Posts Tagged ‘American Enterprise Instititue’

From The Newsvandal

Every day, people are charged with criminal conspiracy in courtrooms around the country. In those cases, a “conspiracy” merely describes a criminal act involving two or more individuals.

Also every day, the establishment media reports on various criminal conspiracies—including racketeering, insider trading, political corruption, sex scandals and murder plots.

Murder plots are their favorite, particularly when a husband or wife or crazed lover hires an assassin to knock off a troublesome or inconvenient spouse for personal gain. The details and facts of those conspiracies attract a great deal of attention from journalists and news personalities who pore over police blotters, always looking for a good hook to a shocking story with “legs” and, therefore, a long life with lots of details and great ratings.

Yet, over the last fifty years, the simple, descriptive word “conspiracy” has taken on a double life. On one hand, a feverish “true crime” obsession has spread around the news business, turning newsmagazine shows into banal police procedurals, and transforming entire cable broadcasts into tabloid mimics fixated upon mysteries, cover-ups and conspiracies.

The media literally spent years on the case of Chandra Levy and never stopped asking “Who killed JonBenét Ramsey?”

They’ve obsessed on Amanda Knox’s convoluted story and eagerly entertained various theories about the death of Princess Diana.

And they even jumped headfirst into the feeding frenzy around the murder of J.R. Ewing!

On the other hand, when faced with the crime of the 20th Century—the murder of President Kennedy—those selfsame establishment mediacrats have relentlessly and effectively mutated the term “conspiracy” into a dismissive, all-purpose epithet: the “conspiracy theory.”

Instead of handling JFK’s murder like a criminal case, they’ve treated it like an urban legend. Rather than examining eyewitness accounts or reporting on the facts and notable names associated with the murder, they’ve become a pool of official stenographers. They simply ignore conspiracy facts and make offhanded remarks about conspiracy theories.

Take note that it is always the plural: “theories.” It colors every critique or suspicion of the official story with the taint of alien autopsies, Bigfoot sightings and faked moon landings.

Even worse, they’ve established a blockade around experts and researchers and best-selling authors who have—over the last fifty years—uncovered reams of new information and documents relating to the case.

No, the establishment media prefers to consult with news personalities and pulp-trade historians who opine about the “myth” and “legend” and psychological “meaning” of JFK’s life and death.

This is an interesting, self-serving distraction. It avoids tough questions, replacing them with predictable intonations on the tragic fall of Camelot, with epic paeans to JFK’s charisma and Jackie’s panache, and with somber reflections on a nation’s shock and awe.

And it is all punctuated with the perennial question of “What if?”

“What if Jack had lived?”

Alas, it is no replacement for the far more relevant question of “How did Jack die?”

Ironically, the establishment media incessantly theorizes about “what ifs” and groans about conspiracy theories while the people they accuse in absentia of being “theorists” dutifully, often heroically, gather and share conspiracy facts.

Tune into CBS or NBC or ABC or anywhere around the dial, and you do not see James DiEugenio or David Talbot or James Douglass. Instead you get Chris Matthews and Rob Lowe and, most disappointingly of all, Ken Burns. They speak like people who haven’t read. They embrace a theory they haven’t questioned. And they explain away “the people” who believe in conspiracy theories with callow psychobabble.

In spite of all their talk, they literally say nothing.

There is no mention of the House Select Committee on Assassination’s determination that JFK was likely killed by a conspiracy or the invaluable book by Committee investigator Gaeton Fonzi. There is no mention of the information uncovered by the Assassination Records Review Board or that it was established because Oliver Stone did what many “journalists” and “mainline historians” refused to do. And, perhaps most significantly, completely absent is Jim Garrison’s prosecutorial dismantling of the Warren Commission.

It is as if none of it happened.

Just imagine if the blood, hair and brain tissue splattered and still preserved on Jackie’s pink dress elicited the same scrutiny and attention as did that tiresome little semen stain left on Monica’s blue dress. Perhaps then the New York Times would ask why, if Oswald shot JFK from the rear with a non-exploding bullet, the woman sitting to the left of him was so thoroughly sprayed by the fatal shot.

Alas, after leading with “Let them see what they’ve done”—Mrs. Kennedy’s famous response to the suggestion that she clean up prior to LBJ’s hasty inauguration—the Times’ story blathers on about fashion, archival ethics and, of course, “the rifle used by Lee Harvey Oswald.” The reporter never mentions, if only to dispute it, that it has been shown repeatedly that neither the rifle nor the bullet could have created those “iconic” stains in the first place.

America heard often about Bill Clinton’s crooked member. But it is strictly verboten to mention the Mannlicher-Carcano’s notoriously skewed gun-sight.

Instead, the murder is treated like a moment frozen in time and consecrated by some preternatural force beyond the power of mortal men. On Face the Nation, a recalcitrant and almost fanatical Bob Schieffer pronounces that Kennedy was killed by a “madman.” On This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Rob Lowe compares criticism of the Warren Commission with Charlie Sheen’s belief that the moon is hollow. And the New York Times’ Executive Editor Jill Abramson takes over the Sunday Book Review to declare JFK’s life and death to be “elusive” without mentioning a single book detailing the facts that are, of course, elusive to those who choose to ignore them.

In this case, the use of the word “elusive” is a stark example of psychological projection. As David Talbot points out, it is exactly what the establishment media have been over the last fifty years.

They’re elusive about their bungled reporting on a sloppy criminal conspiracy of epic proportions. It is a failure that has metastasized over the five decades since, with those entrenched behind the privileged walls of network news, major newspapers and sanitized pulp-history continually doubling-down on a discredited theory that has them perpetually out of step with the majority of Americans who, not coincidentally, also distrust them.

Perhaps it is forgivable that many reporters and editors didn’t ask questions when faced with the rapid-fire public executions of a sitting president and his accused killer. The Cold War was hot. The Cuban Missile Crisis was fresh in the minds of many. Everything seemed dangerous and tenuous. It’s even reasonable to sympathize with Chief Justice Earl Warren, who LBJ forced—practically against his will—into an untenable situation.

But that was then. And this is now.

Now there is no excuse for what journalist Jefferson Morley calls “JFK denialism,” or for the establishment’s growing track record of repeated “failures” just like it, with the lead-up to the Iraq War standing out in a crowded field of errors and supposed ignorance.

Perhaps the anniversary of JFK’s death is also the anniversary of a birth—of the establishment media’s ultimate cover-story for ignorance and complicity. By dismissing “conspiracy theories” it is instantly possible to elude conspiracy facts. Ultimately, the real conspiracy may be the criminal contempt our media elites have for open inquiry and how it allows others to get away with murder.

-JP Sottile

originally posted at Consortiumnews.com

 

From the you-got-to-be-fucking-kidding-me files, I find 2016: Obama’s America playing in not one, but two local theaters today. Well, that’s a quandary wrapped in a dilemma. What is this obvious election-season propaganda, and who’s behind it?

In trailer 1, we learn that what concerns the filmmakers doesn’t appear to be 2016, but 1982 and black people in Africa. The blackness, front and center, and the plight of Africans gets a highlight. Here the filmmakers attempt to make a point that Barack Obama has something against “colonialism” and his real agenda (not actually in evidence in the real world, but hey, it’s right wing masturbatory fantasy time), the current president’s real agenda is to “downsize America.”

 

This is an interesting claim to make, seeing how Obama has been more competent at shoring up the empire than his inept predecessor could hope to be. The claim also seems to imply that colonialism is a good thing, and that America should be expanding its empire because of that uniquely American word “liberty.” You see, if you say the word “liberty” then you can simply colonize others for their own good, and baby Jesus smiles.

Apparently the creation of AFRICOM has no bearing on Obama’s claimed drive to end colonialism – which we’re supposed to be against? We’re supposed to be against a fantasy that’s not occurring, because Obama is for it, deeply related to his blackness and African heritage. Oh yeah, then cue the Middle Eastern music in the soundtrack. Crank it up loud as Obama proclaims, “Change has come to America.”

George Orwell might have opted to just shoot himself in the head at this point.

Some black children then fight one another irrationally over a game of Monopoly. I’m gonna need a psychologist’s interpretation of that one. Dissonance rules this piece, and it is apparently not intended to make any sense.

The poorly-mixed audio then continues over shots of “Wall Street.” Yes, Wall Street repeatedly appears, as a symbol of – what exactly? Is the implication that Obama has opposed Wall Street, its rape and exploitation of the American sheeple as well as its ongoing depredations around the globe? Seriously? Fantasy two: Obama is destroying Wall Street?

A piece of propaganda so incompetent, so detached from reality has little chance of fooling a literate, thinking people. As for our co-citizens, however, all bets are off. He is black, yes. His father was African. Case closed.

“America must grow so liberty grows.”

Really? What is the real-world meaning of this line? Where are we “growing?” With U.S. military bases in the majority of the world’s countries, which direction are we to “grow” next? Fascist empires have proclaimed their naked desire to rule the world before. This film seems to champion this idea unabashedly. Code word after code word obscures the real meaning these people mean to impart. The saddest thing is that Obama himself is on board with their concerns and is in no way opposed to these aims. This is kabuki theater aimed at uneducated, irrational viewers. There doesn’t appear to be any truth in sight, whatsoever, the ideologues behind this piece so deluded by their own bullshit that they couldn’t make a valid point if their lives depended on it.

 

That leads us to trailer 2 of “2016: Obama’s America.” Here we are informed, much as in the first propaganda, that Obama’s roots trace right back to Kenya. Hide the children. Then Obama’s first sin, the federal budget had been stalled for a claimed “1,000 days.” Really? That’s Obama’s plan to destroy America. He rejected the right-wing extremists in Congress for some time and forced them to negotiate. Eventually they rammed their cuts aimed largely at the lower classes and the needy down the nation’s throat while protecting their billionaire paymasters from any sort of new taxation whatsoever.

But it is Obama, we are told, who is “pitting one class of Americans against another.” One would have to be from Mars to be swayed by such gibberish. The utter incompetence of this hit piece is its most striking feature. It really is the product of a billionaire’s PR machine, written by sycophants to please their demonic overlords. The film should tour with neurosurgeons offering free lobotomies at kiosks in the theater lobbies. Or at least offer free alcohol if you’re going to subject people to such an assault on reality.

Trailer 2 closes with golden boy author Dinesh D’Souza, warning us, “Nothing can rob the future as much as the debts of the past.” That over Obama in Kenya again presumably at the grave of his father. It’s really his father’s plot to keep the billionaires from further cutting their taxes. If only the billionaires could pay zero, or negative taxes, “liberty” would swallow the universe. And blackness would be put in its rightful place.

Oh yes, there’s a trailer 3. Did you think you were off the hook yet?

We’re back in Kenya, back in 1982, because that has so, so much to do with America in the year 2016. Kenya, the seat of global domination and hegemony for our solar system is the cornerstone to understanding the great mysteries of planet earth today. This trailer version seems to be almost identical to the first one, with the voice over quality improved somewhat so that the words are better deciphered.

“Which dream will we carry into 2016?”

The black African one or the white one?

As false dichotomies go, this garbage should frustrate the hell out of people with multiple working brain cells. They carefully avoid making plain factual statements, placing their propaganda in the realm of questions, grand visions, vagueries.

Perhaps they’ll fleece the ignorant poor white-wing who consistently vote against their own interests. Such customers are numerous. The Tea Party will make much of this nonsense, but no one will touch on any of the realities of the day. That’s guaranteed.

Writer/director Dinesh D’Souza is a slick operator. His book was called, “The Roots of Obama’s Rage.” Rage? Black must equal rage in some lexicon. The claim is as false as everything else in this moronic mind wash. Dinesh hails from the American Enterprise Institute, the minor leagues for wannabe plutocrats. He knows from which direction his cash flows.

I pity the anti-fascists who will sit through this assault on intelligence for educational purposes. The central theme of the piece can be summed up in this one sentence from D’Souza’s Rage book:

“This philandering, inebriated African socialist, who raged against the world for denying him the realization of his anti-colonial ambitions, is now setting the nation’s agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son.”

Good luck with that. Back on earth, however…