[ Sunday, November 23, 2003 ]
I thought it about time I threw my two cents in on the Kennedy thing. What's missing in most of the "analysis" is a link to the present time and space.
I was eleven when it came down with Kennedy.
I remember my dad cursing and running out to the office.
And coming home real late that night.
It was only a few years later that the first of the conspiracy films came out.
I think the first one I saw was at UNH (University of New Hampshire, Durham) sometime in the mid seventies.
The film, shown at the student union, caused quite a stir.
But I was determinedly staying away from real life and current events back then.
As was fashionable at the time, I remember talking with friends about how silly the official version of events sounded after seeing the Zabruder film. We "hippies" just took it for granted that our government was lying to us. What surprised us was how unwilling the average person seemed to be to challenge the official Warren report.
Now,(my wife and soul mate) Jen and I are working our way through the History Channels' series of conspiracy theories. What we've noticed right away is that the stories, though separate, are not mutually exclusive. Taken TOGETHER, they paint a picture different than that which is described by each one separately. The "back story" so to speak.
This "back story" would read as a consistant thread with the rise of the American "far right" following the Great Depression. Though I personally have never put the pieces quite together this way before, (Jen and I work so well together, much better than just me alone) a scenario of "north vs south" comes into view.
The "north", or northern industrial establishment, was well aquainted with the Kennedys; papa Joe was certainly one of their own, the boys (jack, bobby, teddy) were bred and raised to do exactly what they did; Joe meant his sons to be influential American players, and that's what they became. The Kennedys were a passable bridge between old New England money and the new industrial wealth, known often simply as the East Coast Mafia.
The "south" or southern politcal establishment is usually known simply as "the good old boys network". All white, protestant and conservative, these "Confederates" created the American oil business out of the wreckage of the Texas boom and bust of the forties. The development of the Gulf of Mexico is their trophy, created wholly by and for the "new confederacy". Until Kennedy, they were known as conservative shithead Southern Democrats, as different philosophically from New England or northern plains Democrats as corn to barley.
BANG. Kennedy goes down, Johnson (Democrat) become president, and , without the support of those well-connected New England mafiosi, Johnson withers on the vine and sinks away into obscurity. Nixon's ascendancy, supported by the dons in the northeast and financed by the ten-gallon hat-men of the south, sealed the wedding of the "new confederacy" and the northeast mafias with the Republican party.
The northern establishment, in total disarray, is left with the shards of the Democratic party; the mafias easily expanded their existing influence into that vacuum, where they remain to this day.
Now, with the '04 election coming up, the battle is starting to play out in a classic North vs South model.
It could be fought and won that way, which is why the repubs soft pedal "rebel confederate" dissent so quickly.
This "new confederacy" as I call it handily coincides with the member list of out Project for the New American Century.
Made up largly of southern oil men, what have they now done?
What they know best, of course. They've gone out and found themselves some OIL!
Now with a third of the globe's petroleum reserves, the world's strongest military (and the lion's share of what's left of America's industrial might) in their hot little hands, they literally have all the resources they need to dominate the rest of the world.
How can we expect this "new confederacy" to run this election?
As mean, nasty and crooked as possible.
What becomes obvious, is that the (remnants of the) Democratic party are smaller, weaker, and less focussed than the repubs. So weak, corrupted and out-of-touch has it become that it alone can do nothing. As it sits, it is a dying institution. So weak and corrupted say I, that it must have been co-opted by republican spies and operatives years ago. Are the northern mafias and industrialites together that incompetent? I think not. As clutzy as these gangs are, the actions of the Democratic party since the Kennedy assassination have been SO BAD that logic alone would dictate enemy sedition.
The only hope for the party would be for everyone NOT a Bush supporter to band together and take over the election. THEN, take over the party. There is not time to take over the party first.
If the people manage to take this election from the "new confederates", then re-arrangeing the Democratic party should be a snap.
gonzoliberal [3:04 PM]