2/3 Of Americans Yearn For The Political Middle - A Case Of Moral Cowardice?

Find a 'middle' with this asshole and his cult followers? Get real!

"The only things in the middle of the road are dead skunks and yellow lines."  - Progressive columnist Jim Hightower

In the interest of full disclosure let me come right out and admit I have no use or tolerance for the American political "middle". Hence, see no remote purpose in complying with the oft heard plaintive plea (from clueless pundits) that  we need to somehow find civility and "meet in the middle".  Why? As Tafari Jones writes in his TIME essay ('The Myth of the Moral Middle',  November 5, p. 56):

"I find myself annoyed by the hand wringing about how we need to find common ground. People ask how we might 'meet in the middle' as though this represents a safe, neutral and civilized space.  But this American fetishization of the moral middle is a misguided and dangerous cultural impulse. 

The middle is a point equidistant from two poles. That's it. There is nothing inherently virtuous about being neither here nor there.  Buried in this is a false equivalency of ideas, what you might call the 'good people on both sides' phenomenon. But when we revisit our shameful past ask yourself, 'where was the middle?"

He has a salient point and there are numerous examples. For example, when Native Americans were being wiped out by the U.S. Cavalry in the 1870s- 80s and their tribal lands seized where was the "middle"?  Was it to kill all the braves and leave the women and children? Was it to make fake treaties to grab Indian lands - and then ship the victims (like Geronimo and the Apache) off to reservations where they withered and died- but not kill them?

What about slavery? Where was the middle there?  If we reject the basest extremes of chattel slavery, i.e. as portrayed in '12 Years A Slave' - where if Massah wanted some entertainment he'd use some excuse to take out his whip and flog one or more of the slaves while banjo music played- where was the middle?   Would it have been a softer 'indentured servitude' - which actually ensued during Reconstruction when "freed" slaves were allowed to remain on plantations and work the land- but only for a pittance-  and it was never enough to be truly free, and own the land?

In terms of Dotard's immigration policy, where is the middle? Is it only to separate migrant families but not to cage the  toddlers or infants?

Transferring the concept of the threat of  'the other'  to Nazi Germany, where was the middle? Was it to inter the Jews by the millions in the concentration camps - but not to gas them in the Holocaust?

In the end, the embrace of the middle is the position of the moral coward. Or as Jones puts it (p.57):

"The search for the middle is rooted in conflict avoidance and denial."

Going on to note that for too many Americans it is "painful" to accept there are actually racist and sexist knuckle draggers, homophobes and xenophobes in our midst.   Hence:

"Perhaps there is some way to look at this, some view from the middle - that would allow to communicate and realize a national identity is the tie that will bind us comfortably.. ."

Which is arrant twaddle because it suggests that "the fact we can't all get along is more significant than the issues over which we are sparring".  Thus, it will never ever come to being that I will "get along" with a climate denier because our views are 180 degrees opposite, and I believe the climate issue is one of national emergency, hell, global emergency..   I will also never get along with a racist, a white nationalist or Trumpie. No, I can't say I hate them like vermin rats- like wifey does -  but let's say I deplore them intensely.   There ain't no way I'd invite any of them to the Thanksgiving table.

All this is relevant after a recent NY Times op-ed in which we learn millions of Americans in the middle are now "tired of politics" - especially after the tumult of the midterms, and are tuning out.  We learn, for example:

"Most  Americans do not see their lives through a political lens, and when they have political views the views are far less rigid than those of the highly politically engaged, ideologically orthodox tribes."

This confirms what I've always suspected about the middle: they are simply not as well informed precisely because they are non-ideological and hence less politically engaged. Hence, they typify the kind of voter who'd cast a ballot for a presidential candidate  he "could have a beer with".  In other words, the bottom basement sort of decision framework.

Rather than being "rigid" the ideological, non-Middle voter has an orientation and vision.    It is ideology that gives one’s world and perceptions context and color. If you lack an ideology, as an old logic teacher once put it to me, then you will find yourself cast adrift and swayed by any and every meme, blabber or blowhard that might try to influence you. Of course, one always checks his ideology against reality, this is important! But one needs a central POV to make any sense of the world. This is  precisely the quality that those embracing the middle lack.

Anyway, the Times' piece cites a  study by a nonpartisan organization, More in Common,  that paints a picture of a society that is far more disengaged — and despairing over divisions — than it is divided.  The study itself was ostensibly conducted in an effort to understand the forces that drive political polarization, and surveyed a representative group of 8,000 Americans.

Of course, no formal study was needed to grasp the forces driving polarization and division, only common sense and logic.  Thus, if you believe babies from immigrants need to be grabbed and caged while I do not, then we instantly  have opposition - hence, division. There is no amount of modulation that will dilute or remove it.   Spread it over a large enough population - with separate segments holding these opposite views - and we have "polarization".  But that is a GOOD thing because: a) we don't want every manjack in the country believing infants ought to be caged and separated, and b) it isn't morally right - and can never be!

This also applies to a host of other "divisive' issues from climate change, to taxes, to voter suppression (such as recently happened to Stacy Abrams' voters in GA) and the nonsense claim of "voter fraud" by the Right. . In other words, there must be division and yes, polarization,  if a pronounced segment of the population embraces regressive  policies and comes into political power- Then it must be checked, lest that power metastasize, and we get an authoritarian state where the Constitution becomes just a piece of paper.. Similar to what happened in Germany in the 1930s  when all the "good Germans" grew dumb and numb as the Nazis took control over their nation.

Then, predictably, we read in the Times' piece:

"At its heart is a vast and often overlooked political middle that feels forgotten in the vitriol, as if the country has gone on without it. It calls that group the Exhausted Majority, a group that represented two-thirds of the survey".

But these poor little exhausted folks seem to forget - or never processed- that political combat in the present circumstances is needed. Is "vitriol" necessary? Perhaps not, but let's say that it currently goes with the territory given how Dotard Trump is setting the direction and odious example for much of  it.  And as I've written before, so long as he's around and his lying, outrageous comments - and actions- are evident,  there will be hostile reaction from many of us and that will indeed become vitriolic on occasion.  Hey look, at least I don't depict Trump hanging by his orange neck in all my posts attacking him.   The article then quotes a 36-year-old home health care worker in Topeka, Kan., (Jamie McDaniel)  one of several people in the study  who was interviewed for this article:

“It feels very lonely out here,  Everybody is so right or left, and you’re just kind of standing there in the middle saying, “What happened?’”

What happened, in case you missed it, is that a Russian stooge traitor took over this country in the 2016 mis-election, and is driving this nation toward destruction with his violation of the Constitution and embrace of authoritarianism.  Now, we could all make nicey- nicey and sing kumbaya - but then we'd be like the good Germans who allowed the Nazis and Hitler to take over Germany. This we cannot allow, so we fight against the minority faction in our midst and their dictator -Fuhrer,   Herr Trump, aka Drumpf.   If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem. Deal with it but don't stand there scratching your butt wondering 'what happened?' - that only confirms my belief of cluelessnness and ignorance.

McDaniel, sad to say, embodies the problem with too many Americans, as I've often observed:   that they are unpracticed and untutored in deep politics .  This is why so many adhere to the "middle" or what author Curtis White once called  "the Middle Mind". The 'Middle Mind' is a safe mental space where all the old verities are true. These are the tropes trotted out endlessly by our shameful politicos and news media to manipulate our consciousness, i.e.. we inhabit  the "land of the free" - never mind we have more people incarcerated than all the other nations together.  And we are the "land of opportunity"  never mind upward mobility has fallen steadily the past 3 decades leading to unbelievable levels of inequality."

Meanwhile, the media white washers seek to enshrine in the American people the political and historical memory of gnats. This is why politicos can play them over and over again, and why the targets never advance their insights as to what is happening to them and why. It is also why author Gore Vidal once referred to our nation as the "United States of Amnesia".   This is now evident in the "More in common" survey which conceivably could see more than half of Americans checking out for the crucial 2020 election - where we have the chance to finally ditch Trump in a legal fashion.  As 'Last Week Tonight' host John Oliver put it last night in reference to Trump and authoritarianism:

"The world is dabbling with something very dangerous right now, and America needs to be careful. Look, I know democracy can be often by design frustrating.  Checks and balances can be irritating and slow...but removing them opens the door to something much worse."

As for Tafari Jones, for him - as well as me - the choice is stark and never clearer:

Is the search for a misplaced "national unity" more important than our core values and  principles?   I.e. "is it more important we understand the motives of white nationalists or that we prevent them from terrorizing communities?"

At least for the people directly affected by the terror of white nationalists there is the sober recognition of no safety found in the "in between".  The rest of us need to grasp that too. 

See also:

Trump and American Authoritarianism

Did Bernie Sanders Lay A Political Trap For Hillary?

Podcaster Jimmy Dore points out Hillary's subdued "hate" expression during Bernie's endorsement. Did he set a political trap? Quite probably, given he sensed she wouldn't keep to her promises.


Even as Barack Obama delivered his signature,  silver-tongued oratory and homage to Hillary last night -  a robust defense of "American values" and Hillary's qualifications to protect them-  darker ruminations have surfaced. These actually originated with Sen. Bernie Sanders' endorsement of Clinton in NH some time ago, but have only now come to the fore in the wake of Hillary's actual nomination.

And in that wake, questions of whether she will actually follow through on her promises - such as remaining steadfastly against TPP. Well, that came under suspicion the night before when VA Neolib Governor Terry McAuliffe


 blurted out that Hillary would "flip on"  the TPP as soon as she got into the WH. This raised the hackles of Bernie supporters but of course was quashed almost as soon as it got out - unlike the DNC emails: McAuliffe and advisers sputtering that  TPP "would only go forward if the changes that she wants are implemented and that everyone is in agreement." HRC would examine the deal and only approve those sections in line with citizens' interests.  As The Washington Post observed:

"There's a reason Hillary Clinton's campaign so forcefully and unequivocally pushed back at Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe's (D) assertion Tuesday that she will support the Trans-Pacific Partnership once she's in the White House.

What McAuliffe said doesn't just directly contradict Clinton's stated position about the trade deal Obama is trying to pass before he leaves office. It undercuts several narratives Clinton is using the convention to reframe, while reinforcing some of the most damaging narratives to her campaign"

Indeed. Hence, the distrust in Hillary's adherence to any previous positions, and hence also the picking up of visual clues in her body language and face during the Sanders' endorsement.

In fact,  a number of Left media were "Zaprudering" the NH event with special attention to Hillary's body language and facial expressions while Bernie was delivering his (seemingly) ringing endorsement.  Several times the image was paused (e.g. by liberal podcast host Jimmy Dore)  to reveal her with a none- too pleased look on her face. See e.g.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhwzkPKA_xk

Dore then played a short video of Ralph Nader  who referenced Bernie's intent to expose Clinton's political betrayal on Jorge Ramos' show:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BocCnTfQxVM


"He didn't slobber over her He basically went through all the promises she made on immigration reform, on minimum wage, on criminal justice reform, on the environment and climate  change.  I thought it was a really brilliant statement. .I have it here and urge everyone to read it because I think he's set her up for political betrayal".

What does that mean? It means, as Dore then explained,  that Sanders was setting her up since all those things HE said she was for, she's not really for, so she will betray his words. When she does that he can then enlarge his organization. Sandernistas will see they had put their trust in yet another Neolib who betrayed them. She only said what she did, when she did,   to get their votes.

This makes a lot of rational sense at a deep politics level: deliberately trotting out all the promises and commitments made  to put her on the spot and remind her of them, as well as his millions of followers. It is that technique of setting her up, that will ultimately expose her either as keeping to her word, or once again weaseling out. What is most telling is her body language and especially facial expressions. Pause the video as I did (at the same time Dore does) and look carefully. You don't need a B.Sc. in Psychology to be able to read her facial and body language literally screaming "Objection!" even as she  continues the rhythmic head bob telegraphing false assent.

As my psychologist friend Rick put it, the head bobbing is a physical compensation mechanism to neutralize HRC's  visceral objections via a controlled physiological response. In other words, to affirm a fake agreement with Sanders words despite the fact her face literally screams she actually hates them. But the head bobbing and nodding is a means to resist a totally negative physical reaction  (like issuing a middle finger salute as she did with the Kaine pick)..

The bottom line is that even before the Kaine VP pick (definitely not designed to inspire left turnout no matter what the scare tactics) and then the McAuliffe TPP gaffe, Sanders knew in advance that Hillary wouldn't stick to her promises. Hence, he listed a whole set of actions she'd said she do during the campaign. But Bernie basically set her up to do a purposeful fail:  commit totally unforced political hari kari - and very likely end up a one termer.

This also cuts at Bill Maher's snide remark last night (convention edition of HBO's  Real Time) that the Left is "purist".  Absolutely not! The Left, contrary to being purist, merely insists that if it makes sacrifices for a candidate he or she adhere to commitments made, at least those within their power. At the very least that means not verbally backtracking on them, and also pre-emptively embracing extreme right or center right positions never defended during the campaign. It means that the Left demands integrity in a candidate not "purist adherence" to ideological positions.  That Maher didn't know the difference is perhaps no surprise as in one Real Time from November, 2013 he didn't seem to know the difference between legitimate conspiracy analysis and god belief. He babbled:

 "We need conspiracies for the same reason we need God because we cannot accept that things are just random." 

Which is pure codswallop, because one doesn't "need" conspiracies.  They are rather detected and emerge out of the multifaceted scrutiny of  a universe of available evidence -  even that which may be released in files decades later. This is specifically so in the JFK assassination case. (In fact, as Dr. Pat Bannister noted, strong religious/ god believers are actually more likely to reject political conspiracies because they go against their most fervent beliefs in human nature and limits.)

But a person who wouldn't know the difference, or honor the distinction, would also mistake voters' demands for integrity in politicians as being "purist". In each case, an extreme comparison is invoked so it was also not surprising to see Maher and guests last night  making a false equivalence between "left and right crazies".

Sad, but this is why - along with the infusion of obscene amounts of money - our political and electoral system never improves and we are always saddled with "lesser of two evils" choices. Even our pundits and best comedians can't seem to enhance their insights to a deep politics' level to expose the ongoing con. 

"You have two choices, sir or madam: strychnine or cyanide! Which is it! Make your pick! You can't not pick!"

See also:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/eric-zuesse/68299/the-kochs-want-hillary-clinton-to-become-president

And:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/29/us/politics/hillary-clinton-donors.html?&hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Excerpt:

For many Clinton donors, particularly those from the financial sector, the convention is a time to shed what one called the “hypersensitivity” that had previously surrounded their appearance at Mrs. Clinton’s fund-raisers or at her political events, during a period when Mr. Sanders repeatedly attacked Mrs. Clinton’s connections to Wall Street and her six-figure speaking fees from financial institutions.

“I think we’re past that,” said Alan Patricof, a longtime donor to Mrs. Clinton, when asked about the need to lie low during the primaries.

In Philadelphia, donors were handed preferred suites at the Ritz-Carlton and “Friends and Family” packages created for longtime Clinton hands — some of them also longtime benefactors. Some were granted time backstage or in the Clinton family box with former President Bill Clinton and Chelsea Clinton. Blackstone, the private equity giant, scheduled a reception at the Barnes Foundation on Thursday with its president, Hamilton E. James, one of the leading Wall Street contenders for an economic policy post in a future Clinton administration.

 

Scott Aaronson : In Over His Head On The JFK Assassination (Part One)

"How do we know that our own rational rejections of conspiracy theories are not themselves infected with beliefs so strong that they are, in effect, conspiracy theories too?" - Matt Ridley in 'Maybe We're All Conspiracy Theorists', The Wall Street Journal, Sept. 10-11, 2011

Scott Aaronson seems to believe that because he’s a quantum physicist that he’s also knowledgeable enough to make intelligent comments – in his blog – on the JFK assassination. He isn’t. He comes across as yet another overconfident, under-informed  proxy  "expert" (using his quantum physics bona fides) but who probably couldn’t tell Oswald’s  OS-351- 164 file from his  201- 289 248 CI/SIG file or his 74-500 file. All as reported in the Appendices of  Military Science professor John Newman’s book, ‘Oswald and the CIA’ – from freedom of information act documents.

But this is the typical BS that serious assassination researchers have to put up with – because these semi-educated (on the assassination) critics only serve to clutter the blogosphere with yet more disinformation and ignorance when some of us are attempting to educate our countrymen as to what really went down – based on actual documents released on the basis of the JFK Records Act – not half-assed speculations or conjectures.

Look, I will try to go easy on this guy – given he’s a quantum physicist – but I will not back away from calling out balderdash when I see it, the same as I would with SPLC writer Marilyn Elias, Miami Herald columnist, Glen Garvin, and Dr. Steve Mason.

For those who want to see all of his dreck you can dredge it up here:

http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1596

I will stick only to the distilled claims extracted from his bilge.  My points in the order in which he elicits them in his forlorn preface to his "20 reasons for believing Oswald was the lone assassin".

1-     The use of the term “buffs” is a derogative term as has been pointed out by Dr. Michael Parenti in his paper, The JFK Assassination  - Defending the Gangster State. Parenti notes:

“These investigators have been described as "assassination buffs." The term "buff" is a diminishing characterization, describing someone who pursues odd hobbies. For the same reason that we would not refer to "Holocaust buffs," so should we not refer to these serious investigators as "assassination buffs." Their efforts reveal a conspiracy to assassinate the president and an even more extensive conspiracy to hide the crime. “

By invoking the term “buffs” in the JFK case, one can suspect that – logically – Aaronson would also label Simon Wiesenthal as a “Holocaust buff” because he’s pursued further research into the Nazi butchers who ran the camps – especially those that pulled the levers to release Zyklon B.

2-     Aaronson claims when the “scales were peeled from my eyes” he found the Warren Commission claim that Oswald fired exactly 3 shots with his Mannlicher –Carcano from the Texas School Book Depository “compelling”. REALLY? Then either Scott didn’t examine the WC evidence diligently enough, or he was incapable of applying the most basic geometry and physics – not to mention being unable to peruse files more recently released via the JFK Records Act – including Gerald R. Ford’s abominable revision of the (upper back) wound placement, see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_15.html

Let’s make it clear Aaronson - as a physicist  -  could have done the same analysis as I did above, if he’d have gotten off his ass and actually obtained the requisite files (FOIA requests from the National Archives), examined them and proceeded.  Did he? Clearly not! In fact, he’s not even remotely aware of how the Warren Commission itself was compromised ab initio. See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_13.html

and:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_14.html

3- Aaronson claims “And as for Oswald’s motives, I think I understand them as well and as poorly as I understand the motives of the people who send me ramblings every week about P vs. NP and the secrets of the universe.”  

I don’t think so, pally. If you didn’t access his CIA files, how the hell could you possibly know anything about his motives?  As Michael Parenti notes (ibid.):

“Lee Harvey Oswald spent most of his adult life not as a lone drifter but directly linked to the U.S. intelligence community. All of his IQ tests show that he was above average in intelligence and a quick learner. At the age of eighteen in the U.S. Marines he had secret security clearance and was working at Marine Air Control in Atsugi Air Force Base in Japan, a top secret location from which the CIA launched U2 flights and performed other kinds of covert operations in China. The next year he was assigned to El Toro Air Station in California with security clearance to work radar. “

In regard to the last, examination of his CI/SIG file showed that Oswald had clearance – access for all the following:

“The locations of all bases on the west coast, all radio frequencies for all squadrons, all tactical call signs, strength of all squadrons, the number and type of aircraft in each, names of commanding officers, and authentic codes of entering and exiting all ADIZ radar ranges.”

If indeed Oswald was as lame as Aaronson claims, he’d never have been entrusted with any of these, period!  Hell, he’d not have been entrusted with the CIA Director’s pet poodle. Moreover, he'd never ever have been let out of the States, and with the ease of dispatch the document trails disclose.

Once again, this glaring failure of perception – because Aaronson hasn’t done his homework- shows he’s not qualified to comment on any aspect of the assassination.

4-Aaronson claims he began his thinking by allowing something like a “10 % probability” for conspiracy in the JFK assassination and then – after presumably investigating (which he clearly didn’t – as shown from the previous critiques), he then goes on to aver:

 “Now, though, I’d place the JFK conspiracy hypothesis firmly in Moon-landings-were-faked, Twin-Towers-collapsed-from-the-inside territory.”

Really? And you call yourself a physicist? You ought to turn in your diplomas, degrees! This bloviation discloses he can’t discern an actual conspiracy from a loony bin conspiracy “theory” or paranoid speculation.  The clearest example of the latter, apart from the ones he conflates with the JFK assassination conspiracy, is one cited by Joe Klein in the latest TIME (Oct. 20, ‘A Troubled American Moment’, p. 28).  That is, the “federal government buying tons of ammunition for the post office in order to raise the price of ammo for gun owners.”

Now THAT is a "conspiracy theory" at least by the standard of common mocking and ridicule as present in the mainstream media and too many blogs! In fact, it’s little more than a wild speculation because there’s  NO evidence offered at all. It is based on a feeling or more accurately a paranoid suspicion. This type of  subjective foolishness is impossible to prove or disprove because it’s in some psychological la-la land where no evidence would even be accepted by the paranoid, anti-government speculators.

 Compare that to the fake Moon landing bilge which can easily be disproven (assuming the proposers are open to science) by referencing the lunar laser ranging experiments (to determine the precise distance from Earth to the Moon). These use lasers fired from Earth to reflectors left on the Moon’s surface by the Apollo Moon landing teams. (If they contend that “robot craft” could have left them there the logical retort is, “Well if we could send robot craft to the Moon why not manned craft? Once you can compute the necessary trajectory 99% of the problem is solved!)

In the case of the JFK assassination, physics works the reverse way to show why a conspiracy – had to exist.

Let’s first bear in mind when we write or speak of conspiracy we mean  a three-layered configuration, as noted by Peter Dale Scott in his ‘Oswald, Mexico and Deep Politics: Revelations from  CIA Records on the Assassination of JFK’.  The layers include:  1) The framing of Oswald, 2) the actual assassination and the 3) the cover up of (1) and (2).  The error of the corporate media and too many dilettantes is they do not separate the parts, which renders any analyses incomplete and misguided from the start.

The framing itself was accomplished using: 1) fake cables, dispatched from the Mexico City station, 2) an Oswald impostor who was photographed going into the Cuban consulate in Mexico City, and 3) raising false speculations about Cuban-Soviet involvement. For a lengthy accounting of the details go to these links:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-pre-assassination-framing-of-lee.html

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-pre-assassination-framing-of-lee_1807.html

Again, this isn’t speculation – but based on actual CIA files that disclosed what went on – especially in the Staff D purview as well as David Atlee Phillips shenanigans!

Regarding Staff D, as Peter Dale Scott observes (op. cit., p. 18), after referring to the letter D on the cover sheet of Oswald’s 201 file:

“Staff D was a SIGINT or Signals Intelligence operation, run in conjunction with the National Security Agency or NSA. Because of the ultra-secrecy of the NSA and SIGINT, Staff D became a hiding place for other CIA ultra-secrets as well. In 1961, when William Harvey headed Staff D he was assigned the task of developing the CIA’s assassination program, ZR-Rifle, because ‘D’ was the perfect cranny in which to tuck a particularly nasty bit of business.”

 Which was to assassinate any head of state. Even a U.S. head of state who assorted powerful interests (Joint chiefs, Military defense contractors,  CIA  etc.) felt had betrayed them.

 Now let’s get back to what the physics discloses in term of the conspiracy element (2).

The image of interest from the Zapruder film is shown below:

Carefully note the direction of her motion! It is toward the direction of the limo rear or toward the Book Depository.

According to her secret Warren testimony (excised from original published Report, see e.g  Appendix E):

"I was trying to hold his hair on. But from the front there was nothing. I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on."

In other words, parts of JFK (hair, at least one occipital bone – later recovered) were being hurled back across the trunk. Such motion is impossible for a rear shot such as from the Book Depository, because the direction of linear momentum is always in the direction the bullet travels. Hence, the shot had to have come from the opposite side of the limo – or where the stockade fence of the grassy knoll stood.

That  this never even occurred to Aaronson, as a physicist, is even more startling and suggests again he didn’t do squat in terms of even looking at the films available (Nix and Zapruder) before jumping to his absurd conclusions.

As for the cover up, that part of the conspiracy is also solid, as I already showed (check the earlier links) for my FAQ parts 4a, 4b and 5 on the bullet wounds. Only a dilettante or slacker would fail to see the obvious hands of cover up if the details are read and understood.

Does Aaronson want to do this?

5- Nope. Aaronson, in the clearest evidence yet that he’s unfit to take on something as big as the JFK assassination,  blabs:

“I’ll give twenty reasons for believing that Oswald acted alone.  Notably, my reasons will have less to do with the minutiae of bullet angles and autopsy reports, than with general principles for deciding what’s true and what isn’t.  Of course, part of the reason for this focus is that the minutiae are debated in unbelievable detail elsewhere, and I have nothing further to contribute to those debates”

Oh, okay, so basically Aaronson confesses from the outset he can’t be bothered by any “details” which have been argued “elsewhere”.  He will instead provide us with “general principles” for deciding what’s true and what isn’t.

Hmmm….”general principles” minus the actual physiological, physical and documented  facts (e.g. from CIA files)  before him. Sounds like a guy conducting a séance or voodoo to me. Abracadabra! Here is reality …..based on my general principles of truth, honor and the American (media) way!

I guess that based on his aversion to details, Mr. “General Principles” can tell us the tunneling probability for a particle through a rather steep Coulomb barrier, without even knowing the wave functions for the different regions or the height of the barrier. Makes sense, no? I mean if he can offer general principles of truth for the JFK assassination without even dirtying his hands with "details"  or glancing at a single CIA file for Oswald - certainly he can do that quantum tunneling trick too. Right?

As I will show, this historical event is far above his head and no macroscopic tunneling is available to help him penetrate the ignorance barrier. . Maybe he needs to stick with quantum tunneling!

Next: Response to Aaronson's twenty reasons for believing that Oswald acted alone.

 See also:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/09/switzerland-destination-for-kennedy.html

"Big History" - Another Bill Gates' McGuffin?

According to a recent NY Times review piece by Andrew Ross -Sorkin, Billionaire Bill Gates appears to have been thunderstruck by another flash idea to add to his common core aspirations. This one doesn’t involve algebra but rather the teaching of history, BIG History. Gates evidently got the idea while working out on his treadmill and watching a DVD entitled ‘Big History’ – part of the Great Courses series. In this case the lecturer was a convincing Aussie prof named David  Christian.

 

Christian’s shtick lies in developing a college level course predicated on a synthesis of history, biology, astronomy, chemistry and sundry other fields. The aim? To present to students a sweeping and coherent arc of human history not confined to specific events or human actors-agents, but rather tying multifold cosmic and human events into a narrative of "everything" - thereby  providing a unifying picture of the history of life on Earth.

 

Christian, in one academic interview, explains that he was influenced by the Annales School- a group of early 20^th century French historians who all insisted that history be taught on multiple levels of time and space. Christian, enthralled by the idea, developed his course which incorporated eight separate “thresholds” beginning with the Big Bang 13 billion years ago (Threshold 1) moving through to the origin of Homo sapiens (Threshold 6) to the appearance of agriculture (Threshold 7) and finally to the forces shaping our modern world.(Threshold 8)

 

Christian’s aim was not to give a distinct account of each period but instead to integrate them all into "vertiginous, conceptual narratives sweeping through billions of years" in the parlance of a worshipping Ross-Sorkin who comes over more as Gates' groupie than objective critic (especially when discussing Randi Weingarten's and the American Federation of Teachers' reaction to Gates' Common Core agenda, and how the AFT pulled away from further Gates' funding.).

 

Anyway, Gates then checked out one of Christian’s classes at San Diego State University and marveled at his class’ ability  to connect the complex concepts presented. Before anyone could say "Common Core" , Gates and Christian were chatting it up and developing a similar course for high school students. This has since become part of the Big History project which now includes a website open to the public – and an electronic textbook chock full of interactive videos and graphics.

 

Big History itself debuted in 2011 in five schools and this fall will reach 15,000 students in 1,200 schools. For those who like to keep track of numbers that translates to an average of just over 12 students per school. Why so few? Because an integrative approach is damned difficult! It demands students and teachers of high executive brain function, to be able to easily synthesize disparate concepts in their minds as well as effectively use the materials to advance to meet the course objectives.

 

While a class might start, say with the emergence of life via coacervates, then proceed to photosynthesis before moving to eukaryotes and multi-cellular organisms- the ordinary student will be left with mouth agape and wondering if he is really taking history or an advanced form of organic chemistry or evolutionary theory. Part of the problem is that students have been conditioned to think in 'boxes' or categories and not to pierce the shells to go inside and try to unify seemingly disparate ideas, concepts. Similarly, teachers are conditioned to teach in boxes, as opposed to presenting a hybrid course that is truly integrated.

 

According to Ross-Sorkin’s piece on the subject:

 

“Few schools had teachers willing or able to instruct a hybrid course, and other schools demanded that two teachers lead the class together.”

 

Having myself developed an Integrated Science curriculum, I’ve seen it all before. I saw that unless one could command the service of teachers skilled equally in multiple disciplines (physics, biology, chemistry, astronomy) the project was doomed to failure. This is why the original integrated science courses developed in the Caribbean in the 1970s have now reverted to specialized courses for advanced students. So, if you're taking Physics you'll hardly see a chemistry reference, or one for biology or astronomy. This is a shame because it propagates the disjoint 'boxes'  conditioning.

 

The other problem with a mammoth, gestalt-framed course like Big History is that its emphasis on the Big will give short shrift to the critical one –off events as well as undercurrents (deep politics) that tilt the historical forces one way or other. These aberrations I refer to as “punctuated history” and the examples have played no small role in shaping our modern world. (Of course, if viewed from a perspective of billions of years they recede into insignificance but then most human feats, events would as well.)

 

But to see what I mean, consider the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand, which triggered World War I and the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian empire. Consider also the assassination of John F. Kennedy by the national security state which – not coincidentally – saw the unrestricted rise of war for profit as well as the ascent of the national security state worldwide and which now defines all our telecommunications.   Then consider a singular, devastating event like 9/11 which has totally reshaped our modern world to be hyper-security conscious and paranoid ever since it happened. If you think nothing changed, you haven't been flying very often! The point is Big History is designed to miss or ignore the punctuated events that will bear most intensely on the modern historical era (Christian’s Threshold 8).

 

It seems then that Big History, like the Gates' Common Core proposals-  is destined to become a prize slice of academic titillation but not much more. Certainly not to the extent of developing a historical sensibility and appreciation, which most of our students lack.

 

I still maintain if people-students are to truly understand history they need to see the counterpoised forces shaping it, and that implies conveying the conflicts at every level: between nations, between different ethnic groups, between different religions, between different economic strata, between corporations and citizens, and between the state and its citizens. Unless this is done, with strong elements of deep politics sewn seamlessly into the framework, history will merely be reduced to the cartoon of a long series of unrelated events.

 

It is time that changed, but I don't believe that Bill Gates' and David Christian's Big History idea is the way to achieve that. I do suggest that for a few dedicated or highly intelligent people, it could be a template for grasping the gestalt of history as embracing all facets of human events within a cosmic perspective.

P. J. O'Rourke Wants the 60s Taken Off "Life Support" - Is He Ignorant Or Just a Fool?

Tragically, too many Americans - particularly some of the more or less influential wordsmiths of the Neoliberal media - have found a common refrain in why America "remains obsessed with the 60s." They feel the decade has long since passed, the events have been noted, and hey- it's more than past time to move on.  Such is the case with part time humorist and author P.J. O'Rourke - who's made a living skewering cultural obsessions, fixations and idiosyncrasies for what Bajans call "donkey's years".

He takes them up again in his recent TIME essay (January 13), 'Keeping the 60s on Life Support', mocking the notion that this decade is worthy of any such prolonged attention. In many ways O'Rourke's take mimics that of songster Bob Dylan who, two years ago, in a CBS Morning Show appearance said:

“I can’t imagine people making such a big fuss over the Sixties. Unless things are so dull now they just have to think of some time when times were better.”

Leaving one to wonder if Dylan even was semi-conscious for the 60s, or merely survived them in some kind of stoner haze.   Yeah, why make a "fuss" over the decade that saw two signal pieces of legislation passed (The Civil Rights Act in 1964, and Voting Rights Act in 1965) that basically conferred the practical basis for the exercise of rights to a minority of the population, that hadn't been manifested for over 100 years?  Oh, and then there was the legislation that gave us Medicare,  which nearly 45 million seniors depend on now and without which they'd likely be dying in ditches, unattended and impecunious.

Let’s also be clear that only an idiot, or semi-comatose stoner fool would opine that people reference the 60s now as “some time when times were better”. Are you effing kidding me? A decade of upheaval with four major assassinations – including of John F. Kennedy, his brother Robert, and Martin Luther King – essentially the entire solid core of American liberalism at that time. (Accounting for how we veered into namby-pamby, free market Neo-liberalism as a capitalist, whore substitute for the real McCoy).

Sadly, it seems O'Rourke is no better informed, and finds it easier to set out semi-facetious word play on the decade than to do a serious analysis. He begins, of course, with the centerpiece event - the JFK assassination- which effects still cascade through time as we behold the "anti-Nation" that never would have materialized had JFK lived.  By that I mean the arc of recorded history would likely have seen no Vietnam War, no 58,000 Americans killed there, no early termination to the manned space program (on account of $269b wasted on Vietnam) and NO election of Ronnie Raygun -with the massive inequality it ushered in. Oh, and likely no Gee Dumbya Bush shoehorned into power 37 years later! (With no 9/11, Iraq war or Afghanistan either!)

One of the saddest lines ever penned occurs in O'Rourke's essay as when he writes:

"I was driving my 15 year old daughter and three of her class mates to school on Nov. 22, and I asked them if they realized it was the day President Kennedy was assassinated. The three girls had no idea. Two girls (my daughter included) had no idea who President Kennedy was."

Truly, I'd have been ashamed to admit such a thing in a widely circulated medium, even TIME. It reveals the author to be defunct (as a parent)  in his own contributions to his daughter's education, in failing to provide what her school didn't.  It also says more about the currently deficient high school history curriculum than it does about an event O'Rourke presumes is passé. It again, shows that if today's kids are being denied knowledge of this defining event (which likely saw a coup d'état and our nation's future course permanently altered) than they really do need to avail themselves of other sources i.e.  via the Kickstarter project: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1450964693/jfk-and-the-unspeakable-the-graphic-adaptation"


That O'Rourke's daughter and her friends don't  know that they likely wouldn't even exist today had Kennedy not defied the Joint Chiefs' plan to bomb and invade Cuba in October, 1962, is beyond incredible. And yet, O'Rourke sees fit to mock the importance of the event to the extent of even asserting (likely in his gross ignorance - in which case he needs to check our my JFK FAQs from November):

"Almost any adjective can be applied to the 60s except 'serious'. ....We had heroes in the 1960s ...their flaws didn't lead to their destruction, they were killed by deranged fools".

If P.J. truly believes this he needs a thorough course in deep politics. Indeed, none of the liberal core slaughtered in the 1960s were killed by "deranged fools" although that is the way it has been made to appear by a PR-tainted corporate media. Sadly, not enough Americans - like O'Rourke - dig deeply enough to find the real answers, say in understanding why Lee Oswald was no "deranged fool" but rather a targeted (by the CIA) asset to be manipulated into being the decoy. I went through the explanation for this in detail, in two October blog posts on 'The Pre-Assassination Framing of Lee Harvey Oswald'.  Does any of this matter to O'Rourke? Seemingly not, so long as he can get some passing jollies on perhaps the most significant (historically) decade of the past 150 years.....and get paid for his balderdash.

O'Rourke in his phony (funny?) essay declares: "Other Golden eras have  had  bad ends - Edwardian England and the Roaring 20s, but they don't have the deathless, Keith Richards staying power of the 60s."

That may well be so, but if the reasons accounting for this exception aren't clear to O'Rourke, then perhaps he ought to leave out any further ruminations on the decade until they are. To that end, perhaps he needs to avail himself of learning the real history of that decade, not the phony one on offer from the Neoliberal historical revisionists and their national security state accomplices ....who'd just love it dearly if all Americans were as fallow, ignorant and lazy as P.J. appears to be.

But then, what do you expect from a part time humorist who has zero exposure - far less grasp - of recent American history?

The Pre-Assassination Framing of Lee Harvey Oswald (2)

David Atlee Phillips, who conducted the main operation to frame Oswald - from Mexico City and the Miami JM/Wave CIA station.

“Put together, we see how those in power suppressed false evidence that Oswald was a Communist or a KGB or Cuban agent in order to arrive at the least disturbing alternative: that he acted alone.” –   Peter Dale Scott, Deep Politics Quarterly, Sept. 1994

Between the resourceful work of John Newman and Peter Dale Scott, among others, we’ve learned that Lee Oswald actually had a CIA file : 201-289248 CI/SIG[1], opened on December 9, 1960, more than one year after his defection to the USSR (Oct, 1959) The ostensible reason given for opening the file in the first place was Oswald's defection, and possible “continuing intelligence interest”.. However, this makes no sense in the light of the  delay of more than one year (Oct. '59 to Dec, '60) to get the job done.

The actual fact,  in light of what I noted in the previous post, is that the file had been opened by the CI/SIG (Counterintelligence Special Investigations Group) of the CIA to paint a trail of fictitious suspicion on Oswald and especially have it ready after Kennedy was assassinated on Nov. 22, 1963, in order to drive an investigation that would find him guilty of being the lone assassin.  Peter Dale Scott, invoking the resources of HSCA investigator Dan Hardway and as also reported by HSCA investigator Gaeton Fonzi (The Last Investigation,  p. 292 ) discerned that  “most of the individuals originating the false reports (in cables etc.) were assets of the Mexico City Station’s Chief of Covert Action and Cuban Operations, David Atlee Phillips.”

It had been Phillips who ran all the cut outs (fake personae, duplicate Oswalds, fake files etc. ) to implicate Oswald as a commie nut in league with the KGB and Soviets – all the better to paint him as the one lone nut assassin in Dallas, on Nov. 22, 1963.

The Warren Commission was "suspiciously 'quiet' on the subject of Oswald's CIA files"[2], the OS-351-164 (office of security), the 201-289248 CI/SIG, and the 74-500. However, this should not astound anyone aware of the fact that a former CIA Director (Allen Dulles) sat on the Commission. Logically, therefore, if his latter day descendants are so reluctant to divulge the truth[3], he would have been no different. Moreover, as primary liaison between Commission members and the Agency, he could easily determine in advance what would be advisable for them to see, and what wouldn't. 

What is more astounding is the level of machinations the CIA used to conceal the files and their import from the Warren Commission. For example, no one informed the Commission that the letter ‘D’ – on the cover sheet of Oswald’s 201 file – indicated CIA Staff D, a SIGINT or signals intelligence operation run in concert with the National Security  Agency or NSA. As pointed out by Peter Dale Scott (Deep Politics Quarterly, Jan. 1994): “In 1961, when William Harvey headed Staff D, he was assigned the task of developing the CIA Assassinations Project, ZR/Rifle”

In addition, when they submitted Oswald’s 201-file to the Warren Commission (under the header of Commission Document 692) they did not indicate it clearly or mark it as such. Instead, as Dale Scott (and also John Newman) observed the CIA buried it in a  Sept. 24 “memorandum”  relocated to a much later position in the file , making it appear as if it had been falsely drafted after the culpable Oct. 10 fake cables.  (Scott writes that technically this subterfuge and dodge was a “felony under Section 1001 of the U.S. Criminal Code".)

All this needs to be seen in the context of the five documents the CIA released on Oswald in October of 1963.  As noted by Peter Dale Scott (‘Oswald, Mexico and Deep Politics’, 2013, p. 25) : “at least three show signs of CIA doctoring and the first, which does not, was nevertheless so misleading as to be possibly dishonest.” This was the cable from the Mexico City Station on Oct. 8 that claimed Oswald had appeared at the Soviet Embassy on Oct. 1, claiming  he had spoken with Valeriy Kostikov three days earlier. (Kostikov was top man in the KGB's "Department Thirteen" - responsible for assassinations. As Scott notes, ibid., this is why American Rightists made use of any sources they could to try to parlay this into something to force the WC's hand into a "phase one" conclusion. That included using Oswald's brother, Robert.)

More sobering is Newman’s apt reflection on Oswald’s activities in New Orleans from May –Sept, 1963 (Oswald and the CIA, p. 292):

"The record of Oswald's stay in New Orleans, May to September 1963, is replete with mistakes, coincidences, and other anomalies. As Oswald engaged in pro-Castro and anti-Castro activities, the FBI says they lost track of him. The Army was monitoring his activities and says it destroyed their reports. The record of his propaganda operations in New Orleans published by the Warren Commission turned out to have been deliberately falsified."

 

Even more vexing and worrisome, is that the CIA had spies squirreled away inside the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City  who could have pulled off all manner of chicanery, including altering the impostor Oswald's documents (substituting the real Oswald's photo, signature, etc.). As HSCA Investigator Fonzi  notes (using research by two staffers, Dan Hardaway, and Eddie Lopez - whose work led to the  Lopez Report, still in CIA files)[4]:

"In questioning (David Atlee)Phillips, Hardway was also working from information that had been dug up on a couple of secret trips to Mexico City made by Lopez, and investigator Harold Leap. Without the Agency's permission, they had located and interviewed a couple of CIA assets who had worked inside the Cuban Consulate at the time. The Agency never revealed this to the Warren Commission, but it actually had planted spies within the Cuban compound. That may be relevant to the fact that, in the end, the only 'proof' that the real Oswald was inside the Cuban Consulate were his photographs and his signature on his visa application.”

While in Mexico City, Lopez and Leap also spoke with the agency personnel who had listened to and were involved in translating and transcribing the tape of the man who called the Soviet Embassy. They said that after Oswald's Dallas arrest, when they heard his voice on radio and telecasts, it wasn't the same voice they remembered from the tape. The man who called the Embassy had a “huskier voice and didn't speak as fast as Oswald” , and perhaps most revealing, spoke in very poor, broken Russian  (Oswald's Russian wasn't excellent, but Marina Oswald later  said that when she first met Oswald in Minsk she thought his accent was from another part of the Soviet Union.)

Fonzi noted that Lopez and Hardway observed that David Atlee  Phillips seemed to be especially nervous when Hardway began questioning him about the lack of photographs of Oswald. He maintained that the surveillance cameras at both Soviet and Cuban Embassies were “not functioning at the time of Oswald's visits” . Phillips stuck to the story that the Agency didn't maintain an around-the-clock  and weekend surveillance of the Soviet Embassy. He also said the Cuban Embassy camera “happened to be malfunctioning”  during the time of Oswald's visit.

So, despite the fact that Oswald had allegedly made five visits to the Cuban Consulate and Soviet Embassy, there were no photographs to substantiate it.

As Gaeton Fonzi observes (p. 295)

"In the end, Phillips couldn't explain the contradictions in his testimony about the Agency's surveillance capabilities or why, if the cameras at the Soviet Embassy were working on October 1^st -when it photographed the unidentified man passed off as Oswald, there was no photograph of the real Oswald."

It seems more than evident that the reason Propaganda meister Phillips 'couldn't explain' the contradictions in his testimony, is because the real Lee Harvey Oswald was never in Mexico City. Like so many other smoke and mirrors tactics invoked by the Agency, this was no different. It is merely another layer/level of sheep-dipping to target the unwary Oswald for his pre-determined patsyhood role in Dallas 7 weeks later.

Those lone nut mythologists who maintain (in the face of the above facts) that Oswald was there, are obligated to provide us with first order evidence to substantiate that. (Hotel records don't cut it since they can easily be based on forged signatures. "Witnesses", i.e. on alleged buses, are only useful if they're able to compare the one they claim to have observed with images of the Lee Oswald arrested in Dallas. Sylvia Duran was such a witness, but she was tortured to recant - see below- when she denied that the Oswald encountered in the Cuban Embassy was the same as the one arrested in Big D) At the very least then, we need a verifiable photograph that can unimpeachably be used to put Oswald there. Until that time, the entire 'Oswald in Mexico City' episode must be regarded as specious and a probable concoction of the CIA and their many 'assets' deployed in Mexico City at the time. Or to use the words of John Newman in reference to a 'cable' that surfaced within that episode, “a whole cloth fabrication”[5]

The 'Oswald in Mexico City' caper, like so much else, also provides a cautionary tale about accepting anything in this case at face value, especially if it emanates from 'official sources', departments, or agents- who have a vested interest in keeping the “lone nut” myth alive and well.

By the spring of 1963 we know that the Psychological Warfare branch of the CIA's JM/WAVE station in Miami was being led by one George Johannides- who  was busy “guiding and financing” members of the Revolutionary Cuban Student Directorate or DRE, one of the largest anti-Castro groups in the United States[6].  This attention included providing the DRE with up to $25,000 a month, so long as they submitted to CIA discipline (Jefferson Morley, ‘The George Johannides Cover-up’, in JFK LANCER, May 19, 2005.)

At the same time, as documented by Peter Dale Scott,  CIA spin meister David Atlee Phillips- having been cross-posted to both stations.  was shuttling between Mexico City and Miami (the CIA’s JM/Wave station based at Zenith Technical Enterprises near Crandon Park) and helping Joannides confect and consolidate the “Oswald as commie perp” narrative, including using DRE assets to play Oswald in New Orleans. (See the previous quote from Newman on the May-Sept. Oswald story). They also were alternating between a “phase one” and “phase two” narrative, with the first linking Oswald to Soviet or Cuban Intelligence, and the second painting him as just a deranged lone nut. Most of the “phase one” stories originated as Scott notes from “ a single milieu of anti-Castro Cubans in Miami, close to, and in some cases supported by the CIA’s JM/Wave station there.”

Sadly, another casualty of the CIA sheepdip, dodge and spin hijinks was an innocent woman, the consulate officer Silvia Duran. As Scott reports, as well as Gaeton Fonzi (op. cit., p. 409)  she was forced to undergo brutal torture for eight hours at the hands of Mexican police to get her to recant her original testimony that the “Oswald” encountered at the Cuban Embassy in Medico City was not the Oswald arrested in Dallas.(She had insisted in her original testimony- account that the Oswald she encountered “was blonde and short” – The Lopez Report, p. 190).

Ed Lopez,  who’d sought to interview Duran again in the wake of her torture,  found she was unable, and broke down and wept merely at the thought of it. She also feared reprisals as a citizen of Mexico.

So be it. Now ask yourselves this: If Oswald was indeed “guilty” why did the CIA go to such inordinate lengths to distort, hide and obfuscate the truth (i.e. Oswald’s CIA files, fake cables etc.) as well as engage in such a complex plan to paint Oswald the bad guy (using Oswald impersonators in Mexico City)  – not to mention- recruiting Mexican police to torture a woman for 8 hours merely for telling the truth – to make it presentable for the Warren Commission’s (“phase two” or lone nut) narrative?

Mayhap Mr. Tom Hanks finally  asked himself those questions - before his “Bugliosi Bunkum Binge” next month on HBO –  which is why he cancelled it. Or perhaps HBO thankfully cancelled it realizing that all the money invested would be a waste. Poor Tom, guess he will have to wait a bit before “preventing the American people from being snookered”.   But as my German friend Reinhardt put it, we - the American people - can be thankful that HBO didn't expend millions to allow Hanks to try to snooker US!

---

[1] CI/SIG =  'Counter Intelligence/ Special Interest Group'

[2] Newman, op. cit., p. 169.

[3] I am referring, of course, to the files on CIA Station Chief George Joannides, who single handedly funded and orchestrated the Cuban elements in New Orleans, and orchestrated Oswald’s associations with them.

[4] Fonzi. op. cit., pp. 293-94.

[5] Newman, op. cit. p. 408.

[6] Jefferson Morley, ‘The George Johannides Cover-up’, in JFK LANCER, May 19, 2005.