kylebisme
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
Communists? Hardly. The conspirators JKF talked about have no allegiance to anything but their own power, they sucker communists into doing their bidding just the same as they sucker anyone else they can:
Of course these conspirators snub their noses at the very idea that men are born to be free and independent, and have legions of jackbooted thugs to flagrantly demonstrate that contempt for demoracy, while lackeys across our press sing their praises and convince the majority to go back to sleep.
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,816
- 1,126
- 126
Truths you don't like 'don't advance the discourse'. Try opening your ears. You seem to follow the 'ignornce is bliss' rule.
No, Clinton did those things all by himself. It was hundreds of other acts the vast right-wing conspiracy did. Read a book sometime.
Here are a few to get you started (as I waste my time, as if you will read a book on it):
David Brock "Blkinded by the Right"
Joe Conason "The Hunting of the President"
Sidney Blumenthal "The Clinton Wars"
kylebisme
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
This is true, but again the vast right-wing conspiracy is just about as small time as the vast left-wing conspiracy, both being simply lackeys for the "monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covet means for expanding its sphere of influence" JFK mentioned. Unfortunately those conspirators have convinced you to dismiss JFK's statements as having been about just another group of their lackeys, insuring happyness controls you.
We agreed for three words.
You are trying to squeeze a round peg of your world view into the square hole of the facts about the groups under discussion, and you are just not correct on it.
Thre is no such 'vast left-wing conspiracy' analogous at all to the right, while you mix in the corporatocracy and who knows what else to try to squeeze them in the labels.
JFK's statements were fairly clear - while he made a historical reference to the US's rejection of secret cabals and our belief in freedom of informaiton over secrecy, that that a passing reference as a rhetorical technique to set the stage for his calling for self-censorship by the US media in the time of conflict with the communist nations.
You can attack the cold war all you like, but don't twist what he said.
If you would like to quote a specific part of his speech with the appropriate context, we can discuss any difference in interpretation.
There were certainly 'right-wing cabals' while he was President as well- such as the John Birch Society, and the folks who welcomed him to Dallas with a full page ad with his picture looking like a mug shot and the caption 'Wanted for Treason', IIRC, among many others. The books I linked describe the groups against the Clintons, which were more the 'crazy ideologue' sort, since the Clintons were all too corporate-friendly already.
kylebisme
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
I contend it is the people who put the "r" in JFK's "covet" are the ones who like to do that. Being dyslexic, I didn't notice the error when I copied and pasted the text, but I have since corrected my posts to present what he actually said.
Regardless of if you contend it was "covert" or "covet" though, can you iterate how Soviet expansion relied primarily on either? Can you tell me how "Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed" applies in regard to communists? Can you explain why JKF would have any need to instruct or press to not provide cover for communists, telling them they are not "primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants""? Was our press one to conceal the preparations of the communists, bury their mistakes, silence their dissenters, and so on?
Not so, I was simply refering to labels others use, and I noted that right-wing conspiracy not as small time as that of the left.
You are compartmentalising here.
This is true.
I'm not attacking the cold war though, but rather those conspirators whom, as JFK noted at the time, "conducts the Cold War". You do know the difference between the conductor and those who play by his lead, right?
You are pointing your finger in the wrong direction. Ihave no interest in twisting what anyone says.
I quoted specific parts, and the context is that of the full speech which is freely available for anyone to study. However, if you insist on continuing compartmentalizing that context from itself to dismiss its ongoing relevance, I'm not interested in that discussion.
Not that I ever claimed the contrary of any of that.
I didn't say anything about a 'covet' typo. Not an issue.
His meaning is clear - the tyranny in the USSR did the things he said - it was a secret government compared to that of the US. JFK here was playing to the American press, flattering them about their important role and his recognition of its important, even as he was about to step on their toes. The Soviets 'silenced their dissenters rather than praise them', they didn't have the public protesting the budget, and so on.
OK, it had looked to me like you said the opposite, that the right-wing 'conspiracy' is no larger than the left's.
I'm not attacking the cold war though, but rather those conspirators whom, as JFK noted at the time, "conducts the Cold War". You do know the difference between the conductor and those who play by his lead, right?[/quote]
There's plenty to attack on the cold war. It sounds to me like you have an exaggerated notion of some secret cabal behind the cold war, as opposed to the government.
Of course, there are always a combination of powers in society. Make no mistake that people like the most wealthy have a voice to the political leadership that is not well publicized, generally speaking. But it's a great exaggeration to say anyone is 'issuing orders' generally. Using JFK as an example, he had a variety of pressures - the arms industry, the military bureaucracy (military-industrial complex), right-wing poitical forces - to do things. But he had no one 'telling him' what to do, he made his own choices.
Presidents are well aware of these interests and how they differ from the public interest, and their own views vary on who they agree with more.
There's a book you might like that does talk about one very specific area of 'background power' and JFK, making the argument that he 'stood up' to the bankers and pursued policies that were in the public interest while making a lot of financial enemies. It's "Battling Wall Street: The Kennedy Presidency" by Donald Gibson ($17 on Amazon).
See, I don't really believe that. I think Bush did care--however I think he was manipulated and used...didn't know what he was doing, was misled, etc. I think that much of the "evil" of his presidency wasn't him doing it, that doesn't mean he isn't responsible, but still--I think that most of the credit for that administration destroying the country needs to come from his cabinet, advisors, and Cheney. Bush should be pitied not hated.
kylebisme
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2000
- 9,396
- 0
- 0
I have yet to see any reason to believe JFK would claim the USSR "relies primarily on covet means for expanding its sphere of influence", and can list a multitude of overt means they employed to suggest the USSR was not the "monolithic and ruthless conspiracy" he was alluding to. I cannot substantiate your claim to the contrary, can you?
If we were speaking of sports in the US, and I had said "hockey is just about as small time as soccer"; surely you would have understood me for what I had said there, eh? Point being, you seem to be adverse to comprehending what I say more than taking issue with what I actually have said. This is what I was getting at when linking to the Happiness in Slavery video, it seems "don't open your eyes, you won't like what you see" is the mentality you are arguing from here.
Of course there is, but I've no practical interest in doing so here.
I am of the notion that JFK was correct when he suggested "a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy... conducts the Cold War". Not as opposed to our government though, rather in alignment with the governments on both sides. Those who have no allegiance to anything but their own power can align themselves with anything.
Nor did I make any claims of "issuing orders". Rather, I am referring to people who primarily opperate through "covet means" and employ "infiltration ... subversion... intimidation... guerrillas".
He did make his own choices, but he didn't get to live with them.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter