Rethinking Camelot & "rough justice" : two wrongs ≠ a right

Or in this case: multiple  wrongs do not make something right.

"Rethinking Camelot is a thorough analysis of John F. Kennedy's role in the U.S. invasion of Vietnam and a probing reflection on the elite political culture that allowed and encouraged the Cold War. In it, Chomsky dismisses effort to resurrect Camelot—an attractive American myth portraying JFK as a shining knight promising peace, fooled only by assassins bent on stopping this lone hero who would have unilaterally withdrawn from Vietnam had he lived. Chomsky argues that U.S. institutions and political culture, not individual presidents, are the key to understanding U.S. behavior during [the] Vietnam [War]."
-https://www.haymarketbooks.org/books/629-rethinking-camelot

Let's assume Chomsky's analysis is correct and that he has no agenda of his own in writing this book. What justifies these intell!gence agencies operating with no oversight, no accountability, and no mercy? Even if we assume JFK was as much a warhawk as those before and after, which is possible, how does that absolve these agencies from their sins? Also, how does it change the litany of people who did not like Kennedy and benefited from his absence?

NOTE: After this episode, content like this will live on my new, upcoming podcast, the con-sara-cy theories.

Links:

https://www.amazon.com/Crossfire-Plot-That-Killed-Kennedy/dp/0465031803

https://www.buzzsprout.com/1125110/13979216

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jamiekirchick/seymour-hersh-assassination-of-jfk-was-form-of-l-55m2

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/97/11/30/reviews/971130.30powerst.html?module=inline

https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/galbraith-exit-strategy-vietnam/

https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/chomsky-galbraith-letters-vietnam-jfk-kennedy/

Links where I can be found: https://causeyconsultingllc.com/2023/01/30/updates-housekeeping/

Need more? Email me: https://causeyconsultingllc.com/contact-causey/ 

Transcript

Transcription by Otter.ai.  Please forgive the typos!

Welcome to the Causey Consulting Podcast. You can find us online anytime at CauseyConsultingLLC.com. And now, here's your host, Sara Causey. 

Hello, Hello, and thanks for tuning in. I had to really stop and think, sit and chew, if you will, on how I wanted to tackle today's episode, because I recently read Noam Chomsky, his book rethinking Camelot. And I knew immediately as soon as I finished the book that I wanted to make an episode about it. I just wasn't exactly sure how to get my arms around everything that I wanted to say. The book is similar in its own way to Seymour Hersh, his book, The Dark Side of Camelot, except that Hirsch's book gets more into the the salacious, the lubricious, and no offense to anybody, but I don't really care about what JFK was doing with his genitals. That doesn't affect my life at all. I tend to just naturally assume, I guess, maybe I'm cynical, but I tend to just naturally assume that politicians and rich, wealthy dudes that are attractive, and rock stars, actors and actresses, Hollywood producers, really anybody of that ilk is probably highly sexually active. I don't, I don't tend to worry that much about what they're doing with their private areas. I don't care. Chomsky, his focus is on JFK is policies in Vietnam. And the backdrop to this is that Oliver Stone, in in the film, JFK is presenting one possible narrative that JFK wanted to withdraw from Vietnam. And this created a reason for the Pop Pop. I would argue there are multiple reasons for the pop pop. And there are multiple factions and groups of people that benefited from the Pop Pop. It's a little bit like, if you start to look at all of the different people that did not like Kennedy, whether you're talking about people that just didn't like him, or you're talking about people that actively hated his guts, is sort of like stand in line over there and form an orderly queue. Oh, and by the way, that line is going to wrap around the block several times. When you look at the the groups of people that benefited from his simply not being around anymore. It's the same thing. Start a line over there, and it's going to wrap around the block multiple times. I'm not really going to bury my thesis here. Whether JFK his plan was to withdraw from Vietnam, or it wasn't. That doesn't change the absolute boatload of people who did not like him, and who benefited from his not being around anymore. To illustrate the point, I'm going to yet again read from the table of contents from Jim Marrs his book, crossfire. Part two of this book is titled means motives and opportunities. And as of this recording, I'm still working my way through this book, it is quite a tome, it could very easily be considered a sort of Bible. In regards to the JFK Pop Pop. It is quite voluminous. But Part Two is means motives and opportunities. And he just goes through different people and groups of people that had something to gain that would have liked the cops do means motives and opportunities when they're assessing who might have killed somebody else. In this we read Lee Harvey Oswald, Russians, Cubans, mobsters, agents, meaning the Charlie India alpha and other intelligence agencies, G men meaning the Foxtrot Bravo India and the Secret Service, rednecks and oilman aka right wing extremists and Texas millionaires. And soldiers, aka the military industrial complex. Yeah, so when I see these these books that are like, well, we're going to pick apart one particular detail from Jim Garrison's investigation or we're going to pick apart one particular detail from Oliver Stone's film. It's kind of like Dan, so what's your point? How does that dismiss all of the other evidence? How does that dismiss a pretty clear cover up to keep the truth from the American people? Just long pause there so you can contemplate that for yourself because I just I feel like there's a reason why people try to throw sand in the question and It typically is not for the benefit of John and Jane Q public. So in this book, the focus is about JFK A's political policies, with Vietnam not being what Oliver Stone presents them to be in the movie. From the write up on Haymarket books we read rethinking Camelot is a thorough analysis of John F. Kennedy's role in the US invasion of Vietnam, and a probing reflection on the elite political culture that allowed and encouraged the Cold War. In it. Chomsky dismisses effort to resurrect Camelot and attractive American myth portraying JFK as a shining Knight promising piece, fooled only by assassins bent on stopping this lone hero, who would have unilaterally withdrawn from Vietnam had he lived. Chomsky argues that US institutions and political culture, not individual presidents are the key to understanding us behavior during the Vietnam War and quote, in terms of dismissing the American myth, around Camelot, I'm with it, I'm about it, or an American myth, portraying JFK as a shining Knight, that somehow he was going to be this lone hero, this lone beacon of peace, and hope and love, like had he lived? Had he been elected to a second term, we would all be now now living in Utopia, there would have been no more warfare, no more famine, the lion would have laid down with the lamb and all would have been well, no, I don't believe any of that. In fact, I'm going to go back and revisit my my exact commentary on this from the episode JFK revisited. Because I told you, then it's not about lionizing any politician and it's not about glorifying Camelot. So I'm going to play that for you now. Now, I want to be clear in why I'm bringing all of this up, because there are some people that I allies, various and sundry politicians. I don't it does not matter to me, elephant or donkey red or blue. II Toki show I don't care. It's not for me about oh, Camelot. The closest thing to American royalty we've ever had, oh, this dynasty. Oh, here's this president and he was young and good looking. And he had a beautiful family and oh, he was cut down in his prime and oh, he was he was going to be the best person ever. That That family has had more than its fair share of scandals. So no, I don't I don't lie in eyes, the family or JFK either one. Chappaquiddick Case in point, Joseph Kennedy, if you care to read about him as a patriarch of this group, you'll find anti semitism, you'll find bigotry, you'll find him promoting fascism as a cure for communism, trying to appease Hitler with money and wanting to meet Hitler. I mean, there are a lot of problematic deeply problematic things there. And the minute that you say someone was a Nazi sympathizer, I'm just I'm done. I just want to get as far away from that ideology as possible, because I believe that kind of philosophy is so particularly corrosive to the soul. The things that it does to people, the way that it warps the mind. It's really terrible. Because essentially, what it does is, is it's one person saying, My group is superior to everyone else, or my group is the superpower. Everybody else is inferior to us, therefore, they're subhuman. Therefore, we can do whatever we want to them. That is very, very scary. Then you add to that JFK himself had a romance with Inga our VOD, who was a guest of Adolf Hitler who whom Hitler idolized and just thought that she was this most beautiful Aryan perfection woman. Nope, nope, nope. To me, this is not about I want to talk about the pop pop. And I want to talk about the cover ups and all of this because I want to promote that JFK was or would have been the greatest president ever for all times. And I think sometimes that these documentaries about the pop pop and about the cover ups get into this hero worship, and that's not something I want to do. For me. It's not about oh, Camelot. Oh, this man. It's about look at how powerful the powers that be. truly are.

There's a commentator in Oliver Stone's film in this JFK revisited film Who says if they can do this to a sitting president in broad daylight, they're sending a message and that includes sending a message to the American media that you're going to fall in line. And as I was watching him like Yeah, hello, hi. If they can do this in broad daylight and then cover it all up and gaslight everybody and try to convince people you didn't see what you thought you saw, we're going to come up with these photos that appeared to be like primitively photoshopped of Oswald. We're going to try to convince you that a bullet zigzag around the car like a bumblebee. Oh, and then we're also going to dispute the doctors. There's another documentary you can watch on Paramount plus, it's called JFK what the doctor saw. I also watched that, and it's quite clear that they were strong armed. In fact, there's an interviewee in this documentary who talks about like, I can't remember if it was one of the doctors or the coroner who was picked up he was physically picked up and manhandled, allegedly by a Secret Service agent and told like we're in charge here. You either get the hell out of our way, or we're gonna have a problem, Powell. If the powers that be can do all of this to a sitting president, this oh, this golden idol from Camelot, what in the hell else are they doing? As I said, before, this is not about lionizing anybody or let's try to go back and canonize Kennedy for the sainthood now that he's gone. Let's just assume. And I'm not saying that I believe this or that I've bought into it wholesale. I don't want to get hate mail here. I'm just trying to play devil's advocate for the sake of argument. Let's assume that Chomsky analysis is correct. And that he has no agenda of his own in writing this book. And as well as that he's not promoting somebody else's agenda, that he's not being, let's say paid or arm twisted in some way to promote somebody else's agenda in writing this book. It's clean, it's fair, it's all aboveboard. What justifies these intelligence agencies to operate with no oversight, no accountability, and no mercy? Even if we assume that JFK was as much of a war hawk as those before and after, which is one of the assertions that Chomsky makes in this book, because he talks about how there's not really or there would not have been a difference, like had Kennedy lived, there would not have been a difference between his policies versus like an Eisenhower or Johnson or Nixon. So let's assume that's true. Let's assume that JFK was was and was going to be as much a war hawk as those before and after, which is totally possible. How does that absolve these other agencies from their sins? And then also, how does it change the litany of people who did not like Kennedy? And who benefited from his absence? Who's still yet even if we take the Vietnam question completely off the table, which I think is what Chomsky is driving at. It's as if to say, Well, okay, According to Oliver Stone's movie, JFK was going to call off Vietnam, and the military industrial complex didn't like that. So therefore, they had him pop popped, but none of that's true, and it doesn't hold water. Okay. All right. Fair enough. How does that absolve any anybody else that was involved? How does that take away these other suspects that don't have anything to do with the military industrial complex and didn't give a shit about Vietnam? To me something here is not holding water. Something seems fishy about this to me. And I, I put it in a similar category to see more Hirsch's book. There was an article that appeared in Buzzfeed News, naturally, I'll drop a link, please check it out for yourself. It appeared in Buzzfeed News and was posted on April 11 of 2012. And it's a little bit hard to read. I'm going to be honest with you even for somebody like me, who doesn't lionize any politician. I don't give a crap what political party they're part of. In my mind, the higher the food chain you go, the worse they stink. It's hard even for me to read it because I'm like, damn, just putting it all out there on Front Street. I guess. The title is Seymour Hersh, pop pop of JFK was form of justice. And in the byline we read I just didn't have the guts to put in writing what I came to believe was an inevitable conclusion he wrote, and it is about a reader named Albert Elio toe, who wrote a letter to Hirsch in response to his book The Dark Side of Camelot. And the the reader asks Hirsch, if your portraits of John Robert Kennedy are essentially accurate given the emphasis on plotting. Do you see any moral difference between the Kennedys and Oswald and Serhan and her Strikes Back to the morality of JFK in comparison with Oswald and or Serhan are obvious questions. Now they have a picture of the full response from February 16 1998. That Seymour Hersh gave to this Mr. Alioto. I'll read that letter. You're right in believing if that's what your letter suggested that there might have been some justice. One reviewer wrote rough justice, in John F. Kennedy's terrible death by pop pop a means he had sought to end Fidel Castro's life. I had enough trouble getting through the reviews and press comments on my book. And it's very unpopular conclusions about Kennedy's presidency without getting into the issue you raised. And it's obvious questions about the morality of JFK and comparison with Oswald and or Serhan. I just didn't have the guts to put in writing what I came to believe as you do was an inevitable conclusion. Then he invites him to have any other thoughts or further information, and an address he provides. So there you go, I think I think for me, Chomsky book smacks of that same attitude. Yeah, there's justice. It's rough justice. And it was terrible. But you know, I mean, shit. Maybe the guy hadn't come and you find that same sort of attitude in Chomsky book. I mean, the beginning section is really like, it's terribly depressing, though. Not surprising, because it's like, let's talk about the history of a variety of American presidents in genocide in pop pops and coup de tos and toppling governments and subjugating other populations. And it's almost as if to say like, here's this history of every American president being a complete Nutter bastard. And so what makes you think Kennedy was any different? And I look, I get that. I get that if you're if you're coming to me and saying, We shouldn't lionize any politician, they're all a bunch of corrupt idiots. Well, idiots I would disagree with but corrupt. Not very nice, not ethical people. Yeah, sure, man. I'm on board with that. What I'm not on board with here is the cover up the lying. People need to understand that we're being controlled by these agencies. And they're their puppet politicians that really don't get elected. When you think about these people in halls of power. Nobody's voting for them. Nobody knows who they are and what they stand for. Everything's cloak and dagger and in the shadows, and then you come to understand those are the people that are actually controlling the way that you live your life every day. I think people have a right to know that and they should know that they should understand that instead of going back to tick tock and worrying about who Taylor Swift is dating today. This is the kind of stuff people should care about, yet trying to get them motivated to understand it. It's a completely different issue. There was a review written for the New York Times dated November 30 1997. Title is the sins of a president. The byline is a reporter catalogs John F. Kennedy's every offense against women, America and apple pie, which Yeah, that pretty much seems to be a fairly good if you want a one liner about Seymour Hersh his book, that definitely seems to be it. In the final paragraph of this review, we read the world may not have known for years, just how much of himself Kennedy gave to other lovers, but she did meaning Jackie, and that is hard to contemplate. Still harder to contemplate is the image of the murdered man saying okay to murder. If Hirsch is right than what we went through on November 22 1963, is exactly what Kennedy planned for Cuba. But if it's not true, if Kennedy had nothing to do with planning the death of Castro, if the Charlie India Alpha was off on its own, if Hirsch's witnesses were all lying or can be dismissed or just ignored, than we need, never ask ourselves if the President's death represents a rough kind of justice in quote. So that's, that, I think, is also a part of what we're seeing here with Chomsky, detailing a wide variety of Sins of these American presidents, some of which, you know, long long predate Kennedy. This idea that we find from the book of Matthew, in the Christian Bible, where Jesus makes the comment, if you draw the sword, you will die by the sword. If somebody lives a life of violence, if they if they perpetrate violence themselves if they advocate others to perpetrate violence, then they're probably going to meet a violent in themselves.

So let's just assume that that's true. Let let's assume that. In fact, you know what, let's just go full tilt on this because I think that'll that'll get us to where we want to go faster. Let's assume that this guy was just awful. Let's just straight up drag the guy. Again, I'm not saying that this is true. I'm not saying that all of this is accurate. I'm just for the sake of playing devil's advocate and making the argument here that just ride along with me for a moment. Let's let's just assume this guy was a straight up bastard, a cold hearted, awful, terrible baster. And any negative thing you've ever read about him, any negative thing you've ever heard about him is 100%. True, and there is nothing positive that we can say for the sumbitch he was just flat out awful. Let's assume that to be the case. Does that mean that we're not supposed to know the truth about the Pop Pop? I go back to what I've said before in relation to the mainstream media, and its reporting on the economy and the job market. Hush little baby, sit down, shut up. Don't ask any questions, if we tell you that the unemployment rate is still mysteriously miraculously below 4% that there are two open jobs for every one unemployed person, although I think now they're saying it's 1.3 open jobs for every one unemployed person. You sit down, you shut the f up. And you don't question it. You just go along with it. Now in private, we're going to quietly revise the job market numbers. So that historically, it looks like we were being accurate wink wink, nudge nudge, but out in the media and on our paid social media shills, we're going to tell you that everything's fine, fine, just fine. And if you're having difficulty finding another job, well, you've got nobody to blame but yourself. When we cannot count on these people to tell us the truth, when we are beholden to these corporate overlords and these intelligence agencies and a variety of other hyper elites that we never voted for, we never willingly submitted to. It changes the picture entirely. You have the illusion of freedom, but you don't have real freedom. For me, these are huge components of this pop pop story. To return specifically to Chomsky, his point about Vietnam. In the Boston review, there was an article published by James Galbraith on September 1 2003, titled exit strategy. In 1963, JFK ordered a complete withdrawal from Vietnam. In this he asked the question, Did John F Kennedy give the order to withdraw from Vietnam? Certainly most Vietnam historians have said no, or would have if they considered the question worth posing. They have asserted continuity between Kennedy's policy and Lyndon Johnson's while usually claiming that neither President liked the war, and also that Kennedy especially had expressed to friends his desire to get out sometime after the 1964 election, the view that Kennedy would have done what Johnson did stay in Vietnam and gradually escalate the war in 1964 and 1965. is held by left center and right from Noam Chomsky to Kai bird to William Gibbons. It was promoted forcefully over the years by the late Walt Rostow beginning in 1967, with a thick compilation for Johnson himself of Kennedy's public statements on Vietnam policy and continuing into the 1990s. Givens three volumes study states that this way, on November 26 1963, Johnson approved national security action memorandum 273, reaffirming the US commitment to Vietnam and the continuation of Vietnam programs and policies of the Kennedy administration and quote, when we scroll down a little bit more, we find all this and more is in spite of evidence to the contrary advanced over the years by a tiny handful of authors in 1972. Peter Dale Scott first made the case that Johnson's NSA M 273. The document that Gibbons relied on in making the case for continuity was in fact a departure from Kennedy's policy. His essay appeared in Gravelle edition of the Pentagon Papers, Arthur Schlesinger's, Robert Kennedy, and his times tells in a few tantalizing pages of the first application in October 1963 of Kennedy's phased withdrawal plan and quote, now, in fairness to the argument, Noam Chomsky did write a response to this on December 1 of 2003. To sort of rebut what Galbraith is saying, in this, he writes, no one even JFK himself could have known how he would react to the radically changed assessments of the military political situation immediately after the Pop Pop. It is conceivable that he might for the first time have made decisions to counter counter to those of his closest associates and advisers and chosen to withdraw or perhaps escalate more sharply. There is however, no hint in the record that he can't unplated withdraw without victory as we discover when we fill in the crucial blanks and Galbraith's account, as is done in the extensive literature to which he refers while evading its evidentiary base and adding nothing of particular relevance. Kennedy Johnson State Department official LINCOLN GORDON, later President of Johns Hopkins University once warned against Camelot mythmaking, an observation that merits some reflection in quote. And I agree on the whole idea of mythologizing any president mythos mythologizing Camelot and trying to play pretend that if the Pop Pop hadn't happened, we would all be living in Utopia. I'm there 100% on that. Something that I find interesting. In Chomsky, his book, something that I in particular highlighted that I wanted to make sure to point out in this episode, he writes, Camelot became a favorite image of liberal intellectuals entranced by the years of glory cut short, cruelly by the pop pop of JFK, just at the time when he was about to go on to marvelous achievements, murdered for that reason, according to many admirers, this book is concerned only with what actually happened, which accords poorly with the legend. It touches on the popup only obliquely, taking no stand on the culprits except negatively. The evidence is overwhelming that it was not a high level plot with significant policy consequences. Okay, but wait a minute, because in the next line, he says the main focus here is on Vietnam, a core part of the Camelot myth is that Kennedy was planning to end the war. Maybe maybe not. Is that I mean, now, all of these years later, is that still a core part of the Camelot myth? I don't know. I don't know. Maybe at the time, when Oliver Stones film came out, and that was an important component of the film, maybe. So maybe, maybe that was something in particular that people opposed to any sorts of conspiracy theories really wanted to, to eliminate that as a possibility. But you're losing me here. Because you're saying, we're not going to talk about the pop up. The whole point of this book is to cover what really was going on with JFK is Vietnam policies. But then at the same time, Noam Chomsky is throwing in this line about there's overwhelming evidence that it was not a high level plot with significant policy consequences. The hell it wasn't where that where is that coming from? If this book really had no further agenda, then why comment on the popup at all? And then why? By any means, would you say? The evidence is overwhelming that it was not a high level plot with significant policy consequences? Why does it just come right out and say, You need to believe sit down, shut up, little baby, you need to believe that LH o was in that Book Depository with a crappy mail order Boomstick. And he did it all by himself? Like I mean, why would why would you? Why would you need to throw any of that in if sincerely this book is only about, I don't want people to add to the Camelot myth by thinking that JFK was going to withdraw troops from Vietnam. Why would you need to mention that at all? That feels fishy to me. Towards the end of the book, he

draws an analogy, which is pretty interesting between JFK and Ronald Reagan, which you you wouldn't necessarily on the face of it put those two together. But I did think that that was interesting. Towards the end of the book, he writes without proceeding any further, it is not easy to make a case that JFK represented some departure from the norm of business rule. In fact, there are striking resemblances between the Kennedy and Reagan administration's both came into office with impassioned denunciation of the wimps and power who were presiding over America's decline. While the evil empire pursued its implacable course towards world conquest. Both were full of belligerence, sort of looking for a chance to prove their muscle. Chester Bowles on JFK warned the country that the complacent and the self indulgent, the soft societies are about to be swept away with the debris of history, only the strong can possibly survive. Both were enthusiastic innovators in the art of international the T word and state, the T word both launched huge military buildups on fraudulent pre tax with a traditional twin aims of using their muscle abroad and extending the taxpayer subsidy to high tech industry both initiated regressive fiscal programs for the benefit of investors. In both cases, corporate and financial sectors called for limits on these Keynesian excesses. Rhetoric became more muted and conciliatory and military spending leveled, though in the Kennedy Johnson case Vietnam intervened in quote, interesting comparison there If I come back to where I started with this even if we assume that every negative thing is even if you really want to get into the salacious stuff about who he was sleeping with, and I was a philanderer, he was an adulterer. And isn't that terrible? If you if you want to believe every single negative thing that's ever been written or ever been spoken about JFK, and even if you believe in this rough justice idea, well, if he was planning to pop pop Castro, then he just got a taste of his own medicine that day. Let let us assume all of that's true. I'm not willing to walk away from the notion that the truth has been kept from us. I recently also read the book Oswald and the Charlie India alpha. And there's a pretty thick stack of documents at the back of that book that had been declassified back in the 90s, I think. And it becomes clear that this, this notion that the intelligence agencies, they just didn't know anything about Oswald, he just wasn't on the radar. for them. It was like he was some kind of phantom he just popped up from whereabouts unknown and suddenly did this horrible deed. It's clear, when you read that book, that there's no way that argument holds water, there's just simply no way that these intelligence agencies had no idea who Oswald was. You can't you can't get away from the fact that this situation stinks to high heaven. Even if you don't like JFK, if you think every negative thing about the guy that's ever been said or done is true, and that he was just the worst bastard in all of human history. Okay. Maybe you feel like whatever he got that day was justified as some form of rough justice. What's the need to cover it up? Especially after all of these years? Why why do we still not have a very clear picture of what happened that day? You have the House Select Committee on pop pops? And yeah, I mean, there was a second popper that day, there's clear evidence that there was a conspiracy, but we're not going to probe any further. And really, from an official capacity, nobody ever has these presidents come up there and they say they're going to declassify these documents and we're really going to learn the truth. And then nothing ever really happens. Things are just redacted to a point where you can't even tell what you're reading anymore. I think people that are are hoping for some massive paper drop, that's going to be like a massive of a massive mic drop where it's like, boom, here it is. I'm not convinced that's going to happen in my lifetime. Now, as I said on the episode that I recorded about dag hammer sholde and talking about Daphne Park and the admission about Lumumba we did it Yeah, we did it. I stand by my prediction that that very well could happen with the JFK Pop Pop. I don't know that that will happen within my lifetime. But maybe later on down the road, you will have an intelligence agency that comes out and says yeah, you know what that was us. And what are you going to do about it? Not a damn thing. Go back to sleep go back on tick tock, go back and virtual reality. Go play, go play outside little peon. So whether we, whether we want to go down the road with Seymour Hersh have sex scandals and tawdry bedroom behavior, or whether we want to look at Noam Chomsky saying we need to rethink Camelot because JFK was not gonna withdraw from Vietnam. Okay. Okay, fair enough. Let's assume that that is true. I think I honestly think there's evidence to show it either way. But let's assume that Noam Chomsky is correct. That does not absolve intelligence agencies, especially if they went rogue if they were doing things that the President didn't even know that they were doing. And it doesn't excuse a cover up. It doesn't excuse making up lies setting up a patsy and then telling everybody you need to believe this official narrative, or you're going to be a problem for us. Jim Marrs also in his book provides a list of quote, convenient deaths of people who knew something people who witnessed something that are just simply not around anymore, and some of them died under very weird circumstances. I mean, there was a guy that got killed by a karate chop. That is so weird. Oh, every day I just opened the newspaper and somebody's died via karate chop. You can't turn on the national news without hearings. Me died of a karate chop. There are a lot of weird effed up jacked up things around this whole situation. So even if we're saying that Kennedy was not a knight in shining armor, which he wasn't no human being is we're saying he's not a knight in shining armor. The point I want to make in this broadcast is, I believe there are so lasting ramifications from the pop pop as well as the various other eliminations that happened during the 1960s. I've said before my pet theory is that that really marked a point in US history where it's like you're you're gonna go along to get along, you're gonna follow the official narrative, you're gonna get in lockstep with the people that really run this country or you're just not going to be here anymore. So it almost like okay, if we want to talk about how he wasn't going to withdraw from Vietnam or how he was going to withdraw from Vietnam and all this doesn't matter. Either way, there's still clearly a cover up. There's still a lot of deception going on here. And I think people deserve to know the truth. It's my two cents. Stay safe, stay sane, and I will see you on the next episode.

Thanks for tuning in. If you enjoyed this episode, please take a quick second to subscribe to this podcast and share it with your friends. We'll see you next time.