Jon J:
So, assuming you're right (a *very* big assumption), a bunch of really far-right mentally ill folks thought JFK was "too soft on communism," and whacked him. So what? as Doug asked.
^^^^ CB: Why do you say they were mentally ill ? They were very rational, rockribbed, bigtime members and agents of the U.S. ruling class, fighting the war against communism. Completely sane. They were punishing a class traitor.
My reply was in response to Doug's so what. It illustrates ,for today's generation who didn't experience the Cold War the depth of the conflict between capitalism and communism, the levels to which the U.S. ruling class would go. It is a spectacular illustration of very undemocratic ,fascistic methods ( they "whacked" the president; fairly undemocratic method, no ?) in a U.S. which was shouting and still shouts from the high heavens that it is the most democratic and free country ever known. It is a good example to use because it is already very much in the popular and mass mind, whereas most of history most people are not interested in ,causes their eyes to glaze over. At least this legend is something regular people know about and might have some interest in. It's a subject someone other than intellectuals might pay attention too.
^^^^^
Assassinations and assassination attempts are always committed by folks not quite right in their minds, and such folks will always be with us.
^^^^ CB: Well, no. That's the government's coverup story. I'm sure you are old enough to recall the spate of "lone nuts" that allegedly started whacking leaders around that time.
Many assassinations are coldblooded and rational. When the CIA ,et al, whacked Lummumba, they weren't out of their right minds. All the CIA attempts to whack Castro were very logical and rational. Allende's assassination was rational from the standpoint of imperialists in the Cold War. When they hit the president of South Viet Nam it was part of a thinking strategy.
^^^^^^^^
Sometimes they succeed (like whoever took out Kennedy), sometimes they fail (like Hinkley). But this is hardly the fundamental key to understanding history. The effects assassinations have on history are primarily those that would have resulted from the natural deaths of the victims, e.g., Lincoln's assassination. Or they have some effect in inflaming disputes that were already in process, like Gandhi's and Martin Luther King's (and maybe the one that supposedly touched off WW I).
^^^^^^^^ CB: Yes, assassinations are not the fundamental key to understanding history. What would you say is the fundamental key to understanding history ?
^^^^^^^^
By the way, are there any conspiracy theories about who got RFK? Or does everyone meekly fall in with the theory that Sirhan Sirhan did it?
^^^^^^^ CB: I certainly don't think Sirhan Sirhan was a _lone_ nut. He was used. The fall guy cover had been improved. As to who, I would speculate that it was the same groupings who hit JFK. By that time, RFK had turned really dovey, anti-Viet Nam war, talking much shit on civil rights, not to mention the 60's were going fullblast. You know the special secret police weren't havein' none of that RFK as president. They had already gotten away with the JFK hit. Why not ?
The more general point is people, especially left people , gotta be a lot more cynical and skeptical about the U.S. establishment, and the crimes they commit.