Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Greenfield: The Conspiracy Theory is the Conspiracy
Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog ^ | Tuesday, November 19, 2013 | Daniel Greenfield

Posted on 11/19/2013 10:46:50 AM PST by Louis Foxwell

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

The Conspiracy Theory is the Conspiracy

Posted by Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog

Sometimes a conspiracy theory exposes a conspiracy. Sometimes the conspiracy theory is the conspiracy.

JFK assassination plots are the only conspiracy theories to be widely accepted by the general public. The moon landing filmed in a studio, the Lincoln conspiracy or the World Trade Center being blown up by lasers from outer space never gained much credence because they lacked mainstream backing. Conspiracy theories ordinarily remain on the margins. The JFK theories were too important to the liberals who were really running things to allow them to die out.

There are probably more Americans who could tell you the ins and outs of the "magic bullet" than can recite the Bill of Rights from memory. More books have been sold about the Kennedy assassination than about any of the real government abuses taking place today.

The 50th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination brings with it the usual weighty tomes, speculative articles and nostalgic reminiscing by liberal baby boomers about the utopia that might have been.

John F. Kennedy long ago stopped being a politician and became the collective egotism of a certain type of liberal of a certain age. He had become an unreal figure long before he died, composed of  wishes and progressive fantasies, photos with cool celebrities and generational gloating. His death made that unreality permanent, relegating the real man to a Camelot of collective liberal fantasies.

The JFK assassination became a liberal martyrdom in search of a conservative inquisitioner. Oliver Stone's JFK was a laborious effort to connect the martyrdom of a liberal icon to the despicable conservative villains that the narrative of this political theology demanded.

The gnostic elements of martyrdom usually involve the revelation of spirituality in the mortal flesh. But JFK, like Obama, had always been more than mortal, a creature of flashbulbs and film, a messiah of a new generation and a new age. It was his opponents who represented the prosaic materialism of money and steel, three-piece suits and conservatism, who had to be exposed and outed. 

For the Kennedy martyrdom to have deep spiritual meaning, it had to have come at the hands of those who represented everything that opposed the values of the Cult of Camelot. And so a vital element of JFK worship, like O.J. Simpsonism had to be the search for the real killers. And like O. J. Simpsonism, the real killer had to be searched for because everyone knew who the real killer was.

Camelot was a messianic age of political transcendence that had been aborted forcing us to live through more cycles of materialistic history. The political messianism of JFK was as doomed as that of Obama or any other liberal savior. Unlike Obama, it conveniently ended in a martyrdom which excused a generation of liberal failures.

The revolution didn't fail. It was murdered. The endless search for the real killers was not done to find them, but to perpetuate the martyrdom myth. The search could never be complete, the conspiracy theories could provide no closure, though the lynching of Nixon, for daring to try and make JFK's liberal legacy work helped put to rest the ghosts of Camelot for many angry liberals.

Most conspiracy theories have two purposes; they make the world seem like an orderly place in which everything happens for a reason and they sell books. The former is another reflection of the death of religion. The search for secret knowledge, a battle between the powers of good and evil for the soul of the world, is secularized and politicized for a materialistic spirituality.

JFK was the martyr of the new America that was being born. That America would be a chaotic place where madmen would do what they pleased, where the planners would fail and anarchy would rub shoulders with tyranny, meaning would be lost and those who pursued it would lose their minds and laugh their insanity for the entertainment of the masses. And that was just the seventies. 

Three years after the Kennedy assassination in Dallas, an engineering student and another former marine would climb a tower at the University of Austin and open fire. The killing spree would become a starting point in an accelerating trend of mass killings.

The murder of John Lennon, another liberal icon, in the first year of a new decade that closed the door on the chaos of the counterculture, would be a death undignified by any larger meaning. From Charles Manson to Jim Jones, these were the mad horrors spawned by a damaged culture where the monsters and madmen were suddenly the only ones who understood the rules.

Kennedy was killed in a more innocent time when it was still possible to deny that the wave of change was not ushering in a brave new world, but the destruction of a culture that had kept the worst human instincts in check.

The Cult of Camelot sought a deeper meaning in his death because the alternative would have been to recognize that the world was not an orderly place and could not be made so by planning. And it sought to disguise the truth about his murder.

JFK was not killed by some miasma of right-wing hatred, by a confederacy of Cuban exiles, CIA agents and Sicilian mafia bosses.

The directions in which the JFK conspiracy theories point reveal what they are trying to hide. John F. Kennedy was not murdered by a miasma of hatred on the right, but on the left. Before liberals became leftists, leftists had a propensity for killing liberals. And Lee Harvey Oswald was as far to the left as you could go.

There was never really any disagreement about Lee Harvey Oswald's politics. The media has avoided the issue by not talking about it while characterizing him as a screwball who wasn't happy anywhere. That much is true, but Lee Harvey Oswald was a militant Socialist screwball who defected to the Soviet Union and plotted the murders of people he considered "right-wing".

The piles of conspiracy theories shove him to the side as an excessively convenient killer. But Lee Harvey Oswald was part of a continuum of left-wing terror in America. The murder of JFK was a bridge between the explosions of violence in the twenties by anarchists and by the Weathermen in the seventies. Oswald was part of the leading edge of left-wing violence in America.

Like so many radicals, Oswald was bored and shiftless. The reality of the Soviet Union with no revolution, just factories to work at, did not appeal to him. Instead he drifted back to America, a weapon in search of a target. The actual murder may have shocked the nation, but it would not be very long before left-wing violence would once again become part of life in America.

All this is far more consistent and far more dangerous than any of the alternative explanations. Worse still, it's simple. And even worse, it's obvious. Which means that it can't possibly be true.

JFK was not killed by a military-industrial complex or a vast right-wing conspiracy. No group of men in suits sat around a table plotting his death. The forces that killed him were the same political ideas of the left that led young American men and women to cheer for the Viet Cong, plant bombs and wage war against their own country.

To understand why JFK died, you must understand the Weathermen and Leon Czolgosz who murdered President McKinley, you must understand the Atom Bomb Spies and Sacco and Vanzetti and a century of left-wing sabotage and terrorism in America.

It’s much safer to talk about magic bullets, than magical thinking ideologies that promise that a workers’ paradise is only a bomb away.

Conspiracy theories rely on finding the inconsistencies and unanswered questions that can be found in just about any event if enough threads are pulled on and enough experts with magnifying glasses crawl over the evidence. They suspect the simple, even as they replace it with byzantine and the complexity, replacing logical answers with to the unending search for the unanswered question. They stare at the static of the television screen, at the Heisenberg Effect of unanswerable questions, at the details that shift close up, and it becomes their obsession and their faith.

The conspiracy theorist has faith that life has meaning. It is a secular sort of faith and its faith object is not divine, but malignant. The meaning of life is malicious. It operates the way it does because evil people behind the scenes refuse to allow for any coincidences or random chance. No sparrow shall fall because a dozen secret agencies are always monitoring it from space.

It is a faith not in good, but in evil.

Kennedy politics had been meant to be optimistic, but the assassination accelerated the liberal reversion to the underlying pessimism and paranoia, the sense that life was doomed, that people had to be rigidly controlled to keep society from coming apart.

The assassination was a warning, not from some secret organization, but from the consequences of the ideas of the left. Instead of searching for Cubans in the CIA, liberals should have looked in the mirror instead. The chaos and violence they were afraid of was not coming from some secret organization, it was coming from inside the movements of the left.

It still is.

The real Kennedy conspiracy was an effort to suppress the basic truths of what had happened and to replace them with a recursive loop of conspiracy theories that could never resolve anything while convincing everyone that the basic truths of what happened could be safely ignored.

The conspiracy did not cover up the work of the secret organization that killed JFK, but the secret organizations of the left whose ideas led to his murder. The real JFK conspiracy concealed the deeper secret that the left is destructive and that its ideas carry a dark wind of chaos and violence.

The left cannot make history come out the way that it wants to, but it can always lie about it. Its myths of the past, dreams shattered by vast right-wing conspiracies, swallowed up by the greed of the 80s and 00s, are tawdry attempts at refusing to learn the lessons of history so that it will be given the freedom to repeat its terrible mistakes.

Lee Harvey Oswald was the stepchild of the left's destructive ideas on society. The same madness that led to Guyana and the bombing of the Pentagon had its day fifty years ago in Dallas.


TOPICS: Government; History; Politics; Religion
KEYWORDS: greenfield; guyana; jfkassassination; jimjones; sultanknish
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041 next last
To: boop

Oh, so let me see if I have your theory correct then - not only was Oswald not a communist, but he also wasn’t the book depository shooter?


21 posted on 11/19/2013 1:31:30 PM PST by Nahhh I Dont Think So
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan
Why do you say that, x?

I guess it was the comparison to the New Left. Crazy or evil as it may have been, the Weathermen and others actually thought their acts were going to bring about a revolution -- or at least end a war.

I doubt Oswald thought his shooting would bring about a revolution. Could he seriously have thought replacing Kennedy with Johnson would end the Cold War?

Czolgosz, who shot McKinley, was one of several turn of the century anarchists who killed royals and politicians for political or ideological reasons, but I don't see that as quite applicable to Oswald, either.

Clearly Oswald had a lot of political ideas swimming around in his head -- he described himself as a Marxist -- but what would the end result have been? To replace Kennedy with Johnson? For that reason, I see personal factors at work in the assassination that make it harder to boil down as purely political.

The attempt on Walker could have been something purely political. Killing Tippitt was spur of the moment. Killing Kennedy may have been more complicated.

Greenfield goes in that direction when he brings in Charles Whitman, the Austin tower shooter, but then reels back to make a more purely political point.

22 posted on 11/19/2013 1:42:27 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: x

Thanks for that response.

I myself really couldn’t say. I think, though, the question is the type of response Oswald expected.

Who knows what he thought - revolution or war with Russia.

Yet, the act had serious repercussions on our nation and weakened us greatly. Perhaps even terminally, as we can see now 50 years later.

The left was hugely strengthened as well due to the US weakness.
It really was an effective political assassination.


23 posted on 11/19/2013 2:39:40 PM PST by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Louis Foxwell
The murder of John Lennon, another liberal icon, in the first year of a new decade that closed the door on the chaos of the counterculture, would be a death undignified by any larger meaning.
I remember some commie stooges put up posters around Times Square, Greenwich Village, Columbia U, while 0 was in the Choom gang, and in a number subway stations that claimed Mark David Chapman was merely a stooge hired by the CIA to take out Lennon. I actually had a good laugh over that one.
24 posted on 11/19/2013 3:34:04 PM PST by Impala64ssa (You call me an islamophobe like it's a bad thing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nahhh I Dont Think So

“I would include the RFK and MLK assasinations in your list, they are extremely important to show that Liberals have a very high likelyhood of targeting the very people they want to act like they support.”

If you have some links proving that the killers were documented liberals, I will include them.


25 posted on 11/19/2013 4:01:08 PM PST by Grampa Dave (You can keep your doctor, health plan, and this is only a cold sore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: x

Funny how many leftists think JFK’s assassination was a conspiracy, but yet don’t even question for a second that Hinckley acted alone when he shot Reagan.


26 posted on 11/19/2013 4:02:57 PM PST by dfwgator (Fire Muschamp.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Nahhh I Dont Think So
No. I must have misunderstood your post. I thought I was agreeing with you.

I think Oswald's shooting Walker and JFK was INTENSELY political.

Because Oswald was a leftist.

27 posted on 11/19/2013 4:07:39 PM PST by boop (I had no IDEA I'd be paying for Obamacare. I thought it would be a rich guy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
Sirhan Sirhan was pro-Palestine, anti-Israel, so I would put him down as a mainstream democrat. At least by 2013 standards.

James Earl Ray was certainly a racist democrat, but I'd doubt he would call himself "liberal". A republican, never.

28 posted on 11/19/2013 4:12:18 PM PST by boop (I had no IDEA I'd be paying for Obamacare. I thought it would be a rich guy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Louis Foxwell
While I don't question that the claim that a communist killed Kennedy made for much crazy-among liberals --anyone who was alive and aware that day probably remembers the early assumptions in the news reportage that a right winger MUST be involved-- there remain persistent facts about Oswald that do not support him as the shooter of Kennedy or Tippitt.

1. He did not have the paraffin test results matching those of someone who had fired a rifle
2. Eyewitnesses place him on the first and second floors around 12.25 when Kennedy was due to pass the building. The motorcade was running late. The building manager and a policeman saw him at the second floor immediately after the shooting.
3. Ballistics tests could not connect his handgun to that used to kill Tippitt.
4. Eyewitnesses to the Tippitt murder do not consistently describe a man resembling Oswald.

Was Oswald involved? Most likely. But he was probably telling the truth when he said he was a patsy.
29 posted on 11/19/2013 4:15:57 PM PST by Nepeta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheRhinelander

Thanks:

In 1865 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States .
In 1963 a radical left wing communist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States.
In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States.
In 1981 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan.
In 1984 James Huberty a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.
In 1986 Patrick Sherril a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.
In 1990 James Pough a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.
In 1991 George Hennard a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 23 people in a Lubys cafeteria.
In 1995 James Daniel Simpson a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.
In 1999 Larry Asbrook a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 8 people at a church service.
In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US.
In 2003 Douglas Williams a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.
In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung - Hui Cho shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech .
In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.
In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes went into a Colorado movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.
In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis.
On 9/16/2013, another mentally ill liberal, Aaron Alexis, killed 12 innocents at the Navy Yard in Washington DC.

One could go on, but you get the point, even if the media does not.

Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats having guns.

No NRA members, No Tea Party members, or No Republican conservatives are/were involved.

SOLUTION: It should be illegal for Democrats to own guns.


30 posted on 11/19/2013 4:37:05 PM PST by Grampa Dave (You can keep your doctor, health plan, and this is only a cold sore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan; Nahhh I Dont Think So
I've had a little time to think it over. If you keep Cuba, Castro and the Bay of Pigs in mind (as Oswald probably did), you can say that the assassination was a left wing political act with a clear political goal: to get back at Kennedy for trying to topple Castro.

Greenfield gets into the Weathermen, Czolgosz, Sacco and Vanzetti and a lot else besides but doesn't find time for Castro and Cuba. All the name dropping was impressive at first but then you can ask questions and poke holes about whether they were all the same thing.

If he'd stuck with Castro he'd have made his point much better.

31 posted on 11/19/2013 5:40:19 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave

Yeah, the info is readily available

Sirhan Sirhan was an extremely pro-arab, pro-revolution Communist, killing what he saw as a “fascist pig” Kennedy. This specific book might be a good source which could spawn other searches if you so choose

http://books.google.com/books?id=mwhydb-MLeMC&pg=PA216&lpg=PA216&dq=sirhan+sirhan+communist&source=bl&ots=_W_kxpkuEs&sig=_H8_-Q8duAkyLQQmeCYanFNQDCI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bhGMUrLRMcHF2QWxoICwBg&ved=0CDIQ6AEwBA

James Earl Ray was a registered Democrat who was even working at the George Wallace campaign office. He was absolutely positive Wallace would win the Presidency and pardon Ray for the killing of King - a person Ray was similarly positive Wallace would want him to kill. Links on that info is everywhere, including even his Wiki page

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Earl_Ray


32 posted on 11/19/2013 5:56:00 PM PST by Nahhh I Dont Think So
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: boop

I think that was my bad, actually. Glad we agree though
(although I do find it hard to believe anyone honestly disagress, really. Even if a person feels he didn’t act alone, his motive for being involved still remains the same. Its about the only thing not really in question at all, lol)


33 posted on 11/19/2013 6:00:38 PM PST by Nahhh I Dont Think So
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Piranha

Knish just absolutely nails it. This guy is a national treasure.


34 posted on 11/19/2013 6:54:41 PM PST by golux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave

Giffords happened in 2011 I believe.


35 posted on 11/19/2013 7:28:24 PM PST by TheRhinelander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave

In 1865 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States .

In 1963 a radical left wing communist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States.

In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States.

In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan.

In 1984 James Huberty a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.

In 1986 Patrick Sherril a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.

In 1990 James Pough a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.

In 1991 George Hennard a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 23 people in a Lubys cafeteria.

In 1995 James Daniel Simpson a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.

In 1999 Larry Asbrook a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 8 people at a church service.

In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US.

In 2003 Douglas Williams a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.

In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung - Hui Cho shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech .

In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.

In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes went into a Colorado movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.

In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis.

On 9/16/2013, another mentally ill liberal, Aaron Alexis, killed 12 innocents at the Navy Yard in Washington DC.

One could go on, but you get the point, even if the media does not.

Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats having guns.

No NRA members, No Tea Party members, or No Republican conservatives are/were involved.

SOLUTION: It should be illegal for Democrats, aka liberals to own guns.

LOL - I like your list Grampa.. I guess this is why any time there’s a killing, the MSM jumps to the conclusion that a right winger is involved...


36 posted on 11/19/2013 7:51:17 PM PST by GOPJ (Was Obama giving nucluear information and equipment to Iran - through Benghazi?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

“LOL - I like your list Grampa.. I guess this is why any time there’s a killing, the MSM jumps to the conclusion that a right winger is involved...”

Thanks. It is part of their mind set script.

I try to avoid talking to any liberal because of their screaming and whining.

If I have to talk to them about abortion or gun control:

Re abortion: I tell them, my children, grandkids and future generations will appreciate their own decimating/thinning of their own herds yearly with their racist abortions. I’m tell them that I’m against abortion, but I’m not going to argue with them.

Re Gun Control: I tell them that it should be illegal for any liberal to own any gun, knife or baseball bat. If they start to argue, I point out the killings of thousands of liberals each year by liberals often of the same skin coloring with guns in Oakland, LA, San Jose, Chicago, Houston and other liberal cities. If they try to argue, I go into the list I have posted here, starting with Lincoln to Kennedy, to Ford and Reagan.


37 posted on 11/20/2013 6:51:41 AM PST by Grampa Dave (You can keep your doctor, health plan, and this is only a cold sore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: TheRhinelander

Thanks you are correct, and I have changed my list.

The list came from one of my SIL, a second amendment advocate, and usually her research is very accurate. She messed up with some of the dates.

Freepers are the best reviewers on the earth.


38 posted on 11/20/2013 7:09:06 AM PST by Grampa Dave (You can keep your doctor, health plan, and this is only a cold sore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave

LOL - life’s good Grampa... you’re having fun with liberals which can be a difficult to do. Great answers - I’ll be borrowing some for Christmas and Thanksgiving.


39 posted on 11/20/2013 10:39:54 AM PST by GOPJ (Was Obama giving nucluear information and equipment to Iran - through Benghazi?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

LOL - life’s good Grampa... you’re having fun with liberals which can be a difficult to do. “Great answers - I’ll be borrowing some for Christmas and Thanksgiving”

Rule #1 which was passed on to me by my Grand Dad: Never wrestle with pigs, liberals, or idiots. Then, you have to get down in the mud with them. You might win, but you might be as muddy as they are.


40 posted on 11/20/2013 11:05:47 AM PST by Grampa Dave (You can keep your doctor, health plan, and this is only a cold sore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson