Why Do Some Americans Still Call the JFK Assassination a Conspiracy Theory?
For the life of me, I still cannot understand why there are still Americans who call the national-security state’s assassination of President Kennedy a “conspiracy theory” or a “cold case” or an “unresolved murder mystery.” My hunch is that they simply cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that the Pentagon and the CIA, which they revere as protectors of “national security,” would engage in such a dastardly act.
Their thinking certainly cannot be based on the notion that the U.S. national-security state is a kind, gentle, and benign entity, one that would never kill a U.S. president. As Americans are witnessing, the U.S. government, led by the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA, is one of the most brutal, ruthless, and remorseless killers of people in history.
It’s true that ICE isn’t a formal part of the military-intelligence branch of the government. But it’s clearly akin to a paramilitary part of the federal government, much like the Gestapo in Nazi Germany. When the most powerful part of the federal government is brutally, ruthlessly, and remorselessly killing people, that mindset is inevitably going to seep into the paramilitary sections of the government. We are, of course, witnessing this mindset in the brutal, ruthless, and remorseless killings of illegal immigrants and American protestors as U.S. officials spread their deadly and destructive borderlands immigration police state across the nation.
Consider the military murders that are taking place on the high seas near South America. The national-security establishment is ruthlessly, brutally, and remorselessly killing people in little boats. The rationale? The victims are alleged to be violators of America’s drug laws. Mind you, we aren’t permitted to see the evidence that leads to the word “alleged.” We are supposed to simply put our heads down, defer to authority, and stay silent.
But evidence or no evidence, it’s still murder at the hands of the U.S. national-security establishment. Under our founding, constitutional governmental system, people who are alleged to be committing a crime are presumed to be innocent. That means that those boat people who have been murdered were as innocent as you and me. That’s what the presumption of innocence means. They were all innocent because they were never convicted in a court of law of any offense against the United States. They were murdered. If they were “alleged” to be drug-war violators, then the military was required, legally, morally, and constitutionally, to arrest them and bring them to justice, not murder them.
Those murders have been brutal and ruthless and have been committed without any remorse whatsoever. It’s no different, of course, with the ongoing bombing of Iran. As we have seen, there is no remorse whatsoever for the killing of those 150 little girls in that Iranian elementary school in Iran. For that matter, there is no remorse whatsoever for the killing of thousands of other Iranians, including both civilians and soldiers, including with a deadly system of economic sanctions.
But then again, there was never any remorse for the hundreds of thousands of people killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, including with the brutal and ruthless U.S. system of economic sanctions against the Iraqi people. Why would there be? U.S. officials have been using economic sanctions, which are enforced by the U.S. national-security establishment, for decades in an effort to kill those little girls in Iran as well as their parents and everyone else in Iranian society. And, as we have seen, it’s not just in Iran. Look at how they are still trying desperately to kill Cuban citizens with their embargo and oil blockade, which they still maintain as part of their old Cold War racket.
Civil-rights leader Martin Luther King, who Kennedy deeply admired and who the U.S. national-security establishment was convinced was a communist, correctly pointed out that the U.S. government was the greatest purveyor of violence in the world. No one can reasonably deny that it still is.
The question naturally arises: Would this brutal, ruthless, and remorseless killing machine hesitate to kill a U.S. president whose policies had supposedly become a grave threat to “national security”?
For one thing, let’s dispense with the quaint notion that this killing machine would never murder an American citizen. The Pentagon and the CIA have already demonstrated that they are prepared to kill any American who becomes a threat to national security. The assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki confirmed that. So did the CIA’s murder of Frank Olson. After all, given that it’s the job of the national-security establishment to protect national security, why would it permit a domestic threat to national security to be immune from being taken out?
“But Jacob, they would never kill a president, right? A president is special, right?” Well, let’s jump 10 years ahead of their assassination of Kennedy. Consider Chile, where the Chilean people democratically elected a socialist president in 1970 — that is, a president whose domestic policies were very similar to the socialist policies of Democrat Kennedy, who was also democratically elected.
U.S. officials determined that this Chilean president, Salvador Allende, posed a grave threat to U.S. national security. Equally important, they determined that he posed a grave threat to Chilean national security. Thus, the Pentagon and the CIA convinced the Chilean national-security establishment that it had a moral duty to remove their nation’s president from power in order to save the country. When the head of the Chilean armed forces, Gen. Rene Schneider, said no, the CIA orchestrated his violent kidnapping that resulted in his murder. It was a brutal and ruthless murder, one committed without any remorse whatsoever. Later, with the full support of the Pentagon and the CIA, the Chilean national-security establishment went to war against Allende, doing its best to murder him by using air force jets to fire missiles at him. At the end of the war, Allende was left dead. Both national-security establishments, Chilean and U.S., were convinced that they had saved Chile by violently removing the country’s democratically elected president from office.
Don’t forget the U.S. national-security establishment’s partnership with the Mafia to murder the president of Cuba, a country that has never attacked the United States. Or its assassination of Congo leader Patrice Lumumba. Or its role in Operation Condor, the biggest assassination ring in history.
In June 1963, Kennedy went to American University to deliver a commencement speech. He used the speech to essentially declare war on the U.S. national-security establishment as well as on its deadly and highly dangerous Cold War racket, its infamous anti-communist crusade, its future direction of violence, and its ruthless, brutal, and remorseless killing machine.
Of course, the war didn’t start there. It started with Kennedy’s vow to destroy the CIA after it’s infamous invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs. For its part, the Pentagon and the CIA considered Kennedy to be a coward, a traitor, and an appeaser for not going to all-out war against the communists in Cuba.
And then there was the top-secret false-flag operation called Operation Northwoods that the Pentagon presented to Kennedy, which, to his everlasting credit, he rejected. That was followed by Kennedy’s resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis, which military officials, after accusing Kennedy of being a Neville Chamberlain-like appeaser, called the biggest defeat in U.S. history.
Like with Chile ten years later, there was going to be a winner and a loser in this war. The U.S. national-security establishment knew that if Kennedy were to be reelected in 1964, which was a virtual certainty, he would have rendered the national-security establishment totally irrelevant. No more Cold War racket, no Vietnam War, no more embargo against Cuba, no war on terrorism, no wars on Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran, and no proxy war against Russia. To the Pentagon and the CIA, Kennedy’s new direction for America posed a grave threat not only to national security but also to the U.S. national-security establishment itself. See FFF’s book JFK’s War with the National-Security Establishment: Why Kennedy Was Assassinated by Douglas Horne, who served on the Assassination Records Review Board in the 1990s.
But many Americans still cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that this ruthless, brutal, and remorseless killing machine turned its guns inwards on November 22, 1963, on the streets of Dallas. They especially do not want to acknowledge the fraudulent autopsy that the military conducted on JFK’s body shortly after they murdered him. As I have long pointed out, including in my book The Kennedy Autopsy, there is no innocent explanation for a fraudulent autopsy, especially one that is conducted just a few hours after the assassination. A fraudulent autopsy is not orchestrated on the spur of the moment. It had to be part and parcel of the cover-up of the assassination itself. The fraudulent autopsy has always been their Achilles heel. No one — not one single person — has ever come up with an innocent explanation for the fraudulent Kennedy autopsy. We know for certain that the national-security establishment murdered Kennedy because it was the national-security establishment that conducted the fraudulent autopsy on his body.
Just one example: the two brain examinations. Yes, two, only one of which involved Kennedy’s brain. The military pathologists steadfastly maintained there was only one brain exam. They got caught lying. The Assassination Records Review Board established that there were actually two brain exams. The official photographer for the autopsy, John Stringer, established that he was at the first brain exam, where he took official photographs of the brain. Stinger testified that Dr. Pierre Fink, one of the three military pathologists, was not at that brain exam. Fink testified that he was at the brain exam but that that Stringer was not. That’s how the ARRB was able to determine that there had been two brain exams. Moreover, when Stringer was shown the photos from the second brain exam, he testified unequivocally that those were not the photographs he took at the brain exam in which he had participated and that the photos he was shown depicted a different brain from the one he had photographed.
I defy anyone to come up with an innocent explanation for those two separate brain examinations, especially when the military personnel who conducted the two brain exams were caught lying about them. No one can come up with an innocent explanation for two brain exams and official lies regarding those two brain exams. The two brain exams — and the lying about them — establish beyond all reasonable doubt that the Kennedy assassination was just another brutal, ruthless, and remorseless murder at the hands of America’s killing machine.
Nonetheless, there are still Americans who cannot bring themselves to believe that their revered and admired national-security state took out a president whose policies, U.S. military-intelligence officials were convinced, posed a grave threat to national security and to the national-security establishment itself. They would rather wallow in denial with notions of “conspiracy theory, “cold case,” and “unresolved murder mystery” dancing in their heads.
Imagine if President Trump had followed through with his promise to take on the deep state and drain the swamp, like Kennedy was determined to do. Does anyone, including Trump, doubt what the final result would have been?
America’s national-security state monster is clearly out of control with its brutal, ruthless, and remorseless killing machine. But hey, at least it’s our monster, one that will clearly do anything and everything to protect national-security and itself.
