Posted On: Wednesday - November 22nd 2023 3:35PM MST
In Topics:   History  Pundits  Dead/Ex- Presidents
I was not aware of this important happening on November 22nd of 1963. Now, right at 6 decades later, I would not have been aware of the anniversary yet but for the Steve Sailer post from today noting that It Was 60 Years Ago Today.
I don't doubt Mr. Sailer's arithmetic. As far as the significance, I somewhat agree with his writing here:
In Boomer mythology, America changed between the assassination of JFK on 11/22/1963 and the Beatles’ appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show on 2/9/1964. Over the decades, I’ve come to believe that cliche is largely true.The Shea Stadium show would have been nice to have gone to, though I'd rather have had my ears blown out from big woofers playing Rush or Zeppelin than screaming female Beatles fans.
What I do doubt is the downplaying of anything off the (Warren Commission) narrative involving other players and conspiracies, as Mr. Sailer seems to. I claim no special knowledge of this assassination having only read part of one book (it got boring) and possibly having seen the Oliver Stone movie. (I really can't remember, so I'll check it out again and see.)
Another pivotal event from 2 generations later was 9/11, and as per our 2 y/a post At Peak Stupidity club, YOU! DO! NOT! TALK! ABOUT! 9/11!, I don't mind some comments about JFK - anywhere and anytime the reader would like - but I won't get into this too much.
In comparing these two events and the possible real stories, there seem to be two big parts to this type of speculation*: Motivations and the Details.
For the speculation on motivations, it's fairly easy to read up on the politics in order to come up with pretty good reasons that some other party or parties must have been involved. That's why I think most conspiracy theorists start from this side. "These people HAD to want him dead." or "These people would of course have wanted to blame the Moslem world for this huge attack." Lots of these theories make lots of sense.
As for speculation and calculations on the details, that's quite a bit more difficult. When it comes to the earlier event, JFK's assassination, this is not ridiculously difficult. It's about ballistics, fields of view, bullet impact(s) on the body, autopsy information, etc. About the most difficult thing is the problem of the amount of time that has gone by... after a time in which there weren't a whole lot of cameras around, and one could get away with a whole lot more, sight unseen, hence unrecorded.
As I wrote in the post about 9/11, the details on the airplane impacts and effects on the building structures are not something I know so much about, but there's one thing I am pretty confident on. That is how difficult if not impossible it is to model what went on, with high-velocity impact, fast-moving burning jet fuel, and all that. Additionally, of the one area I DO know a lot about, the aviation side, even one of the internet commentators I really like let me down on the subject at the very beginning of a long video on his theories. If he doesn't understand that part, how could I trust that he understands the rest of it? So, I don't know, and motivations alone don't make a case for me.
Back to this JFK assassination anniversary, and going back to motivations, here is my main reason for thinking over the last 60 years America has not been told the true story by the big media. There were just too many people or organizations that WOULD have a motivation to off that President! Maybe it was his understanding of sound money - my favorite explanation just because I care about that - that made him "not viable" as President. I have run into so many other reasons. Was it just the one Communist Lee Harvey Oswald that didn't like anti-Commies, as iSteve thinks? With all those other people with reasons to get him, if nothing else, they could have really "used" a dupe like that. In this case, I'll admit, I've only followed some of the details. I won't say I'm sure things didn't go down as advertised, because, as I wrote above, motivations are not enough. Still, there were a LOT of people motivated ...
Speaking of the Commies and the events of 60 years back today, Mr. Sailer included (from an 11 year ago TakiMag article of his) this excerpt from the widow:
When Jackie Kennedy learned the unwelcome truth, she lamented, “He didn’t even have the satisfaction of being killed for civil rights. It had to be some silly little communist. It robs his death of any meaning.”Wow, what a proto-Woke little ninny Jackie was 6 decades ago! I mean, Communism was THE big issue, problem, and worry back then. Being shot dead by a Communist was anything but silly in 1963. What an airhead, but, they say she was hot …
Maybe I got her all wrong. Was she upset that the assassination had the unfortunate effect of setting Civil Rights efforts forward 10 years? I'd have been.
We close with a comment by Alarmist in which I have added 4 lines. Going back to the Beatles, who weren't on the Ed Sullivan show till 59 3/4 years ago, I wouldn't be able to read Mr. Sailer's title without their A Day in the Life in my head:
🎶 It was sixty years ago today.
Lyndon Johnson told the band to play.
He was shot inside a half a mile.
Now convertibles are outta style….
So let me induce in you
some vomiting from all these fears
of Johnson and his ruin-America plaaaaaan.🎶
Any improvement will be welcomed.
* A third one could be the trust, or lack thereof, of Americans in the ability/desire of the media of the time to even make a serious effort to delve into other possibilities. That had plunged a lot already from 1963 to 2001. Now, only 22 years further on? People would be less ignorant without the Lyin Press.