Hello There, Guest!
View New Posts   View Today's Posts
Book Review: "JFK and the Unspeakable"

  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average


01-07-2017, 02:08 AM #1
Posts: 59 Threads:13 Joined: Jun 2016 Reputation: 1 Stance Critic

Book Review: "JFK and the Unspeakable"
I found a review for James Douglass' "JFK and the Unspeakable", written by our old friend Garry Puffer.....

http://www.valentinetti.com/thoughts-on-...ry-puffer/

******
 The ideas herein are not all ideas put forth by Mr. Douglass in his book.  He makes no mention of the connection to 9/11, for example.  His is the best book I have ever read about the assassination, and it should be read by everyone, not just those of us still interested in this question.
 President Eisenhower warned us as he was leaving office about the “Military-Industrial Complex” that was shaping up.  He told us in so many words that we needed to do something about it before it was too late.  We didn’t listen and here we are today, with those very people in control of our nation.
But maybe it was always too late.  A few years later, John F. Kennedy was killed by order of this cabal, and they successfully fooled a lot of people for many years with the lone gunman/magic bullet theory.  Most Americans now believe that JFK was assassinated by a conspiracy, but unfortunately most of those still believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was the important part of that conspiracy along with “rogue” intelligence people.  That’s how well these cover stories stick in the American mind.
The truth is far different.  Douglass makes a compelling case for the “Oswald as patsy” idea, which to my mind is the only conclusion one can draw. You have to make what’s known about Oswald twist and turn like the magic bullet to even place a rifle in his hands.  Something Douglass brings out that I don’t recall ever reading anywhere else is the story of the aborted Chicago assassination plot in early November of 1963.  The plot was blown when the FBI received a tip from an informant named “Lee.”  Two of the people were arrested, two others were not found.  Kennedy’s trip was cancelled at the last minute because of this information.  The most interesting thing about this story is a fifth person allegedly involved, a man named Thomas Arthur Vallee.  If you look at the highlights of Vallee’s biography you might think that you were reading that of Lee Harvey Oswald.  U-2 base in Japan, work with the CIA to train anti-Castro rebels in preparation for a Castro assassination (Oswald worked both sides of the fence at different times on the Castro question),  and even a job in a building along the Presidential parade route in Chicago.  If this plot had gone off, Douglass contends, then we would be reviling Thomas Arthur Vallee, not Lee Harvey Oswald.
 The subtitle of Douglass’ book is “Why He Died and Why it Matters.”  See, here’s the really sad thing.  In the first part of the book, Douglass convincingly shows Kennedy’s change from a Cold Warrior to a man of peace.  The Cuban Missile Crisis had hit him hard, and he had learned to distrust the CIA (can you say “Bay of Pigs?”) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (he thought the JCS was insane for having presented him with “Project Northwoods,” for example, and he could see that they did not want any kind of peaceful resolution to the Cold War).  He looked into a future where nuclear power was unleashed on one’s enemies, and it scared the shit out of him.  He engaged in a secret backdoor dialogue with Premier Khrushchev and both leaders were heading toward disarmament and collisions with their military leaders over the use of nuclear weapons.  He was also well on his way to opening up a dialogue with Castro, and in both instances he went well outside the military/intelligence circles to do it.  But you can’t hide from these people forever.  The military men saw the President as a traitor, wanting to deal with our sworn enemies, the “Communists.”  Therefore he had to die.  He died because he wanted peace instead of war.  That is indeed sad.
 The scenario Douglass envisions is pretty much the same one Jim Garrison came up with for his novel, A Heritage of Stone (and used in Oliver Stone’s “JFK”), a scenario that’s always seemed very reasonable to me, especially given the military and intelligence role in the cover-up.
The military/intelligence/industrial complex has more control now than ever before.  We let them get away with assassinating a president who wanted us to be able to live our lives without fear, and this gave them the knowledge that they could get away with anything they wanted.  And they’re right.  The major thing they want now is for us to live in fear.  Fear of Muslims, fear of Iranians, fear of terrorism in general, and fear of each other.
 If our own military would present a plan to the President calling for fake attacks blamed on the Cubans, attacks in which some Americans might have to lose their lives for the greater good, allowing us then to righteously attack Castro in retaliation for something he did not do (“Project Northwoods”), and if they would set in motion a plan to assassinate the President because they thought he was committing treason by wanting to engage in diplomatic dialogue with communist countries, then is it so far fetched to think that they were also responsible for 9/11, especially since none of the evidence really points to 19 Muslims with box cutters? The FBI has admitted that they never had any “hard evidence” linking Al Qaeda to the attack, yet we send in Navy Seals to assassinate bin Laden for something he was alleged to have done.  This is justice in our world today, and the fake cover story, full of holes as it is, goes on and on.
 This is why it matters that we understand the reasons John Kennedy was assassinated and who was responsible.  They have never been stopped and they are making your life, and the world, more miserable each day.






Messages In This Thread
Book Review: "JFK and the Unspeakable" - by Nick Principe - 01-07-2017, 02:08 AM


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)