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 subjected to their own biases and limited understandings. 

The case of the JFK assassination appears to illustrate this trend, whereby the uncritical respondent has become increasingly accepting of 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 that history. 

The search for truth is ceaseless, and it is scarcely found in print, regardless of its syntactical sophistication or the boldness of its font.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Kaepernick Craze: Exposing the Nation's Fools One Conversation at a Time

The Kaeparnick craze and other viral movements haven't merely pressured people into becoming simpler caricatures of their prior selves, but they have manifestly exposed people for how foolish and uninformed they've been all along. 



In his final year in the NFL, Kaepernick ranked 17th in passer rating and 34th the year before that. 

He played through an entire season in only two of his six years in the league, and his best full-season performance ranks far outside of the NFL's top-250 single-season passing performances in the league's history. 

For reference, the oft-criticized Tony Romo posted a career passer rating of 97.1, as compared to Kaepernick's 88.9. 

Romo's passer rating dipped below 90 for only one season of the eleven seasons he played, whereas Kaepernick failed to eclipse the 90 mark on three of his six seasons, a full 50 percent of his time in the NFL. 

In fact, Kaepernick accomplished this feat only once if we are to discard those other two seasons in …

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 that would blur the lines and jurisdictions between sovereign states, that would indiscriminately sacrifice the founding principles etched …

Institutional Racism: The Sasquatch of Political Folklore

A great confusion has arisen out of the clamor of political debate, one which presupposes that any dismissal of the merits of “institutional racism” somehow equates to one’s rejection of personal struggle. 

Whereas the struggle of any individual remains always and everywhere unique and wholly personal, his common bond of complexion with others who have struggled serves inadequately as the basis for any argument which regards this commonality as the cause, or as the reason, for that veritable struggle. 

To condemn the unidentifiable and nebulous abstraction, then, by castigating an unnamed institution which persists beyond our specific capacity to recognize its power, serves only to absolve individuals of their personal responsibility, to shift blame and culpability to a specter which exists only by the creative designs of our imaginations, which exists as the scapegoat for all outcomes popularly maligned as undesirable. 

This unactionable practice, then, swiftly and categorically excuses…