The Smiley Smile Message Board

This Friday will mark the 50th anniversary of JFK's assassination.  An event that changed America forever.

Why do they say that?  Have you ever wondered?  I have.  Did it change America?  Really?  He wasn't the first President to die -- or be assassinated.  (Remember Lincoln?)  Was it because JFK was just so totally awesome and the country so behind him?  Or smitten perhaps, with the fantasy of "Camelot?"   ::)

No.


JFK was in trouble in 1963.  His reelection in jeopardy.  The whole Camelot thing came later, after his death.  Still... how did this "change America forever?"  The real story is told in this book:  
Camelot & the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594032580?ie=UTF8&tag=theofficiw0c2-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1594032580)

Basically... it changed AMERICAN LIBERALISM.  Not America.  It's because JFK was killed by a COMMUNIST.  A communist killed JFK.  A communist.  And the Left in this country couldn't process that.  Joseph McCarthy was supposed to be the great evil.  Not one of their own.  So they began constructing lies, to make sure history saw it their way.

Kennedy -- by today's standards would be quite Conservative.  He cut taxes and believed in American military strength.  With Kennedy died the old Democrat Party.  A once good party.  And the carcass of the old Democrat Party was feasted on by a blood-thirsty demonic (I love saying that!) brand of Leftist.  The pro-communist.  The pro-socialist.  The pro-progressive.  That's why it changed America.  The Democrat Party became the DemoRat Party -- at war with America.  



Anyway... reflect on this event how you must, just thought some truth would be helpful while you do.  It was of course a true tragedy.  In more ways than the media will be telling you.  

Kennedy wouldn't be touched by the GOP today, let alone the Democrats.

50 years ago today. Sad.
This was an interesting read. I actually think this theory is quite legit:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/today-tonight/celebrity/article/-/19951509/shocking-jfk-theory/

This is complete bull sh*t. And a very good example of one more assassination conspiracy nut trying to make a fast buck from a book with one more possible angle that hasn't been covered thoroughly by the Warren Commission. There's been hundreds of conspiracy books out there since '63.  Most of them pull from the same list of about 10 theories with an edge on one, trying to justify why their theory is the most feasable. This latest book (noted with a link above) is as stupid as the theory that limo driver William Greer turned around and shot Kennedy in the head with a 45. Before it was even published, it was reviewed and quickly rebuked by assassination buffs.

Encourage you to read the Warren Commission's findings. Then just a couple out of the miriad of other books by so-called 'authors', 'investigators', and 'experts' who try to debunk the Warren Commission's findings. Then read Posner's and Bugliosi's books. See what you come up with.

Oswald is still rolling over in his grave laughing at all the conspiracy theories.....

I woudn't say Kennedy was "in trouble" politically at the time of his death. There are many more sources for Kennedy's popularity polls and how they specifically related to the challenges that faced him in the years of his presidency. An exceptional source is the American Presidency Project for the polls of 1961-1963:

8/29/63 - 62% and
10/09/63 - 58% where Kennedy's popularity leveled off and stayed until his death.

09/10/1963 09/10/1963 56%
10/09/1963 10/09/1963 58%
11/08/1963 11/13/1963 58%

Comparing JFK’s popularity to other presidents, JFK maintained a respectable level in comparison with all his successors. And the average popularity rating of President Kennedy was 70 percent…when seven out of ten Americans look favorably on the president, that is a good showing. According to records of Kennedy's own polls and the one's that are public, President Kennedy's concern about his popularity and his resulting effectiveness did drive him to campaign trips such as Florida and Texas that Fall of '63. Kennedy’s popularity poll results were based on exactly what TIME Magazine projected, his ability to translate popularity into support by devoting his time and energy. At the end 58% of American voters believed he was doing a good job. He was on the campaign trail as a leader, a strong defender of America, a conservationist and peace candidate. He was in Texas to help "mend fences" between Republicans AND Democrats. All he needed was time.

I'd say your "thesis" is flawed BB because American Democrats readily adopted, and under LBJ PASSED, the majority of Kennedy's agenda, esp. the civil rights act and Medicare, both opposed by Republicants and southern Democrats.

And regrettably, LBJ continued JFK's hawkish attitude towards Vietman.

Whether that conspiracy is BS or not, I'm convinced that Oswald didn't kill JFK and the Warren Commission is false.
If that was true, then how can you explain the "magic bullet" or how it was impossible for Oswald to fire the 3 shots as quickly as it happened?

I could spend a long time here trying to explain it and I don't have the time. I've been reading about the subject for about 45 years - a little longer than I've been a Beach Boys fan. There's also few good websites on the internet to get you started. Check out the amateur gun enthusiasts with a Carcano rifle who got off 2 -3 shots in 8 seconds, hitting their target at 75 -100 yards with the correct sized bullet. Sharpshooters have done it over the years. Some guys that aren't even sharpshooters did it. Oswald had Marksmen status in the Marines, which is average. One shot missed but nobody wants to beleive without a shadow of a doubt that the other two didn't even need a lot of skill or took into account that Oswald got "lucky". Many, many witnesses in Dealey plaza all agree on hearing 3 shots, including 2 witnesses on the 5th floor below who heard the shots, the ejection of the shells, and the shells hitting the floor. 3 shells and the Carcano found on the 6th floor found by the cops. One bullet left in the gun chamber. Howard Brennan directly on the ground below seeing Oswald pull the gun back from the window and providing the cops with an I.D that went over the radio. Oswald's fingerprints and palmprints on the gun, the wrapper, and surrounding boxes. Traceability to the magazine and source of his rifle and pistol traced to Chicago the next day. Ballistics testing of Oswald's weapons and bullets provided traceability to the Kennedy, Tippit, and Walker shootings. On and on and on and on goes the evidence of Oswald being the lone gunman. He was hired only a month before at the Depository and found out about the final route Kennedy would take in the newspaper no sooner than 4 days before the assassination. Opportunity presented itself and looser Commie Oswald wanted to make a name for himself in history, and unfortunately he did.

Here you go - this one will answer your questions directly and in detail with subjectivity and journalistic objectivity and plenty of common sense:

http://www.amazon.com/Case-Closed-Harvey-Oswald-Assassination/dp/0679418253/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=&qid=

So will this one:

http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-History-Assassination-President-Kennedy/dp/0393045250

Oswald may have acted alone, sure. I buy it. But if he did: I'll bet there were A LOT of cat's who suddenly needed their money back ;) ;)

As for American Liberalism changing because of JFK being killed by a Communist? Ha! Hadn't Lee H denounced Communism (as well as Capitalism) by that time? Or he at least was no fan of the Russian brand. Reminds me of someone a bit back suggesting Liberalism be banished from history. Well, history has shown that such a wish has been largely granted. JFK/RFK/MLK/Carter/and to an extent Nixon: all casualties/take-downs by the Right .... Clinton and Obama are mere frauds. Liars and scumbags bought and soild by the big money who know better than to worry about Left/Right. (that's for us idiots) We will likely never see another true Liberal President (last one was JFK: a very flawed one: who came from a family wealthy enough to tell the Right to F*ck off). It will be a long succession of Bush's/Obamas/Cheney's who will wage endless war and line their pockets and their corporate friend's pockets while we all scramble for scraps. You kids ought to be delighted instead of being such sore winners.

I'm just surprised that people believe Oswald did it.
But that's just my opinion. I don't want to get in a debate or argument, so I'm just going to leave it at that.

Gee, if you guys didn't have liberals to bash, what would you do all day?



Just because you agree with something doesn't mean it's elevated from mere opinion to fact.

Seriously?  OK, well.........how about if you read through this, then maybe we can discuss further if you have anymore doubt?

http://oswald-is-guilty.blogspot.com/

I'm not sure if you're aware of this or not, but logic and evidence usually has no effect on conspiracy theorists.

They'd do exactly what they've done: invent Liberals in order to bash them.

My parents owned an original hard cover copy of the Warren Commission Report, and I read it several years ago. For decades I believed in the conspiracy theory. Even with all the intertwined and connecting theories, I simply based my OPINION on believing (A) a $12 rifle wouldn't be efficient/sufficient enough (B) Oswald couldn't be THAT GOOD of a shot. The one shot was right through the neck; the other was right on the head. But, even more important, think how nervous a human being would be who was attempting to assassinate the President. Wouldn't their hands be shaking or their nervousness be so bad as to affect their ability to pull off those shots? Trained assassins could pull it off that but an average human being (yes, I know Oswald had training)? And, (C) the single/magic bullet...if you take the bullet fragments that remained in Kennedy's neck and throughout John Connolly's body, and ADDED them to the remaining bullet that was found on Connolly's stretcher, it would equate to MORE than 100% of the total mass of the bullet. That single/magic bullet was too pristine.

All of that being said, I have since changed my mind. I have gradually come around to believing that Oswald acted alone. First, while I used to get excited about the numerous conspiracy theories, I came to realize that many were COINCIDENTAL and not really directly related. For example, this guy knew that guy who ran into that guy who talked to that guy who worked for that guy and so on. But, most importantly, I believe that PEOPLE TALK. People talk about everything. And, after 50 years - and that's a long time, most of the characters involved are dead - nobody came forward, at least to my satisfaction, that could prove that they shot Kennedy. NO deathbed confessions that could stand up. So, without any further proof, I have gradually accepted that Oswald was the lone shooter.

There's simply too much that makes the "Oswald acted alone" theory unbelievable.  If one doesn't just patently accept the official story and takes the time to research for themselves, I believe they'll find that those who question that official story are not simply "wacko conspiracy nuts" (as we are often called).  Many credible, well researched books by rational, intelligent people have been written on the topic and are well worth reading. I firmly believe Oswald was the patsy he claimed to be. 

JFK and his brother pissed off the Mob over Cuba and the crackdown on organised crime , I mean really pissed them off. People that a run afoul of the Mob have a nasty habit of winding up dead. Oswald may have been the only guy firing that day but I don't think he was up there purely by his own accord.

Just think of all the probable plots that were suddenly off when Oswald pulled that trigger (if he acted alone)!

I don't nececarrily have a problem believing those responsible would have trouble keeping quiet. These aren't the type of peoplw who interact/rub shoulders with the general public on a large basis.

JFK had pissed off just about everyone - the mob, big steel, the banks, the CIA, the military industrial complex.  He truly was surrounded by enemies.  A recent book I read reveals correspondence between Kennedy and Kruschev that was conducted using the Pope as a go-between so that they could have this dialogue freely without anyone else knowing (these letters had been held in secrecy by the Vatican all these years and were finally made public sometime in the early 2000's I believe).  These letters show that both men were changed by the fright of the Cuban missile crisis, that both truly wished to take the world in a direction of disarmament and peace.  They are heartbreaking when you realize how different it all might have been.   

I think once the surface is scratched the reality is too difficult to accept. The forces that drive our destiny are not under our control and certainly not decided by us! It seems Kennedy attempted to give some control back to the general population and for this he paid the ultimate price.

For a young ex Marine it was so easy to defect from USA to Russia then back home again. That seems strange.

My Thesis is flawed?  It's the author's thesis, not mine.  I do find it compelling, but haven't read the book.  I've often wondered about how the modern Demorat Party got to be the self-serving extremists they are today.

Anyway, I think your thesis is flawed, of course.  However, the author's thesis is correct about one thing.  As I mentioned:  The Left began constructing lies, to make sure history saw it their way. 

From Wikipedia:  1964 Civil Rights Amendment
The original House version:
Democratic Party: 61–39% (152–96)
Republican Party: 80–20% (138–34)

Cloture in the Senate:
Democratic Party: 66–34% (44–23)
Republican Party: 82–18% (27–6)

The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 69–31% (46–21)
Republican Party: 82–18% (27–6)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 63–37% (153–91)
Republican Party: 80–20% (136–35)

I think this is exactly the kind of stuff the author was talking about.  You said the Civil Rights Amendment was opposed by "Republicants."  That just doesn't seem to be factual.  That's just a tiny piece of the alternate reality the Left has tried to create.  They have the media and Universities, so that's why you probably think it's ok to help them lie.

There's been a lot of lies about what the Demorat Party is all about.  I have a hunch I'm correct about the Zimmerman fiasco (for a more recent example).  I believe it was a used as a political device in an election year.  They tried to create a racial war in this country!  And for what?!  If I'm right, this is insanity!  Fcking madness.  This should outrage people who claim to care about racial harmony.

This is not a racist country, despite what you've been told.  It's country full of good people, who want to do what's right.  Republicans were not against civil rights.  Nor were many Democrats.  But clearly much of the opposition, was on the Left.

You knew i couldn't stay out of this for long...actually this is the first I'm cracking open this thread.

And it's bizarre but not surprising to read some of the misinformation and outright falsehoods...but I'm not here to judge, nope.

Let's just say if Kennedy were a "democrat" today, his stance on lowering taxes in order to stimulate the economy by itself would revoke his membership in that party, or at least put him speaking at their next convention sometime around 2:30 in the afternoon on the Tuesday schedule. That is if his name were not "Kennedy"... ;D

All that aside, let me say I'm like Mikie in that I've read and watched and re-read and watched again many reports about the JFK case.

Oliver Stone...what can we say? He created a masterful film, for filmmaking's sake. But it's so full of holes, inventions, fantasies, and outright bullshit that it so badly tainted the waters for millions who believe the character "Colonel X" was real, and buy into Stone's fantasy as if it were reality.

Stone has been debunked time and time again by...wait for it...FACTS.

As have many conspiracy theories. Like the supposedly mocked-up photo of Oswald holding the rifle with the papers...only, the problem there is that multiple photos surfaced in the decades since from that same roll of film. So there goes the "mock up" theory.

BUT...

I did hear one of the most plausible, perhaps the closest to the *truth* as we may ever hear apart from the horse's mouth. And those horses are dying off if they're not gone already.

WHAT IF....

Oswald was the shooter. He fired the rifle from the open window. Some of the shots hit the targets, but they were not the "kill shot".

WHAT IF...

There was a young Secret Service agent riding security detail in one of the follow vehicles. You've all seen the films. Cars full of VIP's and agents guarding them riding in the trailing motorcade vehicles.

WHAT IF...

That agent heard shots ring out, and as was protocol and training for such an event, that agent grabbed for his weapon, which happened to be an AR-15/M-16 type of gun. Military grade, standard issue stuff.

WHAT IF...

People watching the parade from the street noticed an agent riding in a following vehicle stumble back as the chaos started to unfold after the Oswald bullets hit Kennedy and the governor...THEN another shot was heard.

WHAT IF...

That agent as he went for his weapon to defend the motorcade as was his job happened to fall back, and his weapon *accidentally* discharged as his finger was near the trigger, and in the jerking motion of the car he lost his balance, creating a chain-reaction effect which led to the weapon being fired.

WHAT IF...

That bullet which was accidentally fired by that agent who some parade goers saw stumble as he rode on the car was the "kill shot" which the Zapruder film captured striking Kennedy's head.

WHAT IF...

The chaotic scene at the hospital which according to doctors and witnesses included a cadre of Secret Service men milling around where they should not have been, going as far as to threaten doctors and staff in the hospital, and in general doing things many thought were "out of character" after such an event...

WHAT IF...

The cover-up came from the Secret Service in order to play a game of CYA to protect themselves and their interests?

What If?

Again, that theory takes into consideration both the view that 1. OSWALD was the lone assassin firing the shots and 2. There WAS a cover up, but not in the way most assume.

There is a book about that. The author managed to track down the agent who apparently fired the shot accidentally.

It could add up.

Search for that book, check it out, and consider that as more of a possibility than any of the theories going around since the 60's.

Two more:
The Warren Commission report was a travesty of incompetence and omission.

Oswald is on camera saying he was not a Communist...but he was a Marxist. It would seem he soured on the actual implementation of Communism, yet held fast and true to his Marxism. Of course there's a conspiracy theory disputing that, but judge for yourself.

And it was odd last month to witness two infamous "anniversaries" of tragedies...both JFK and the Jim Jones "Jonestown" mass murder.

And it's ironic how both key figures in those tragedies were avowed and very vocal/loyal Marxists.

Hmm.  :)

Anyway, check out the book about the accidental kill shot, and see if that adds another angle to all the theories.

 Lincoln, Garfield, and McKinley were all killed long before the age of mass media, while JFK's death was processed by millions in an entirely different way. Here's another bulletin for you: The assassination of an American president would always be a traumatic event.

 As for political troubles, JFK was indeed down a bit in the polls, but he would have still defeated Barry Goldwater, although not by the landslide LBJ did.

 You are correct in stating that the liberalism of JFK might not mesh with the liberalism of say EMK, but again we are talking about differences in context and era. JFK was never fully trusted by the more liberal elements of the Democratic Party, in part because of his reluctance to condemn McCarthy, etc.

All of History is essentially a sort of conspiracy theory.

The JFK assassination has never seemed like that much of a mystery to me, the information is all out in the open. I sometimes see it asserted that if there were in fact a conspiracy, how could such a massive undertaking with so many participants possibly be covered up? It's hard to keep a secret between two people let alone the number of individuals alleged to be involved with the Kennedy assassination. The thing is though, that's exactly what happened, that's why the conspiracy theories exist at all, because over the years numerous people with connections to the plot have let information about it slip out. Howard Hunt for example, the Watergate burgler who blackmailed the President, made a bunch of comments before his death in which he pretty much spelled out the whole thing. But for every particular piece of evidence in support of either side, there is always some doubt or question of authenticity or motive. The people who don't want to believe a conspiracy find any reason to discredit every instance like Hunt's confession they can, saying that he was old and senile and that his statements were untrustworthy, whatever plausible excuse they can find, and then they continue to say "well if there was such a large conspiracy, how could they keep it a secret."

People who are really obsessed with "finding the truth" either way always strike me as pretty silly, the most ardent debunkers are really just a sort of conspiracy theorists themselves. The general shape and tenor of the whole assassination seems to have been pretty well figured out since the 60s. I think people just allow their prejudices about our leaders and our government get in the way, because they don't want to admit to themselves that high level political figures (including Kennedy) are deeply pathological individuals, and that the modern presidency from LBJ to Obama has been primarily held by some incredibly narcissistic and sociopathic minds. LBJ really was a monster, and I find it pretty easy to believe that he would have seized on existing anti-Kennedy resentment  as an opportunity to make his move. The Bay of Pigs caused Kennedy to open his eyes to the real scope of the entire US intelligence community and how many pots they had their hands in and how they were misleading and manipulating him even to carry out plans that had been in development since WWII. People didn't want him fucking anything else up, like the plan for Vietnam they had already spent a decade ramping up to, and LBJ took advantage of the anxiety.

I don't really know exactly what happened, where every conspirator was every second of every day in the weeks leading up to the assassination, I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of every piece of evidence, it's not really all that interesting to be honest, people end up not being able to see the forest for the trees. Like, I don't even think it's very important knowing who the individual shooters were, they were probably just some low-level guys who didn't even know what they were doing. The Government hasn't kept the assassination a secret, they haven't "covered it up" through silence, they actually did just the opposite, they've created so much disinformation and evidence and papers and reports and testimonies, that it's impossible to "prove" what happened one way or the other, but overall what happened is pretty clear if you don't get too hung up on things.

A traumatic event is a traumatic event -- Thanks for the bulletin.   :-D

I disagree that "mass media" made a difference with Kennedy though.  There was no interweb, DrudgeReport and YouTube.  No cellphones, chat rooms and Politico.  No Keith Olbermann.  No Air America.  No wall-to-wall, cable news (to drive the left crazier than they are).  It was caught on tape -- yes, but was that widely seen at the time?  Like 9/11 was?  With those towers coming down, unholy, on Live TV. 

Regardless.  If the media of 1963 changed how people "processed," as you say, the event -- fine, but I don't think it changed America.  Which was the topic point.  It changed American Liberalism.  The point was the media has remade the event -- made an effort to change history -- and thus how people see it today.  That's the deeper point that the author was making -- and as I mentioned in my initial post.  A commie, pinko killed the President.  And the Liberal/Progressives took the opportunity, to plant their flag.  The Progressives are back.

Never let a crisis go to waste.

Bean, anyone who can read a single sentence of words strung together can gather that Oswald denounced both Communism and Capitalism. Nor was he any shining example of some rightous Communist soldier. Most people anyhow believe he was simply a puppet of both extreme right and left wing shadow factions colluded with organized crime...... JFK's assasination changed neither liberalism or conservatism squat.

Mind you: I do get your thinking and it has validity I can easily see if I make the mental leap for a moment. I just don't happen to agree.... Not necesarilly in that it didn't so much change liberalism per se, but that it's just one of those incidents that any/all sides can spin to mean basically whatever they want.

Maybe you missed this from page 1. There is film of Oswald after returning from Russia where this can be seen and heard in Oswald's own words.



It's tough to argue a point when a man's own words are captured on a newsreel saying he is a Marxist. And that's where we get into all the issues of parsing words and everything else, but the fact is Oswald was a Marxist.

And that's the crux of the issue for some people, when the JFK history is being bastardized into a narrative that the "far right" philosophies led to this. No matter who fired the "kill shot", did Oswald fire his weapon that day in Dallas?

And if any overreaching bias was at play against Jack Kennedy, the part that gets lost to the "new history" behind JFK is that many more were opposed to JFK if not holding a personal grudge against him because of his religion - JFK was Irish Catholic, and even in the heat of the 1960 campaign this angered a lot of people across party lines who didn't want a Catholic president. But that aspect gets whitewashed out of the new narrative because it doesn't fit the desired goals of that narrative.

Look it up.   :)

I'm not going argue/defend the author's assertions.  I haven't read the book, nor am I an expert on the subject.  I don't know if Oswald poured hot candle wax on his chest while reading Marx or not.  But the basic premise was interesting.

The media (aka the modern Left) has remade history into something it was not.  A total Camelot fantasy.
The modern Left has become radical Progressive, since about this time.
And... why all the wacky conspiracy theories?  A diversion?


There's a long overdue discussion here -- not about grassy knolls, and all that.  But, rather the actions of the modern Left.  They're the ones that have made this curious and fishy, with all their actions since.  For whatever reason.  Why did they canonize JFK?  Especially since JFK would be at odds with the radical agenda of those propping him up?  Isn't that weird?

Things are what they are, so I have no recourse but to accept them.  But I do not have to accept what Radicals tell me, if common sense reveals something quite different.  So now, I have no recourse but to be curious.  The modern Left propping up and rewriting the legacy of a guy who did not agree with them. That makes me super-wicked-curious.  And I would think it should make you too.

I suspect, the book just exercises this natural inclination to explore that which doesn't make sense.  And a good detective would explore that which makes them twitch the most.

I know what happens here...from previous issues...so please keep in mind the fact that Oswald is on film revealing all we need to know about him, in his own words, to effectively settle this non-issue. Marxist. Period. No debate necessary.

Notice too how the telling of the "Jonestown" incident can sometimes go less on the Marxist angle of the story than might be told if Jones had been filmed discussing another "-ism" that he followed or believed in. Anyway.


Plus...no detective skills necessary. It's simple. What does that kind of narrative depend on perhaps more than anything in order to spread the word? What is the base, "gut feeling" kind of undercurrent behind any of these historical or even current-event type of scenarios where a narrative is woven into the actual reporting and analysis in order to promote another agenda or philosophy as a "solution", "cure", or even panacea to heal the wounds and solve the issue at hand?

Emotion. And if emotion and emotional response should happen to get in the way of reality and any kind of factual account of what really happened, that's not only allowed but encouraged. Because emotion can open vulnerable people up to anyone offering a grand solution, something to heal everyone's pain, and right there is the heart of this thing in a nutshell, applicable to many similar "tragedies" and the solutions offered in their wake.

Who needs a detective to suss that out?  :)

Yes.  To the radicals (who would otherwise not be privileged to our sensibilities) actual events are merely kindling to their narrative fire.

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Iq8_ZHYrpyM/TjBeU59AmhI/AAAAAAAABuc/PjFN-L7b2qw/s1600/Pagan+Ritual.jpg)

The more emotion tied to the event, the more fuel it provides.

Putting on my Columbo trench-coat, I would argue that the Marxist angle is thus NOT a non-issue as you say.  If it's the missing common-denominator in both this and the Jonestown story.  Is that what you're saying?

It is the common denominator, as I see it, and as I posted and re-posted my previous words from page one, it's the undercurrent running through these issues that some of the new narratives would like to shut out. It's the unspoken reality behind Jim Jones as well, where we have him on camera espousing Marxism and Marxist philosophies just before his "Jonestown" communal society became a mass graveyard. The anniversaries of both the JFK/Oswald and Jonestown events happened to fall within the same time frame.

What caught my eye was seeing any further debate on Oswald getting stoked here a few weeks later in light of the fact that we can all watch film of Oswald in his own words saying he's a Marxist after fleeing Russia.

I didn't understand how and where there would be further debate necessary on who or what Oswald was or what his political philosophies may have been when we have film of him in his own words saying he's a Marxist. And this was a guy named Oswald before 98% of the public at large knew anything about Lee Oswald, where his defection to Russia was a minor story that still garnered enough novelty interest in the press at the time to have news cameras interviewing him on his attempt to return to the US after renouncing his citizenship and moving to Russia.

That's what I meant by "non-issue", where we have a guy on camera saying exactly who he was, and therefore that would seem to end any speculation or debate on where his political beliefs were at the time. A man says he's a Marxist, he's a Marxist - end of debate, and I can't see any point in trying to argue against the man's own words after the fact. Unless half a century later we can find some way to go back in time and convince Oswald he's really not what he said he was, in order to fit the new narrative.

That's silly.  ;D

Pinder, GF, and Bean's  points in this thread are great. My personal theory was Oswald was a loner who threw out political terms like "marxism" to cover up a deep dislike of society that really didn't belong to any left or right group. He wanted to be somebody and did so by killing Kennedy.

All I ask is that you have a look and listen at these clips, time permitting, and reconsider some parts of that theory after hearing Oswald in his own words.

These were taken in and around August 1963, centered around New Orleans, when Oswald had garnered some notice in the press after being arrested for handing out "Fair Play For Cuba" leaflets in that city. His title was officially the "secretary" of that group, and therefore he was approached by at least these two media outlets for interviews and comments after his public arrest brought attention to the larger group.

One is a short local television interview, the other a radio interview for a program that catered to Latin American issues.

Remember, this in August 1963...Oswald was still a nobody for most of the public, but was considered enough of a story for these local interviewers to seek him out.

And after hearing him speak, does he sound at all confused or conflicted about who he is or what he believes as he states very clearly "I am a Marxist" and proceeds to run through a set of facts on and about Marxism, socialism, and communism that suggests he knew exactly what he was talking about, rather than being a loner who simply latched on to a movement or philosophy?

August 1963 TV interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP4qwrniKt0

August 1963 radio interview part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy9k5C94ENw

August 1963 radio part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjg188Yk7BI

August 1963 radio part 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFqRx-wJw8Y

Oswald was invited back on the program for a panel discussion and debate, after the interview posted above. Here is that panel show on tape:

Panel discussion Aug 1963 part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao2a9mRWkso

Panel discussion Aug '63 part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ya9BLrmOf2o

Listening to this, the man not only seems knowledgeable on the topics at hand, but also self-confident in his beliefs on socialism and Marxism and his support of Fidel Castro, and was willing to identify himself without question as a Marxist.

I cannot see how there can be a debate over who or what Oswald was after hearing him in his own words before he was an infamous figure or much of a figure at all outside of New Orleans after his arrest.

EDIT: I added two clips of a follow up appearance Oswald made on that radio program, where he was part of a panel discussion. Again, Oswald clearly states "Yes, I am a Marxist" and proceeds to discuss Marxism versus communism.

I'm sorry, but a mere moment caught on film does not tell us "all we need to know" about someone.... The story is a very easy to dig a bit deeper into.

Who cares what he considered himself anyhow? Yeah, he allegedly shot uber "liberal" JFK, yet he also tried to assasinate ultra "Conservative" General Walker..... This guy was a tad mixed up, but here we are slinging these stiupid terms around once again like they mean anything.... Don't you guys get tired of it??

Don't confuse the act of pointing out how people are rewriting history with trying to apply meaning to a senseless act committed by a mixed up man.

Explain how nearly an hour's worth of audio tape from radio interviews and panel discussions along with the television clip adds up to a "mere moment". It's Oswald captured in his own words expressing his beliefs and Marxist philosophies coinciding with his support of Fidel Castro, summer 1963, when he was only on the public's radar screen for handing out a leftist group's pro-Castro leaflets in New Orleans. But I guess this man repeatedly saying "I am a Marxist" doesn't count for anything, does it? Same with Jim Jones, I guess just because he's on camera saying he's a Marxist isn't enough for those who don't want his expressed following of Marxism to be a part of the historical record in these cases.

Unlike, say, trying to suggest "hate radio" and "lack of civility" in political discourse or anything of the sort was behind another more recent tragedy. Paging Sheriff Dupnik, who seemed to think making political hay out of a crime scene was more important than the case at hand.

I guess if you really don't want to see something, there are a million excuses for keeping your eyes shut.

I've listened to all that stuff and have read countless books in the subject. I'm not just tossing off an opinion. I happen to agree with Smile Brian that Oswald was a severely mixed up man who's own politics were extremely confused, and had more to do with his wanting to be somebody than his being a staunch this or that. The guy was only 24 years old when he was killed, for Christ's sake: not exactly a fully formed, mature human being and much of his behavior was highly contradictory (like most guys in their early 20's)  It would be a mistake to take almost anything the guy said on face value...... Oswald was either a patsy of simply a murderer..... Would I accuse Ted Bundy of changing Conservatism forever because he worked for Ross Davis (chairman of the Washington State Republican Party)? Of course not! He was a sick murderer, and that's all..... I personally don't give two shits what someone says they are (Marxist, Communist, Conservative, Liberal etc etc etc). I means absolutely nothing to me. How they apply their supposed beliefs/views in practical day to day life is what matters. Most faux conservatives or liberals only behave as such for the 5 minutes they spend in a voting booth every few years.

Ah, yes.  Tucson, Arizona.  The lunatic who shot a sitting Congresswoman.  Yeah, I remember that.  They told people it was right-wing talk radio that led to that horrific act of madness in Arizona.  They being the media.  And that wonderful President we got, what's was his name?  Who cares.  Anyway, that turd of a President showed up to give a speech in Tucson to talk about toning done the political rhetoric.

They had T-Shirts made.  I found a pic, in case everyone forgot.  A woman's fighting for her life, a little girl died -- as did others -- and that piece of you know what, President of ours is handing out tacky, chotchkies!  Using this awful event to talk about toning down the political rhetoric against him.  Not hypocritical, at all.


And, shoot... while I'm at it... weren't them Tea Party folks blamed for the Boston Marathon bombing?  They were.  By people in the media!  Oh... the media.  Again, many may have forgotten.  The crazy right-wing was initially blamed for that too.  Well, until the actual radicals were ID'ed.  And all was forgotten.  Happy times.


Now that I think about it -- weren't "Right Wing Extremists" blamed for that SUV bomb that was left un-detonated and later diffused in NYC?  Yes!  Of course no one remember this one.  But I do, because of -- not some loony on a blog, or some tool in the media -- but Mr Mayor himself.  Michael Doomberg.  Michael (Run As A Republican So People Think I'm NOT A Left Wing Nut) Bloomberg.  What a fck face that guy was.  Publicly blaming these mythical right-wing extremists, who he imagined were angry about taxes, er something all redneck-like.


And remember the Clintons?  That pair of azzhats?  Blaming "right-wing" extremists for everything.  Golly, I can't wait for that failure of a Secretary of State to run for President.  Cuz, you know... she's a "strong woman."  And we need a strong woman.   :lol


(http://media.salon.com/2011/01/t_shirtgate_from_meme_to_malkin.jpg)

Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh, Liberal T-Shirts!!

A little obsessive are we???

If you've already heard and read all that stuff, then why the attempt to marginalize it by dismissing the issue of Oswald being a Marxist and reducing the entire collection of examples of Oswald speaking and writing in his own words to "a mere moment caught on film"? I didn't even bring into the discussion his widow, both her recollections and actual letters and other items she either had or had seen related to her husband.

How they apply their beliefs and views in everyday life should also then be part of the record when discussing Jim Jones and Jonestown. How did a man who on the surface was out to organize and run a communal society based in part on the principles of Marxism turn that version of Utopia into a mass graveyard? Again, the man in his own words was a Marxist who believed in Marxist ideals. That somehow turned from a communal society where everyone was equal and contributed their fair share to live in peace into an armed encampment run by a demagogue and control-freak dictator...isn't the ideology he espoused and took ownership of at least worthy of being included in the history?

At the same time, I used the hapless Sheriff Dupnik as an obvious example from the Arizona tragedy, but there are any number of cases which could be cited. If some kook flies off the handle, and the "fact checkers" of various political outlets decide to dig up his NRA membership card, or a blog where he rails against gun control laws, or even some high school term paper the guy wrote which leaned a certain way, it's instant fodder for those who would point a finger of blame at the "gun culture" or any number of failings and foibles in America surrounding gun ownership and 2nd Amendment rights issues which need to be "fixed" so it doesn't happen again.

Guns and gun control being only one example of an issue that gets annoyingly and incessantly piggybacked onto any number of tragedies when those talking heads start saying we need to "understand" the motives so they can be "corrected".

In other words, all the usual talking-point nonsense, geared toward the concept of "never let a tragedy go to waste".

Yet when it's something like Marxism, where two of the most significant and infamous criminals of the 20th Century both express themselves as Marxists, which is still a philosophy and ideology the last time I checked (unless it has since shifted into a warped quasi-religious devotion), it should be on the table alongside those who think the history of a tragic event has as much to do with the perpetrator's political or ideological affiliations. Like Sheriff Dupnik who pinned the blame on a tragic multiple murder on "hate speech" and talk radio, and was not only encouraged but also embraced by those who were looking to make the "changes" in light of the tragedy.

So I say Oswald's openly expressed political beliefs and leanings are more than fair game, as are Jim Jones', they're a part of the history that could be explored further.

And Oswald's ideology becomes even more connected to the story when in 2013 there were more examples than ever of the talking head types trying to assign blame to things like a "climate of hate" around Dallas much like Dupnik tried to do in Arizona.

Fortunately Dupnik's credibility was shredded by the actual facts of the case, and he's a footnote if that. I wonder if that will be the case in 50 years when Kennedy is discussed, or whether the narrative will include the supposed climate of hate in Dallas when discussing JFK and totally ignore the fact that Oswald was a Marxist who ideologically leaned far to the left in 1963.

Is there a single personal belief or cause that someone has not historically killed for? It doesn't matter much what he called himself just because of the desire to assume that he killed for it..... Regardless, Lee H did not behave like a dyed-in-wool Marxist (BTW, any guy who doesn't like Russia because there are no night clubs there is no dyed-in-wool anti-Capitalist either) considering the central antagonism in Mark's work is between workers and owners, not citizens and political figures.

Jim Jones is a better example, yes, because he put his supposed beliefs into practice. Then again, Jones was a power monger and paranoid substance abuser, so we can't say how much of what was what. He turned his utopia into a graveyard, but be careful here: we have people dying in the streets in the US just because some folk put all their faith in the idea of a free market paradise.....

And again I'll ask: did Ted Bundy's murder spree just HAVE to be based upon his Conservative views??? See what I'm getting at?

You just have to laugh.  As GFool pointed out, we've got a document Left-o who killed Kennedy.  But it's not enough.  The Left denies it.  Yet when something happens -- without any evidence -- the left shoots first at one of the below targets.  They never axe any questions.  And never apologize (which is why Rush calls the media "the drive-bys.")

The Left just picks their target and BAM BAM BAM...
Conservatives.
Libertarians.
1st Amendment supporters.
2nd Amendment supporters.
4th Amendment supporters.
Whites.
White Hispanics.
Christians.
Southerners.
Republicans.

The list goes on.  If there's bad news, somewhere -- look out.  Anybody the Left doesn't like -- is to blame.  If it's cold outside... America did it with their cars.  If it's warm outside... America did it with their cars.


It's loony tunes.

....... jesus.....

I mean, it's hypocrisy defined: ...... "I'm right wing therefore all reality that I dislike is simply the evil "left" ....... Must make life a bit easier in a tinfoil lined cave, but eek!!!!!

Huh?  The left uses crises to blame their political adversaries -- to gain political advantage and power (as proven by my examples).  And somehow, pointing this out makes me like them?  Because I'm "blaming them."

Ok.  :-D

Rock, rock, roll... Plymouth Rock roll over.


(http://api.ning.com/files/eIVkYIGu7DUlwFVHqdNnvsrHmvvpcMnV9BcUuzD5qc35HA7Rd406S-ociUIG4Y3tF3pMLJXa8CMMIRlDezE4cKezpwwHXmgC/upsidedownhouse7.jpg)

Just pointing out that few people in the universe view the left/right theory as violently set in stone as you do.... I mean, more power to you, man. You are an intelligent person, so I must lend your thoughts much credence, but I just promise you it's not as severely black & white a world as you consistently accuse it of being... If all you do is watch/listen/intake either right wing or left wing media, then sure: it seems like it is, but why on earth would anyone think any form of mass media is feeding you an accurate picture?... You keep referring to this massive LEFT but it basically comes off as ANYONE who's not as religiously right wing as you. You really can't think the world is as simple as that. Just because thinking so makes you feel better, I can understand, but you still must KNOW deep down.... Most people I know or speak to away from this board might still vote left or right, but are fully aware of what a sham both parties have become. But you take it much much further and seem to believe that people are simply either as FAR FAR right as you or extremely "left" with nothing in-between. .... It's faulty logic at it's most dangerous.

I know what you mean.  Most people don't give two shts about sht.  I get that.  I mean, look here -- its essential only a few of us that get into these discussions on this board.  Total microcosm of the world.  Reality.  Which is why I love posting sht like this here.  It's the real world, a microcosm of reality.  Politically-focused forums are not reality, they're madness.

The vast, vast, VAST majority of the country scoffs at this right/left stuff.  Like we're crazy.  And they roll with what happens.  I totally get that.  They don't wake up until sht smacks them in the face (if it ever does).  I think that has started to happen, and will happen more and more, with ObamaCare, for example.  And it's the formerly-mainstream media's mission (which includes a lot of the entertainment industry) to make sure people stay aloof -- or blame "the other guy."  Which is the undercurrent of this topic.

But, I understand that 7 out of 10 are not seeing what I see.  But that doesn't mean I'm more "right wing" and the rest is thus more "left wing."  I don't see everyone as to my left.  In all honesty, here's what I see -- a few elitists and a gaggle of unpaid, disgruntled henchmen, under the spell of the elitists, regurgitating what the snide elitists spew, all to get people to part with their money and property, and to funnel said money back to the elitists.  And the vast, vast, VAST majority of the country are merely the mark.

OK, you're most certainly making more sense now, Bean :) :)

My only disagreement is that I personally think the media wants us not aloof but fighting with each other over left/right issues so enough or us keep voting either way and then going back to sleep.

I'm still trying to chip away at the facade to get to the foundation, and a lot of times I notice attempts to either shield or even protect Marxism from the kind of critique and finger-pointing that other "isms" receive whenever something runs amok on a large scale. I've already mentioned the gun control issue, that's an easy one.

But let me run an "if...then" scenario and see if it fits these "isms".

When there are examples like Enron or Miliken (the 'Junk Bond King') or any number of rip-offs in the financial industry, you'll see in the analysis an indictment of not only the individuals responsible for the bad behavior, but for the entire notion of capitalism. None of it would have happened if not for the evils of capitalism, and similar sentiments.

So when there are examples like Jonestown, or pick any country that governs under Marxist philosophy, where things go terribly wrong and people get hurt as a result, isn't it fair then to point at least a questioning finger at Marxism, and ask if there is something inherent in the "ism" itself which leads to things going that horribly wrong as they did with Jones?

Yet it's hard to find this kind of across-the-board indictment when it's something like Marxism versus something like capitalism.

I understand how loyal some are to the Marxist ideals, but at the same time it's hard to understand why the efforts to deflect any kind of questioning of the ideology itself versus the individuals responsible for the malady are so strong when the bad guy is a Marxist, while any number of criminals who gamed the financial system are held up as examples of a bad system (capitalism) and that system (or 'ism') is more to blame than the bad individuals.

It feels like a double standard, and I guess trying to paint the JFK case into a more modern climate-of-hate scenario that existed in 1963 Dallas just tipped the scales of reason and logic too far.

Boil it down: When a self-described capitalist commits a crime, it's an indictment of capitalism, but when a self-described Marxist commits a crime, it's not an indictment of Marxism?

Ummmmmmmmmm .......... maybe it's that little fact that we live in a Capitalist system and not a Marxist one..... Hardly rocket science.... Oswald killed one person, Jones killed 900-something (many whom committed voluntary suicide). Those who game the financial system often effect millions  (long range/term negative implications for the US and world economies via the 2008 financial crisis, for example) and naturally their crimes call the system they gamed into question since they used that very system in order to work their crimes... Guys like Oswald or Jones hardly threatened some onslaught of Communism (neither did Vietnam, BTW and the financial system sure showed them!!!) nor did either of them beat people to death with copies of The Communist Manifesto (In Oswald's case he used a rifle courtesy of the free-market) so, the conceit is quite lost here.... And like I said before, it would be just as valid to blame Ted Bundy's crimes on his Republican campaign work if one were to assume that personal/political ideology has everything to do with the abhorrent behavior of any individual.

This is the most ridiculous topic I've seen on this board.

Yet you posted here. Good work, keep it up!  :)

What is it with citing the Ted Bundy case? Let's run the numbers just for entertainment's sake and see where the comparison falls flat, not just apples and oranges but apples and snow shovels.

Here's a previous quote:


Ted Bundy's crimes were sexual in nature, the guy was a psychopathic serial murderer who was driven by various deviant sexual tendencies which included a fetish for corpses, if you believe the reports. So trying to link something political to crimes of a sexual nature doesn't come close to speaking to the motivation behind the crimes. He was driven to commit the crimes he did by violent sexual tendencies and some serious psychological issues. A classic psychopath, whose criminal M.O. was made unusual by the fact that he could put up a facade in order to facilitate his crimes. He wasn't on the fringe of what most people would call "normalcy", and his look and demeanor appealed to women who were his victims.

I'll make the case that Lee Oswald in at least one case was driven by politics and ideology. The case of Gen. Walker was mentioned, and rightfully so. He was a far-right firebrand of that era, and drew some attention for his various statements and public comments against communism. If we believe Oswald's wife Marina, and it may have even come in sworn testimony given under oath but I'm not certain, Lee Oswald had read an article about Walker in a communist publication, it angered him, and shortly after Oswald bought a handgun. Then another article appeared in the Dallas Morning News quoting Walker as saying things about eliminating Castro and his Cuban government - or something along those lines, you get the idea - and it again angered Lee Oswald and led to him buying the infamous rifle soon after.

And again if we believe the evidence, it was Oswald who began surveilling Walker's house which led to an assassination attempt where a rifle fired a bullet into Walker's house through a window where Walker was sitting, a bullet which grazed him but missed the "kill shot" by inches if that. And again the connection and belief is that Oswald fired that shot using the rifle he had purchased after Walker's anti-Castro statements set him off on another angry rant...if we believe Marina Oswald. Look it up.

Now, do we believe the JFK case was politically motivated? If we do, and if we also believe that Oswald was at least a shooter involved in the case whether or not his was the "kill shot", than we can add that to the Walker attempted assassination-by-rifle and say Oswald's motivation could be connected to politics. It was Walker's anti-Castro, anti-communist ranting which if we believe his wife at least set him off enough to buy two guns and actively use them.

Jim Jones: All the evidence is there in the form of the news crew's raw video footage when they accompanied the US congressman and his aide to "Jonestown" to investigate, as well as the actual audio of Jones preaching and speaking as his armed guards administered the poison to his followers. Listen to his own words, up to the very end. One of the things he mentions is how "they" were trying to destroy what he had built, "they" being the government which he had railed against and which he had set up his commune outside the US to counter.

What doesn't get said as much is that prior to Jonestown, Jim Jones and his followers were considered something of a powerful voting bloc in his region, where local and regional politicians knew he had his following and that translated into votes, so they courted his support. And Jones, again, on camera expresses himself as a Marxist and his "Jonestown" commune was set up under a Marxist theology and philosophy...it was after all a commune which included education and "re-education" if one of the followers questioned or tried to leave the commune. The "re-education" included physical punishment, and was enforced by armed guards. Does that sound familiar, at least the part about "re-education" if we add "camps" to the end of the word?

Hmm...Soviet Union sending "dissidents" like writers and intellectuals who openly questioned or disagreed with the USSR's government authority and policies to labor camps to be re-educated...Castro...China...North Korea...Cambodia...

Let's talk Cambodia for a minute: Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge, the "Killing Fields"...does it matter even in the least that Pol Pot fell under the spell of Marxism and Marxist teachings as a young man, joining various groups to study and learn the tenets of Marxist philosophy, and parts of which he would apply in his own methods of setting up a government as he assumed power. Which, of course, went horribly wrong as well and led to mass, open graveyards and the Killing Fields as they're commonly known.

But those will say Pol Pot wasn't really a Marxist, even though his philosophy and studies were formed in his younger years around Marxism. Have at it.

If Ted Bundy's crimes, which were ultimately of a sexual nature, can be linked to him working for a conservative politician, let's hear the case. I don't see how a sexual deviant's crimes can be traced to an economic or political philosophy, when the crimes themselves showed the man's motivations for committing them.

Yet we have Oswald who purchased two guns after a political gadfly whom he vehemently disagreed with made inflammatory comments which set him off, and who *acted* directly on at least one of those ideological disagreements by trying to assassinate the guy he disagreed with.

And that terribly chilling tape of Jones speaking to his flock as they're being systematically poisoned and killed on his orders is ranting about "them" wanting to take away the beautiful society he had built...Jones was also a psychopathic killer but what motivated him in the first place to set up his communal society called "Jonestown"? Was it not in part political in nature? Did he not teach and preach political theory at Jonestown as part of the daily regimen?

So connecting a political theory like Marxism to those cases is valid to at least consider since the "crimes" had some basis in differences in ideology and political theory. Connecting crimes of a sexual nature like Bundy's to much beyond the sexual and psychological issues of the criminal to an economic or political theory are near impossible because the crimes and their motivations had no connection to politics, ideology, or anything close.

If Bundy had volunteered for a local Democrat, would that have changed the example?

I still don't get it or see what the big deal is....  Crazy people have been killing for countless different reasons, be it sexual, political, nonsensical, for profit, etc etc, since the dawn of time .... You can't take two puny examples and make them a grand example of anything. Did Bundy's crimes CHANGE SEX FOREVER??? No, they did not.... We've been killing in the name of Capitalism for too long to try and trace back, and what has that changed forever?? I mean, countless wars for Capitalism and financial gain, and you sting up two little examples of insane people killing for their own twisted little reasons? Yeah, OK. It proves what? I mean shall we go ahead and list ALL the known reasons people have killed throughout history? Any dime store shrink could quickly shred through many of those alleged reasons anyhow, so there's no grand conclusion to be drawn.... Besides, we live in a Capitalist society that has been pummeling the earth blood red forever and two little guys killed some people for a different reason? Boo hoo!

You don't have to tell me.  Capitalism killed my sister.  Well, not my sister -- but a friend's sister.  Not his sister, per se -- but his dog, who was like a sister.  Actually, not a dog so much, as a pet fish.  I guess it wasn't really a fish -- but a video game character that he created, that was like a sister, named "Fish."  You know?  Capitalism, busted in one day while we were eating Cheetos and playing video games n' stuff, and like listening to Communist radio, I think -- and Capitalism like totally shot the place up.  Well, not really -- but, you know, virtually shot the place up -- in the video game.  It was totally awesome.  But so brutal, too.  So, like yeah.  You know, Fck Capitalism n' stuff.

Two little examples...I'm assuming you mean Jones and Oswald?

How about Pol Pot? He set up a prototypical Marxist-agrarian society, what were the results again of that government, was it the Khmer Rouge? Perhaps I read it wrong, and misunderstood the death tolls, the seizure of Cambodian citizens' property including means of transportation, the mandated forced labor in the fields, and any number of crimes against humanity that happened barely 35 years ago.

That's satire.

As I see it, a lot of this is about salesmanship and marketing. If those who are presenting Marxism as a better option for American society or a replacement for the "evil" capitalism want to deliver the punch line of the sales pitch, they'd better make sure any traces of the examples like Jones and Pol Pot and Stalin and Mao and all the rest are completely erased from the history books.

Oh wait, some are already trying that...hmmm.

Okay, then try to make the case that Pol Pot, or Stalin, or Mao, or Jones, or any of the other previous leaders who claimed to be governing societies under the tenets of Marxism were not REALLY Marxists, but rather were confused, despotic, psychopathic, or simply unaware of their self-identities when they called themselves Marxists and espoused the ideals of Marxism publicly.

Oh wait, that's being done too. Damn, strike 2.

Ok, well they can always try to get a hip young Gen Y author...oh, sorry, a "Millennial" to be more current and hip with the terminology...to get the audience currently "binge watching" last season's run of "Girls" episodes they've had saved on their DVR's for oh so long, to put down the bowl of Kashi cereal swimming in warm vanilla Soy Dream milk substitute and read a point-by-point list of suggestions that could be called "Marxism 101", unless those Gen Y Lena Dunham and bland grainy cereal loving folks have already taken that course in college when it was still called "History 101".

Oh damn, that's just been done too.

Well, at least they should be honest about mentioning the failures of actually putting into practice within socieites an ideology if they expect everyone to forgo their iPhones, iPads, Lena Dunham, Soy Dream milk substitute, and any other spoils of capitalism which they currently enjoy in favor of Marxist theory ruling the day.

Mention what happened with these devout Marxists like Pol Pot, Stalin, Jones, etc.

And in at least one state, mentioning Pol Pot might cause some of these millennials and college-age folks to at least raise an eyebrow out of the Kashi if only for hearing the word "Pot", whether or not many of them are aware it was an actual person.

Because ultimately the ways to sell people on a negative will run out, and the sales pitch will turn to the positives of what you're pitching as the replacement. And as long as people are clutching iPhones, driving their own choice of cars, and watching Lena Dunham on demand on any digital device, it could be *tricky* to sell them on the joys of agrarian labor and massive regulation and control from a centralized government, including seizure of property and forced, mandated transportation...as the most viable replacement to the system they're currently enjoying.

Just try it honestly.  :)

Just try what exactly? I just don't see what your point is here.

So there have been some dangerous Marxists in history? Sure. I've never argued that. Only I almost never take dictator's or ruler's supposed philosophies on face value since they always flaunt some line of bullshit. This has never ever been any different. But when Lee H Oswald and Jim Jones are held out there as alarming examples of some insidious strain of rampant Marxist/Socialist Satan-Bug, it's quite laughable. Lee H (allegedly) killed JFK 50 years ago and Jones killed/induced the suicide of his followers (with as healthy a dose of that time honored card that's handy for death and destruction: religion) 36 years ago! I mean, just look at all the Marxist/Socialist political assassins, murderous, Communist, cult leaders that quickly followed in their wake ..... er, wait ..... there really haven't been any ...... Meanwhile, how many people has the US killed in the name of the free market, keeping the military industrial complex fat and happy, and good old fashioned greed since Oswald and Jonestown? Shall I make a list? ... No, it's not necessary. We are perfectly safe here from Communism/Socialism/Marxism.

Look: we live in a Capitalist society. So, two puny, paranoid, drug addicted, confused, crazed, guys who weren't exactly hardcore right wing capitalists did a bit of damage several decades ago and both didn't even survive their own carnage. End of story.....

Hey, let's not forget Martin Luther King either! Who killed him? James Earl Ray: a right-wing, racist, redneck asshole. Am I sitting here yelling that he's descriptive of every right winger out there or Conservative philosophy in general? Absolutely not! That would be silly and insulting beyond words....

Oh, and just because people like iPhones and stuff, it doesn't mean they wouldn't rather they be made here instead of India. Life is full of contradictions but it's not necessary to just throw your hands up and accept something you don't agree with or that could be better. You don't have to hate/despise something to see how it could be improved. It's only healthy to strive for improvement all-around.

I'm all for improvement. But when the solution being offered to replace the current "bad" or "evil" capitalist system (in America specifically) has as checkered and as negative a recent past history as Marxism, at least those trying to sell a transition to the Marxist system need to be honest about its failings.

And most importantly, be upfront with the sacrifices and things people will be giving up that they currently enjoy in favor of the Marxist way of life.

It's easy to lecture to groups of college-age students on the joys of Marxism, and how "equal" and fair and everything else the society would be if we just willingly submit and change over to that system. It works in theory, therefore when it's actually applied to everyday life and the entire system is changed, it will work for everyone and in the name of the greater good, right? College students, high school students, etc...they're very gullible. They're easy to convince if a passing grade means buying in to a theory presented to them and on which they need to write a term paper to get a passing grade. Many of them are apolitical, therefore a "blank canvas" more willing to accept ideas when they're presented.

But the real test comes if and when they are asked point blank "What are you willing to give up in the name of Marxism?" should a situation arise where that becomes the way of life for them.

Ask the question: "What are YOU willing to give up?". Likewise, ask the question whenever the "pay your fair share" line gets thrown around, "What percentage is a fair share for YOU?". Then ask who determines what percentage YOU should be paying in if and when it's determined you're not pulling your own weight.

That is simple, basic, point-blank reasoning that anyone can understand. What are YOU willing to sacrifice in the name of the greater good.

And the results speak volumes. Which is exactly why the questions such as those are simply not asked, or even presented when these issues come up, in favor of selling on the negative that capitalism has gotta go...but in favor of what? And what will be sacrificed in order to do that?

Simple questions which don't get asked, or when presented to those selling Marxism and all its offshoots, a question which gets dodged and tap-danced around nearly every time it's raised.

And again, don't forget ol' Pol Pot. Or for that matter, Communist China in 2014. The Washington Post yesterday printed an article about Chinese journalists being targeted for various "re-education" methods once they've been critical of either the government or the government's policies...

...and, wait for it...the "re-education" is centered around Marxist theory and principles.

Big surprise, right?

2014. China. Washington Post. Freedom of journalists to write and express opinions calling for re-education in Marxist principles when they step out of line from the big centralized gov.

Big surprise indeed.

Don't strain too hard to see the point there. It all ties in. From 1963 to 1975 to 1978 to 1992 to 2013 and 2014 and beyond.

Again if someone wishes to sell the idea of abandoning the current capitalist model in favor of a theory which leads in 2014 to Chinese journalists being sent for Marxist "re-education" if they write opinions counter to the government's narrative, it's going to be an impossible sale. And rightfully so.

We don't want this.

Well put. I guess I just don't see there being any threat of Marxism on the horizon. Yes, college students will often read the work of Marx and toy in their heads with the idea and get into rambunctious intellectual debates at the campus coffee house, but then, just as you point out, they'll go back to their dorm and try and pick up chicks online with their Mac or iPhone. It's something people usually grow out of ..... But people will always try and fix problems they see in whatever system they live under.

Then again, asking "What would you give up for Marxism" is somewhat misleading. Another question would be "what would you give up to live in a society with a greater sense of community and common good"? I think many many people would be willing to give up an awful lot of the things we so enjoy but which are by-products, by and large, of our rather isolationist society. Like here in LA, most people would happily give up their cars if there was better public transportation and a greater sense of community rather than just spread out places where no one knows their neighbors. And in San Francisco (where I've lived) people are more than happy to give up both cars and owning a house in order to live in what feels more like a close-knit community and with little or no chain/corporate restaurants/shops...... Once again, nothing is as simple as the labels used to quantify and squash logical discussion.... And when I say "a society with a greater sense of community and common good" I don't mean a Marxist society and using the shortcomings of our present society as examples of things that could be improved, it is not simply bashing evil Capitalism and pimping for Marxism. Ideas are always welcome and necessary and the easy/lazy terms used to smack down ideas have no place in a society that hopes of moving forward.

I want to further address this silly Killing in the name of Capitalism  :lol  notion.  Cuz,I'm bored and find it so offensive.  Yes, I'm offended.  Frankly, this "thinking" is extremely dangerous.  The numbers are never researched and published -- but Capitalism has saved untold billions of lives.  And the opposite -- Statism -- has KILLED untold billions.  So, lies like this really need to be smacked around and humiliated.  Cauze that's what they deserve -- and all they're worth.  And I'm just the guy to do it.

(http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/.a/6a00d834515c5469e2019aff108679970b-pi)

Capitalism has helped human beings.  It has brought about the greatest advancement in the human condition, human dignity and liberty since the dawn of time. Capitalism unlocks the potential of the human spirit -- because it rewards it.  It recognizes that WE THE PEOPLE are the source of invention and innovation.  The source of dreams and the yearning for more and better.  That comes from PEOPLE.  That's an infinite well of progress.  Not Government regulation.  Or government dealing out "rations" they call "fairness."  All around you are the fruits of Capitalism.  It's individuals, pursuing dreams that results in human progress -- and Capitalism is the most supportive of that reality.

Following passions -- and creating things that other people enjoy.  Bettering all of humanity -- by UNLEASHING IT!!  Lifting us all up -- not by managing people and dividing up the rations -- that limits people.  Capitalism releases them to find it for themselves -- and rewarding them when they do.  Or even when someone else does.  We all advance!  The pie always grows, and people share.  JFK understood this.  Everyone does better with a Free Market.

People who say otherwise are either misinformed... or lying to you.

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3281/3032506878_07c1b353a5.jpg)

Statism is the opposite.  It can only contain people.  Manage them.  And succeeds in crushing them.  Iron fist.  Iron curtain.  Prison.  Statism can only take from the precious, dwindling few who have persevered in spite of the Statist -- until there are none left to take from.  It lies to the masses, that this theft will somehow be good for them.  Stealing from the rich man, they say, will better your condition.  Really?  How?  Even going so far as to say "its yours anyway, they got successful by taking it from you!"  Oh... wow.  Creepy.

What a lie.  What greed.  This theft hurts everyone... and only fattens the wallet of the theives, the Statist.  People who tell you otherwise are either misinformed... or lying to you.

(http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Clinton-Terry-McAuliffe-AP.jpg)


I earn money... you earn money.  And unlike them... we took it from no one.  And if we earn more money... the same will be true.  But people want to believe the Statist lie.  Because it appeals to people's greed.  "I want what that guy got." That's as much thought as people put into it.  So shallow.  So corrupt.  The masses are coerced by their greed and jealousy -- and the Statist rakes it in.  The lied-to-masses are left waiting for the dwindling stolen property to trickle down (trickle down...)  The rations, Obamacare -- Statism.  Good luck with that.

And while they wait -- they produce nothing.  Except dependency.  And anger... quickly diverted by the Statist towards the rich, business, something... anything!  Just keep them off your trail!! says the Statist handbook.

Take "global warming" (which is an absolutely hysterical extension of this "thinking").  Somehow, man's progress is bad  ::)  Industry is killing the planet.  The Earth, just another victim of man's progress.  We did this, with our success.  What a crock.  Let me guess, the solution is to take more loot?  This time from everybody, right?  Shocking.   ::)

Is this global warming?  No... it's Statism.  And it needs more money.

(http://parkhowell.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Polar-Bear.jpg)

It's Statism, not Capitalism, that will turn vibrant colors to gray -- an oasis into a desert -- and fields of abundance into wastelands.  Statism leaves nothing but carnage and ruin.  Detroit.  The Statist never gets blamed, because the Statists controls much of the media for Propaganda purposes, the schools for Conditioning purposes and of course, the Government.  There wasn't a Capitalist 100 miles anywhere near Detroit's government.  The Car Companies, held captive by the Statist's henchmen (unions) and their blood sucked dry.  Parasites.

(http://ce.cal.msu.edu/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/detroit-ruins.jpg)


Statists must always find a new host to bleed.  And find a way to shift blame for the destruction they leave behind -- and for all ther continued and predictable failings.  Take this thread topic, even.  A Marxist commie kills the JFK and, well... shucks, Pinder says... "well, Capitalism -- kills more."  It's as close as they ever get to admitting defeat.  So rejoice.

Bean, Terry McAuliffe and Bill Clinton's motorcade drove past where I was eating on Saturday night.

Hopefully, you flipped them the bird   ;D

 McAuliffe is a true prick.

Who the hell here is a "statist"?

You have a severe and painful lack of ideas, Bean.

Kicking around all your usual phantom enemies does not pass for intelligence or insight. I don't think you are capable of understanding the idea of making something better or more efficient. Just because I say "killing in the name of Capitalism" is does not mean I think Capitalism is evil or that Marxism is the way to go. Why don't you try THINKING for once and not just reacting and following your script just because it makes you feel big and bad? .... And "killing in the name of Capitalism" isn't some slogan on posters, it's just my own little term and it happens to be true. Of all people, YOU should be able to deal with it, accept it and still love Capitalism like I do! .... Things are complicated and messy and both work and don't work. That's life! Being a big crybaby whenever someone tries to understand the nuance in the details behind the little terms and definitions you bend over so happily for is the complete opposite of intelligent thinking. Putting up stupid pictures from a 5 second Google search is simply immature and stupid.... Roll over and go back to sleep until Obama is out of office or have something to bring to the conversation.

Yes, thank you!!  Seriously... policies/parties/and all the rest aside -- Americans usually pick the most agreeable person.  At least at the national level.  Obama more likable than Romney, more likable than McBain.  Bush more likable than Gore and what's his face, John Kerry.  Clinton more likable than Dole and Bush, the First.

But Terry McAuliffe?  He's the sh!t that you wipe off yer shoes -- and your friend asks "dude, what is that?"  And you exclaim, "I don't know!"  And your friend asks "does it smell?"  And you say, "dude, I don't know -- I'm not smelling it!"  And your friend replies "it kind of looks like that money bundler, the Clinton troll..."  And you say "Yeah... it does... Terry McAuliffe!  It's Terry McAuliffe!"  And your friend says "Dude, wipe it off... quick!  Wipe it off!!  You don't want to touch that stuff!!"  And you freak out "holy sh!t, it is!!  It's Terry McAuliffe!!  Sh!t!!!  What do I do!!!"  And your friend yells, "dude, throw your shoes away!!"  And you exclaim, "HOLY SH!T!!!"  And you run away, and head straight to the clinic for some tests.


Very bad, Virginia.  Very bad.

If we could only listen in on these conversations... what's being said?   :3d  

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2013/07/29/Interactivity/Images/CROP_McAuliffe__358_729.jpg)



(http://www.lifesitenews.com/images/sized/images/news/TerryMcAuliffeBillClintonWhispers-250px-240x198.jpg)