• jasonpaulhayes

    That’s essentially what Jackie Onassis claims in tapes to be released containing her statements regarding the Assassination.

    “I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil
    interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National
    CityBank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a
    dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. The record
    of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the
    international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-12. I brought light to the
    Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make
    Honduras “right” for American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927
    I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested…. Looking back on it,
    I felt I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was
    to operate his racket in three city districts. We Marines operated on
    three continents.” Major. Gen. Smedley D. Butler (1935)

    • Anarchy Pony

      Butler was a man with courage to make that speech. Marines today could learn a lot from him. War is a racket.

  • http://twitter.com/jasonpaulhayes jasonpaulhayes

    That’s essentially what Jackie Onassis claims in tapes to be released containing her statements regarding the Assassination.

    “I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil
    interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National
    CityBank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a
    dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. The record
    of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the
    international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-12. I brought light to the
    Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make
    Honduras “right” for American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927
    I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested…. Looking back on it,
    I felt I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was
    to operate his racket in three city districts. We Marines operated on
    three continents.” Major. Gen. Smedley D. Butler (1935)

  • StillAtMyMoms

    I heard a (credible) theory that it was Jackie who pulled the trigger.

  • Anonymous

    I heard a (credible) theory that it was Jackie who pulled the trigger.

  • Wanooski

    Butler was a man with courage to make that speech. Marines today could learn a lot from him. War is a racket.

  • Andrew Dobbs

    Note that Jim Garrison was a mobbed up little tyrant, trumping up charges, paying off perjurers, threatening people who wouldn’t change their story, mocking evidence and otherwise using the Kennedy Assassination as a means to gain the spotlight and distract from his corruption.  He initially claimed that the snuff was a homosexual thrill killing, and his prosecution of Clay Shaw and his persecution of David Ferrie were deeply homophobic red herrings.  This film makes him out to be a hero, when he was in fact a fiend.

    That being said, Mr. X’s speech is valuable, and while it is impossible to say what happened in Dallas that day, the two most likely scenarios are that Oswald acted alone or that an LBJ led plot killed Kennedy.  The problem with the Oswald scenario is that we now have at least one important plotter– E. Howard Hunt–who claimed right before his death that LBJ headed up a plot that he was asked to be a part of.  The problem with this scenario is that it doesn’t explain away how Oswald–who was a loser, and was unlikely to be a part of such a plot–ended up firing shots at Kennedy that day, as eyewitness and other evidence suggests.  In the end, it is a black hole of history, where even the likelihood of scenarios becomes nigh upon impossible to ascertain.

    What this means is that we do not know if there was a coup in this country in 1963; the best answer we can give is “maybe.”  That is pretty shocking when you think about it, and it tends to dismiss the arguments of anybody–Left, Right or otherwise–who speak with great certainty about history or its first order derivative, politics.   

    • FusionSaint

      I agree with most of which you say, although I do believe in the plot with LBJ… its all too neat and tidy to be anything else. The part that terrifies me is that “maybe” you speak of. If any (or all) of this is true or a similarity to these events can be found, that means that a coup took place, was not only successful but cascaded American politics for the next 40 years in a terrible directions of the military industrial complex.

      • MoralDrift

        and the implication is…if a cabal was able to pull off the assassination of a President to further the MIC, then is it not likely that other major events that precipitated war were also manipulations? The posting of this clip is timely, to say the least. Unfortunately, I doubt we will ever *know* for sure….but as time marches on many of us know in out hearts and see it confirmed in the course of history. The only question that remains is whether or not we can regain control of the ship of humanity before these psychopaths take us off the edge. Forget the war on terror, the information war is the one you need to be fighting

    • Andrew Dobbs

      I was intrigued by the claim that the phone system in DC had been shut down for an hour, as this would be the kind of corroborating evidence that would seem to make a coup more likely than not.  Alas, as this link points out, there was nothing sinister about it at all, and the claim that entire phone system went down completely is an exaggeration.  Back to the black hole…

      • Elmyr23

        from your link “Was Kennedy the kind of left liberal who threatened established interests”

  • Andrew Dobbs

    Note that Jim Garrison was a mobbed up little tyrant, trumping up charges, paying off perjurers, threatening people who wouldn’t change their story, mocking evidence and otherwise using the Kennedy Assassination as a means to gain the spotlight and distract from his corruption.  He initially claimed that the snuff was a homosexual thrill killing, and his prosecution of Clay Shaw and his persecution of David Ferrie were deeply homophobic red herrings.  This film makes him out to be a hero, when he was in fact a fiend.

    That being said, Mr. X’s speech is valuable, and while it is impossible to say what happened in Dallas that day, the two most likely scenarios are that Oswald acted alone or that an LBJ led plot killed Kennedy.  The problem with the Oswald scenario is that we now have at least one important plotter– E. Howard Hunt–who claimed right before his death that LBJ headed up a plot that he was asked to be a part of.  The problem with this scenario is that it doesn’t explain away how Oswald–who was a loser, and was unlikely to be a part of such a plot–ended up firing shots at Kennedy that day, as eyewitness and other evidence suggests.  In the end, it is a black hole of history, where even the likelihood of scenarios becomes nigh upon impossible to ascertain.

    What this means is that we do not know if there was a coup in this country in 1963; the best answer we can give is “maybe.”  That is pretty shocking when you think about it, and it tends to dismiss the arguments of anybody–Left, Right or otherwise–who speak with great certainty about history or its first order derivative, politics.   

  • Andrew Dobbs

    Note that Jim Garrison was a mobbed up little tyrant, trumping up charges, paying off perjurers, threatening people who wouldn’t change their story, mocking evidence and otherwise using the Kennedy Assassination as a means to gain the spotlight and distract from his corruption.  He initially claimed that the snuff was a homosexual thrill killing, and his prosecution of Clay Shaw and his persecution of David Ferrie were deeply homophobic red herrings.  This film makes him out to be a hero, when he was in fact a fiend.

    That being said, Mr. X’s speech is valuable, and while it is impossible to say what happened in Dallas that day, the two most likely scenarios are that Oswald acted alone or that an LBJ led plot killed Kennedy.  The problem with the Oswald scenario is that we now have at least one important plotter– E. Howard Hunt–who claimed right before his death that LBJ headed up a plot that he was asked to be a part of.  The problem with this scenario is that it doesn’t explain away how Oswald–who was a loser, and was unlikely to be a part of such a plot–ended up firing shots at Kennedy that day, as eyewitness and other evidence suggests.  In the end, it is a black hole of history, where even the likelihood of scenarios becomes nigh upon impossible to ascertain.

    What this means is that we do not know if there was a coup in this country in 1963; the best answer we can give is “maybe.”  That is pretty shocking when you think about it, and it tends to dismiss the arguments of anybody–Left, Right or otherwise–who speak with great certainty about history or its first order derivative, politics.   

  • Anonymous

    I agree with most of which you say, although I do believe in the plot with LBJ… its all too neat and tidy to be anything else. The part that terrifies me is that “maybe” you speak of. If any (or all) of this is true or a similarity to these events can be found, that means that a coup took place, was not only successful but cascaded American politics for the next 40 years in a terrible directions of the military industrial complex.

  • Anonymous

    and the implication is…if a cabal was able to pull off the assassination of a President to further the MIC, then is it not likely that other major events that precipitated war were also manipulations? The posting of this clip is timely, to say the least. Unfortunately, I doubt we will ever *know* for sure….but as time marches on many of us know in out hearts and see it confirmed in the course of history. The only question that remains is whether or not we can regain control of the ship of humanity before these psychopaths take us off the edge. Forget the war on terror, the information war is the one you need to be fighting

  • Andrew Dobbs

    I was intrigued by the claim that the phone system in DC had been shut down for an hour, as this would be the kind of corroborating evidence that would seem to make a coup more likely than not.  Alas, as this link points out, there was nothing sinister about it at all, and the claim that entire phone system went down completely is an exaggeration.  Back to the black hole…

  • chinagreenelvis

    JFK is a compelling work of fiction. Unbound by the shackles of accuracy, it is free to explore themes from which interesting posits about different subjects (truth, human nature, government) can be expressed. Shakespeare wrapped such works around narratives somewhat rooted in reality and this is no different; to read Shakespearean literature as historical documentation would be folly; to let the films of Oliver Stone substitute good, hard research is equally foolish. Unfortunately, JFK has had a profound effect on public opinion regarding conclusions which should almost never be drawn from watching a Hollywood film. In that respect, the movie itself borders on propaganda.

    • Elmyr23

      “to let the films of Oliver Stone substitute good, hard research is equally foolish” so what is the hard research you follow.

      • chinagreenelvis

        Literally any source of thoroughly referenced information. You can start with Wikipedia. You can’t pause a movie to look at the footnotes to find out where a particular bit of information comes from. A screenplay isn’t a library book.

        Piecing together history from different sources is like good detective work; no single source of information is going to present the whole story, and you have to sift through very different versions before you can begin to see where some of them fit. Sometimes the wrong picture can begin to form, but hopefully if you get to that point you’ve also begun to be able to form the right one. At that point it’s up to you to decide whether you believe either version you’ve compiled.

        • Earaches

          “You can start with Wikipedia.”

          HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa!!!

  • chinagreenelvis

    JFK is a compelling work of fiction. Unbound by the shackles of accuracy, it is free to explore themes from which interesting posits about different subjects (truth, human nature, government) can be expressed. Shakespeare wrapped such works around narratives somewhat rooted in reality and this is no different; to read Shakespearean literature as historical documentation would be folly; to let the films of Oliver Stone substitute good, hard research is equally foolish. Unfortunately, JFK has had a profound effect on public opinion regarding conclusions which should almost never be drawn from watching a Hollywood film. In that respect, the movie itself borders on propaganda.

  • chinagreenelvis

    JFK is a compelling work of fiction. Unbound by the shackles of accuracy, it is free to explore themes from which interesting posits about different subjects (truth, human nature, government) can be expressed. Shakespeare wrapped such works around narratives somewhat rooted in reality and this is no different; to read Shakespearean literature as historical documentation would be folly; to let the films of Oliver Stone substitute good, hard research is equally foolish. Unfortunately, JFK has had a profound effect on public opinion regarding conclusions which should almost never be drawn from watching a Hollywood film. In that respect, the movie itself borders on propaganda.

  • chinagreenelvis

    JFK is a compelling work of fiction. Unbound by the shackles of accuracy, it is free to explore themes from which interesting posits about different subjects (truth, human nature, government) can be expressed. Shakespeare wrapped such works around narratives somewhat rooted in reality and this is no different; to read Shakespearean literature as historical documentation would be folly; to let the films of Oliver Stone substitute good, hard research is equally foolish. Unfortunately, JFK has had a profound effect on public opinion regarding conclusions which should almost never be drawn from watching a Hollywood film. In that respect, the movie itself borders on propaganda.

  • MalcomX

    The chickens came home to roost.

  • MalcomX

    The chickens came home to roost.

  • Elmyr23

    “to let the films of Oliver Stone substitute good, hard research is equally foolish” so what is the hard research you follow.

  • Elmyr23

    from your link “Was Kennedy the kind of left liberal who threatened established interests”

  • Adam

    One name: E. Howard Hunt

    I know most of you are already familiar with the man and what he said in the last few months of his life, but I still think it helps us get closer to “the truth” than anything out there, including the Warren Commission.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_Howard_Hunt

  • Adam

    One name: E. Howard Hunt

    I know most of you are already familiar with the man and what he said in the last few months of his life, but I still think it helps us get closer to “the truth” than anything out there, including the Warren Commission.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_Howard_Hunt

  • Adam

    One name: E. Howard Hunt

    I know most of you are already familiar with the man and what he said in the last few months of his life, but I still think it helps us get closer to “the truth” than anything out there, including the Warren Commission.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_Howard_Hunt

  • arfer

    Texas is the reason, that the president’s dead.

  • arfer

    Texas is the reason, that the president’s dead.

  • chinagreenelvis

    Literally any source of thoroughly referenced information. You can start with Wikipedia. You can’t pause a movie to look at the footnotes to find out where a particular bit of information comes from. A screenplay isn’t a library book.

    Piecing together history from different sources is like good detective work; no single source of information is going to present the whole story, and you have to sift through very different versions before you can begin to see where some of them fit. Sometimes the wrong picture can begin to form, but hopefully if you get to that point you’ve also begun to be able to form the right one. At that point it’s up to you to decide whether you believe either version you’ve compiled.

  • Earaches

    “You can start with Wikipedia.”

    HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa!!!

  • Redacted

    I got to this late, but I do see the significance of the day it was posted on.

    Thanks Disinfo. I don’t really want to go down the rabbit hole any deeper, but what else am I to do?

  • Anonymous

    I got to this late, but I do see the significance of the day it was posted on.

    Thanks Disinfo. I don’t really want to go down the rabbit hole any deeper, but what else am I to do?

21
More in Alternatives, Conspiracies, Counterculture, Movies
So Who Really Runs The World? A Network Analysis Reveals ‘Super Entity’ of Global Corporate Control …

An outline of the adversary emerges from Michael Ricciardi on PlanetSave: In the first such analysis ever conducted, Swiss economic researchers have conducted a global network analysis of the most...

Close