A recent talking point re-emerges in another light....

Wed Jan 25 15:24:12 CST 2012

On 1/25/2012 2:36 PM, Ian Livingston wrote:
> The latest batch of recordings captured meetings from the last three
> months of Kennedy's administration. In a conversation with political
> advisers about young voters, Kennedy asks, "What is it we have to sell
> them?"
>
> "We hope we have to sell them prosperity, but for the average guy the
> prosperity is nil," he says. "He's not unprosperous, but he's not very
> prosperous. ... And the people who really are well off hate our guts."

Kennedy was perceived by many as some kind of socialist leveler.

Obama kind of faces the same problem.

It seems so irrational with regard to the rich.   Even with Kennedy's 
moves on the racial front and Obama's on health care, these guys were 
and are no threat to the moneyed class. It's easy to understand how the 
lower orders can be discombobulated by even minor social change.  But 
the big wigs, that's a puzzle.

Irrational is definitely the right word with reference to the loonies, 
who tend to home in on the particularly attractive and charismatic. But 
it must apply to the upper crust also.  Is there is something suspicious 
and dangerous about a fellow rich and elite guy who goes around saying 
noble things and seems to really care about lesser beings?

I dunno.

P

>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Paul Mackin<mackin.paul at verizon.net>  wrote:
>> On 1/24/2012 10:14 PM, Ian Livingston wrote:
>>> Quite alright. I'm not a good conspiracy junkie, but just because I
>>> don't buy 'em doesn't eliminate them from the realm of possibilities.
>>> I'm also no good at sanctifying political figures, but I do generally
>>> give them credit for being devious bastards, because that's the only
>>> way to get elected. You have steal money and make people think they're
>>> paying you for something, then you have to make them love you so much
>>> for it they want to give you more. And so on.
>>>
>>> That said, I just don't know. Your insistence might convince me of the
>>> rightness of your position if it were the only part of the story, but,
>>> come on, I was young at the time, but the history of the era does not
>>> incline me to think people were any stupider then than they are now.
>>> For the K. to put up such a fuss about 'commies' just seems a little
>>> weak. I know Johnston continued to use the 'communist' threat as a
>>> part of his hard-sell pitch, but, did that really fool the press?
>>> Maybe. Yeah, it's possible. But, to whom could communism pose a
>>> threat? Could the K. conceal one argument within another? Yeah, it's
>>> possible. He was a pretty bright young man.
>>>
>>> It's quite alright to disagree, but disagreeing doesn't make either of
>>> us right either about that speech, or about the Rothschilds' grip on
>>> the US economy.
>>
>>
>>
>> The "Communist Threat" was shorthand for two superpowers armed to the teeth
>> against each other. National leaders couldn't afford not to be concerned and
>> to express this concern on every important occasion.   It's like the
>> "Terrorist Threat" now.  Us folks down the line can make light of these
>> things, but the higher ups don't have that luxury.
>>
>> It wasn't in Kennedy's genes or his education or his position in life to be
>> particularly suspicious of banking and the Fed.  He was thoroughly  aware
>>   of how and why the Federal Reserve system came into existence and  of the
>> present day necessity for a well functioning central bank. He certainly knew
>> about the stormy history of American central banking.  Everything has a
>> storm history. He couldn't possibly have thought of the current Fed as
>> something a veiled warning needed to be issued about.
>>
>> It's my impression that spinners of this particular conspiracy theory,
>>   espoused by Ron Paul and others, don't really understand how money and
>> banking work, or of American economic history.
>>
>> Heaven knows there are enough REAL conspiracies out there, many involving
>> money scams.  The new consumer protection law is an attempt to stifle a few
>> of these.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> P
>>
>>
>>   On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Paul Mackin<mackin.paul at verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>>>> On 1/24/2012 12:53 PM, Ian Livingston wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I've heard what I dismissed as paranoid tales about the Fed,
>>>> mostly connecting it with the dread "Illuminati" ("Yes, yes. Thirteen
>>>> of us rule the world"--and all that rot) for a couple of decades, now.
>>>> I don't really need a conspiracy to believe that banks are out to do
>>>> no one but themselves much by way of actual good, but that doesn't
>>>> mean they're not out to get us. It seems, and the current evidence
>>>> against and the inaccessibility of the rotters who so recently trashed
>>>> the world economy suggests, that the upper echelons of the banking
>>>> cartels--in this case, specifically of the Fed--operate in a safe and
>>>> secure remove from the world. To my knowledge, only Iceland so far has
>>>> prosecuted any bankers, and I do not think they have been able to
>>>> bring any but their own to account.
>>>>
>>>> Uff! down the rabbit hole.
>>>>
>>>> The reason I posted this here, specifically, was the Kennedy speech
>>>> I'd posted a few weeks back appears again at the end of this piece
>>>> juxtaposed as if directed specifically against the banking cartels,
>>>> rather than against the "Communists" who were already the bug-bears of
>>>> the previous decade. I think everyone knows that Kennedy was a Cold
>>>> Warrior. That one's been pretty well worked into dumb acceptance. But,
>>>> is it possible he was the last President to actually set himself
>>>> against the Fed and the banking mafia? Was his paranoia speech a
>>>> cryptic warning regarding something the American public wasn't already
>>>> paranoid about at the time? Was it really just a toss-off blah-blah to
>>>> the newsies trying to get them off his back so he could diddle Marilyn
>>>> in peace? I mean, just askin'.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A couple things to think about:
>>>>
>>>> 1.  Executive Order 11110 was no threat to the Fed nor its money creation
>>>> function.
>>>>
>>>> 2.  If it's the secret societies speech we discussed a few weeks ago, he
>>>> was
>>>> talking about the press not giving away secrets to the Russians. It's SO
>>>> obvious, to any one but a true conspiracy theorist.
>>>>
>>>> 3.  The press was never an obstacle to Kennedy's carrying on of his
>>>> affairs.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry to be so DISAGREEable.
>>>>
>>>> P
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 6:25 AM, Keith Davis<kbob42 at gmail.com>    wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Recently, I read a very interesting book about this situation. It's
>>>> called
>>>> "The Creature From Jekyll Island", by G. Edward Griffin. Not being that
>>>> well-informed about the operations and history of the Federal Reserve
>>>> system
>>>> aside from this book and what I've read about the financial situation in
>>>> the
>>>> last few years, including some books by Michael Lewis and the barrage of
>>>> news articles, I can't say whether his views are all correct, but the
>>>> history is very interesting.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 12:10 AM, Ian Livingston<igrlivingston at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USGSOViaulc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> "Less than any man have I  excuse for prejudice; and I feel for all
>>>> creeds the warm sympathy of one who has come to learn that even the
>>>> trust in reason is a precarious faith, and that we are all fragments
>>>> of darkness groping for the sun. I know no more about the ultimates
>>>> than the simplest urchin in the streets." -- Will Durant
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> www.innergroovemusic.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
>