ALAN writes:

Your assessment of staged events is most pertinent at a time when it is hard to tell who has more power over Americans:  Their government or the mass communications/propaganda industry.  My money is on a deep alliance of the two.

The 29 indications of propaganda/theater/fakery that you listed with regard to alleged “shooting events” may be used to frame real events as well as pseudo-events.

For more than half a century, I have thought that Lee Oswald was set up to take the fall for the murder of John Kennedy, a political murder if ever there was one. (I use “political” in the broad sense, not the narrow sense in which both their government and the mass communications industry encourage Americans to use it and think of it.)

Nine of those 29 indicators could be seen in that murder and its aftermath:

— Lack of standard security procedures in the presidential motorcade through Dallas, including Secret Service Agents getting drunk the night before, staring into space after the first shot was fired instead of reacting instantaneously, and permitting Kennedy to ride in a limousine wide open to attack from any angle.

— No clear pictures of the event.  But perfectly clear pictures of the murder as it took place in Dealey Plaza were available in the form of the Zapruder film, which would have inspired doubt about the “lone gunman” claim.  That film was available within hours afterward, but the American people were not allowed to see it until years later, owing to an alliance between Life magazine (which owned the film) and the U.S. Government—both of them champions of the “lone gunman” claim.

— Identification of Kennedy’s alleged killer, Lee Oswald, within hours afterward.

— Extraordinary marksmanship attributed to Oswald, whose rifle skills when tested during his Marine Corps days were barely adequate.

— “Manifesto by perpetrator”.  By “alleged perpetrator”, I would insist in the case of Oswald.  The government “case” against Oswald was aided oh-so-conveniently by the “Historic Dairy” he kept when he lived and worked in Communist Russia after having pretended to renounce his American citizenship (which, in fact, he never did).  The “Diary” was featured on the cover of Life magazine in 1964 to help convict Oswald in the public mind.

— Implausible and conflicting details about the events in Dealey Plaza claimed by alleged witnesses but ignored or papered over by a mass communications/propaganda industry eager to echo the official Washington Party Line.

— The most obscure details of Oswald’s life reported by the mass communications industry within hours after the assassination, even before he was charged with murder.

— Elimination of the alleged killer shortly afterward.  There was no evidence that Oswald shot anybody.  Yet he was convicted and demonized in the press and then—again, most conveniently—taken out by the Jew, Jack Rubenstein.

— Knee-jerk adherence to the Washington Party Line by newspaper, magazine, radio, and TV reporters, with rare voices of doubt or dissent ignored or misrepresented.

In addition, the ease with which Oswald allegedly purchased guns by mail order was used as a pretext for enacting more powerful gun control laws, a song we have heard many times since on the Socialist-Communist Hit Parade.

The truth about the murder of the president was effectively buried in the tidal wave of propaganda and political theater unleashed within hours afterward by the U.S. Government and echoed nearly universally by the (sleeping) “watchdog press”.

There are good reasons to suspect that Franklin Roosevelt’s administration had no reluctance to allow thousands of American men at Pearl Harbor to be taken out by a “surprise” attack by the Japanese in order to use it as a pretext for dragging Americans into World War II.

There are equally good reasons to suspect that Secretary of Defense James Forrestal was taken out by Deep State agents while being held captive in Bethesda Naval Hospital in 1949—the same hospital where an “autopsy” of doubtful competence and credibility was performed on Kennedy in 1963, as veteran journalist David Martin argues persuasively in his book Who Killed James Forrestal?  [See here.]

If so, then what reason might we have to imagine that agents within the American Deep State would have had any reluctance in 1963 to take out Kennedy if perchance he refused to take orders from above or from within—and then attribute that murder to an unknown and defenseless American citizen named Lee Oswald who had once worked as a fake Communist and fake defector?

Please follow and like us: