have produced their respective versions of hollow reporting, taking refuge in the safest of places: the official narrative.

As I have reiterated throughout the build-up to this long-anticipated release, the documents are unlikely to reveal any information which specifically conflicts with that official narrative, which is nothing more than the contrived fairytale of seven self-obsessed, sociopathic men dressed in suits, some of whom admittedly harbored serious animosity toward President John F. Kennedy and his political agenda, which included the reformation of the Central Intelligence Agency and the de-escalation of the campaign in Vietnam.

In summary, devoted truth seekers, otherwise pejoratively known in this context as conspiracy theorists, need not await any stamp of approval from any three-letter agency or government-sponsored commission, to conduct their own investigations and draw their own conclusions.



In fact, this has been ongoing for over fifty-four years, and its probability of continuing into the future is, oddly enough, commensurate with that level of probability identified by the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1979, when another fourteen men in different suits arrived at the conclusion of a probable conspiracy related to the murder of President Kennedy.

Ultimately, the Warren Commission has long benefited from its puissant position as prima facie evidence, which psychologically impairs the layman's judgment in the face of future contradictions or new discoveries.

Much as imprinting causes young animals to develop a sense of trust in their caretakers, constituents all too often rest their heads on the gospel of their political masters: still other men who wear fancy suits, spew articulate sophistry and distribute digestible lies under awesome letterheads.

It appears true, as one detested dictator once proclaimed, “If you tell a big enough lie, and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”


Author's Note


As time passes, conventional wisdom becomes increasingly susceptible to the official narrative. 

That narrative is written through the literary lens of authors predisposed to their own biases and limited understandings. 

The case of the JFK assassination appears to illustrate this trend, whereby the uncritical respondent has, whether from ignorance, out of fear, or by default, become more amenable to the long-debated conclusion of a lone gunman. 

Despite the American public's enduring reluctance to accept this story and the HSCA's 1979 conclusion of a probable conspiracy, most historical texts and encyclopedias bear Lee Harvey Oswald's name as the lone assassin. 

This is precisely how fiction becomes fact, as the critical minority yields to the unrelenting tide of unquestioning public opinion, or in this case a new and indifferent generation replaces its predecessors who vividly remember those events and feel personally invested in their history. 

The search for truth is ceaseless, and it is scarcely found in print. However elusive, the truth can be found by those who are prepared to read between the lines, to think for themselves, and to appraise the “official narrative” for its conformity to the facts, regardless of its syntactical sophistication or the boldness of its font.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Into the Wild: An Economics Lesson

The Keynesian mantra, in its implications, has its roots in destruction rather than truth: “In the long run, we’re all dead.” If this is your guiding principle, we are destined to differ on matters of principle and timeline. While it is true that our fates intersect in death, that does not mean that we ought to condemn our heirs to that view: the view that our work on this planet ought only to serve ourselves, and that we ought only to bear in mind the consequences within our own lifetimes.  The Keynesians, of course, prefer their outlook, as it serves their interests; it has the further benefit of appealing to other selfish people who have little interest in the future to which they'll ultimately condemn their heirs. After all, they'll be long gone by then. So, in the Keynesian view, the longterm prospects for the common currency, social stability, and personal liberty are not just irrelevant but inconvenient. In their view, regardless of the consequences, those in charge tod

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century.  Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties?  The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery.  It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession.  It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860. It was a war whose total cost, including pensions and the burial of veterans, was an estimated $12 billion. Likewise, it was a war that would

There's Always Another Tax: The Tragedy of the Public Park

In the San Francisco Bay Area, many residents work tirelessly throughout the year to pay tens of thousands of dollars in annual property taxes. In addition to this, they are charged an extra 10 percent on all expenses through local sales taxes. It doesn't stop there. In addition to their massive federal tax bill, the busy state of California capitalizes on the opportunity to seize another 10 percent through their own sizable state income taxes. But guess what! It doesn't stop there. No, no, no, no.  In California, there's always another tax. After all of these taxes, which have all the while been reported to cover every nook and cranny of the utopian vision, the Bay Area resident is left to face yet an additional tax at the grocery store, this time on soda. The visionaries within government, and those who champion its warmhearted intentions, label this one the "soda tax," which unbelievably includes Gatorade, the preferred beverage of athletes