In 1991, with the release of Oliver Stone's film 'JFK', a resounding screeching and howling was heard from the caverns and bowels of the American corporate media that hasn't been seen before or since. You'd have thought every one of their sacred cows was gored, to cause them to squeal like such stuck pigs. NEWSWEEK, in its Dec. 23, 1991 cover - for example- fairly screamed: The Twisted Truth of 'JFK': Why Oliver Stone's Film Can't Be Trusted'
On the actual story page ("TWISTED HISTORY") the undertext proclaimed:
Oliver Stone's 'JFK' is not just entertainment, it's a piece of propaganda for a huge conspiracy theory of the Kennedy murder. The article, mainly penned by a Kenneth Auchincloss, lambastes Stone for attempting to "recreate history", and concludes that anything which does , "distorts history". As an example, the author asks: "Was it true that Kennedy was planning a pullout from Vietnam?" - the answer presuming that he wasn't.
However, just six years later, with the benefit of Freedom of Information Act released files, The Baltimore Sun featured this story: Declassified Documents Hint at Plan to Bring Troops Home in 1965, Dec. 23, 1997, p. 3A. A subsequent book by Lt. Fletcher Prouty, JFK and Vietnam, disclosed this was not merely a "hint" but an actual, hands-on plan to remove all personnel by the issuance of National Action Security Memorandum 263. Hence, it was clear that Stone was spot -on correct in his prescient selection of at least one motive for the assassins.
In the intervening years, as more and more files have seen the light of day (recall Stone's movie prompted the passage of the JFK Records Act- without which relevant files would have remained sealed until 2039) more motives have emerged, including oe of the most powerful: Kennedy's rapprochment with Fidel Castro through his aide-de-camp, Rene Vallejo- which would have set all the heads of the anti-Castro Cubans and their CIA backers aflame with rage.
So why is The Washington Post organization (which is responsible for NEWSWEEK) so incensed and preternaturally exercised? Why so hot-up about a freaking movie? (I never saw such acrimony and bombast registered against other historical flick revisions such as 'Sink the Bismarck', 'Glory', 'Johnny Tremaine' or 'Saving Private Ryan'!) One major clue we have is provided by Katherine S. Olmstead in her book, 'Challenging the Secret Government: The Post-Watergate Investigations of the CIA and FBI', 1996, Univ. of North Carolina Press. Olmstead pointedly notes (page 21):
"According to the (1978) Church committee's final report, approximately fifty U.S. Journalists had covert relationships with the CIA, about half of which involved money. Watergate investigative reporter Carl Bernstein charged that the total number of U.S. journalists who worked for the CIA was actually much higher. In a controversial article in 'Rolling Stone',
Bernstein claimed that more than 400 American journalists secretly carried out assignments for the CIA from the early 1950's to the mid-1970's. The 'New York Times' alone, Bernstein insisted, provided cover for ten CIA officers from 1950 to 1966"
Further (ibid.):
"Even when a newspaper or network did not have a formal relationship with the CIA, the agency could still have close ties and mutual interests with its reporters and editors- Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee's brother-in-law was covert operations chief Cord Meyer; Post Publisher Phil Graham was a close friend of another covert operations chief, Frank Wisner"
And there we have it: The Post was not only in bed with operatives of the CIA, they (in all probability) followed the Agency's party line directive for dealing with critics of the Warren Report - as laid out in CIA document 1035-360. (See end of last instalment). Why else over react to this extent over a film, which Stone stated clearly on more than one occasion (still have his appearance on Larry King Live on tape) was "a counter myth to challenge the myth of the Warren Commission Report"?
The reason is clear: to attempt to short circuit or circumscribe any hint of widespread public acceptance of a conspiracy - and likely coup d'etat - that might emerge in consciousness, and in opposition to the official position of the government. In other words, an effort to bury a political toxin as surely as all the chemical and nuclear toxins that have wrought havoc on the populace. The MEDIA as the handmaidens of propaganda, not Oliver Stone!
If Stone's 'JFK' represented a lone incident, one might be able to back off from this harsh assessment, but it doesn't. Barely three years earlier, Don de Lillo's superb novel 'LIBRA' - also a fictitious portrayal of the Kennedy assassination- was skewered by critic Paul Gray in a review ('Reimagining Death in Dallas') published in TIME (Aug. 1, 1988). According to the smug author, commenting on Don DeLillo's book, 'Libra':
"Its argument, that the plot to kill the President was even wider and more sinister than previously imagined, will seem credible chiefly to the already converted; among whom are surely people who also believe the Martians are sending them messages through the filling in their teeth".
Actually, no! It is truer to see it would seem incredible only to overpaid moron hacks.
Why drag in the red herring of "Martian messages in tooth fillings" when the U.S. "corporate gangster-military" state is fully capable of many things of which this reviewer and his moron ilk can't conceive: such as 'Operation Northwoods' - revealed for the first time by James Bamford in his book Body of Secrets as (page 82):
“Northwoods was maybe the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government. In the name of anticommunism, they proposed launching a secret and bloody war of terrorism against their own country in order to trick the American public into supporting an ill-conceived war they intended to launch against Cuba”
The campaign of terror was to include the sinking of refugee boats (carrying Cuban refugees) on the high seas, as well as the killing of hundreds of innocent citizens on American cities’ streets, plus random bombings carried out in Washington, DC, Miami and other places. Martian messages through tooth fillings seems pretty tame to me compared to this horrific plot! And we actually have the released documents to prove it:
My point, again, is that if something like Northwoods could actually reach the plan stage - and had the backing of the Joint Chiefs, then why the hell couldn't a planned assassination of John F. Kennedy have also transpired? Are the media wonks' and pundits' brains so deformed and limited that they simply can't conceive it? Or is it that they are too terrified by the prospect the people may finally wake up and realize the real government isn't the one making laws or with its personae running for elections?
In all fairness, the source of the De Lillo review was TIME, whose founder Claire Booth Luce figured prominently in CIA annals and activities as well. Recall also, TIME-LIFE first bought the Zapruder 8mm film and actually attempted to reverse frames to make it appear as though the head was driven forward instead of backward - to reinforce the 'Oswald did it" (from the Texas Book Depository) bunkum.
The sad truth is that centers of power and elite overclass interests immensely fear a fully conscious public as opposed to a deluded, false conscious one. As shown by the previous examples, from NEWSWEEK and TIME, the seeds of false consciousness - at least concerning conspiracies- are regularly sown, to try to keep any conspiracy thinking off the public's mental radar. If people instead begin from the conspiracy premise, as opposed to coincidence and "one lone nut" thinking, then the powers that be must exercise much more caution in how they concoct their secret allegiances and business.
Continued in next instalment...
No comments:
Post a Comment