Nope. I propose only one theory which includes many subterfuges which are as the Donald Sutherland character in the movies says. -Black Ops and Plausible Deniability. I know the game well, you won't read and want to think NOVA has something new to offer. I saw a similar new presentation which I consider laughable on TV about a year ago. You can make a lot of money doing this stuff.
But it is true I identify the real culprits and propose corrective action which dovetail with what JFK was going to do. You do not need an education - especially not to earn money or get a job. Your point about a good citizen is correct - but no school even begins to approach doing that until late in a Master's Program.
We are not taught to think and our teachers are not taught anything but testing. See Kaoru Yamamoto in the Kuiper's Social Science Encyclopedia - put his name in your browser along with mine and you'll probably find an article called The Testing Industry.
Can you demonstrate you have read anything I presented? Maybe you could tell me who I identify as the culprits in charge. Who confessed on behalf of the military? Why was it done? Not the hide the ball theories but the actual players. Hide the Ball is what you are caught up in.
Here is Chomsky from JFKs neck of the woods and era. He makes a great point about education and politics which VERY few people grasp and you will almost never see a documentary or media coverage about.
McCarthyism and America's Backing of the USSR
The technocrats or courtesans of Jesuit corporate trade empire in the Americas were to become the cause of internecine Catholic battles and the disbanding of their Order on more than one occasion. Weishaupt formed the Bavarian Illuminati during one of these periods of disagreement. He had founding fathers including St. Germain (De Medicis), Goethe, William of Hesse who is related to Lord Mountbatten's family, and Mayer Amschel Rothschild who was working with Professor Oppenheim and who I think is of the family Oppenheimer. They are said to be Merovingian but I did not know much about that matter at this point in my life. John Oppenheimer and I became close friends and he wished to have me manage his south London printing company in the early 80s as the Common Market was about to flourish. The developer of the atom bomb was his cousin and we had a most interesting lunch at the Admiralty Club as my voice was heard to echo and the patrons mouths did drop, as I said Russia was a victim and there was no need of armaments or defenses if truth be known. This was before the Berlin Wall came down and I did explain the economic reasons for my position which I now know was fact a lot more than I was aware at that point in time.
BAKUNIN AND JEFFERSON:
There are many ways I can illustrate that Stalin was the CEO of Russia on behalf of the international financiers that include Lord Rothschild who told the Czar he would do what he did. Stalin was a Catholic trained seminarian. Here is Noam Chomsky making a most important connection.
Politics has become something totally absurd. We see Mr. Chomsky makes a good case for something quite the opposite of what people call democracy, being in fact, social engineering by elites.
"A similar move from Stalinist commissar to celebration of America is quite standard in modern history, and it doesn't require much of a shift in values, just a shift in judgment as to where power lies.
Independently of Jefferson and Bakunin, others were coming to the same understanding in the nineteenth century. One of the leading American intellectuals was Charles Francis Adams, who in 1880 described the rise of what is now called the "post-industrial society" by Daniel Bell and Robert Reich and John Kenneth Galbraith and others. This is 1880, remember. A society in which, Adams says, 'the future is in the hands of our universities, our schools, our specialists, our scientific men and our writers and those who do the actual work of management in the ideological and economic institutions.' Nowadays they're called the "technocratic elite" and the "action intellectuals" or the new class or some other similar term. Adams, back in 1880, concluded that 'the first object of thinking citizens, therefore, should be not to keep one or another political party in power, but to insist on order and submission to law.' Meaning that the elites should be permitted to function in what's called "technocratic isolation," by the World Bank -- I'm being a little anachronistic here, that's modern lingo -- or, as the London Economist puts the idea today, 'policy should be insulated from politics.' That's the case in free Poland, they assure their readers, so they don't have to be concerned about the fact that people are calling for something quite different in free elections. They can do what they like in the elections, but since policy is insulated from politics and technocratic insulation proceeds, it really doesn't matter. That's democracy.
A decade earlier, in 1870, Adams had warned -- they were worried then about universal suffrage, people were fighting for the right to vote -- he warned that universal suffrage would 'bring the government of ignorance and vice, with power in the hands of the European and especially Celtic proletariat on the Atlantic coast,' those horrible Irish people, 'an African proletariat on the shores of the Gulf and a Chinese proletariat on the Pacific.' Adams didn't foresee the sophisticated techniques that would be developed in the twentieth century to ensure that policy remains insulated from politics as the franchise was extended through popular struggle and to guarantee that the general public would remain marginalised and disaffected, subdued by the new spirit of the age and coming to see themselves not as free people who have a right to dignity and independence but as atoms of consumption who sell themselves on the labour market, at least when they're lucky.
Adams was in fact expressing an old idea. Eighty years earlier Alexander Hamilton had put it clearly. He said there was the idea that your people are a great beast and that the real disease is democracy. That's Hamilton. These ideas have become ever more entrenched in educated circles, as Jefferson's fears and Bakunin's predictions were increasingly realised. The basic attitudes coming into this century were expressed very clearly by Woodrow Wilson's Secretary of State, Robert Lansing, attitudes that led to Wilson's Red Scare, as it was called, which destroyed labour and independent thought for a decade." (2)
So Oswald supposedly was after a fascist corporate General for being a person calling Democrats pinkos. Not anything but garbage! He lived in Russia, was Marina as stupid as this - they knew Russia was not Communist. Only J. Edgar and a few McCarthy types bought that nonsense. And Oswald knew Castro was something like a Communist. He was involved in Operation Mongoose or other anti-Castro efforts but also wants to kill someone who is against communism. Is he a supporter of communists or not? Was Kennedy left leaning like the Senators the General was calling pinkos? Why kill Kennedy? No way he was a lone nutter!
