In his book “JFK and the Unspeakable” James Douglass reviews what he considers a possible motive for the assassination of JFK by some people within our own government. There is certain to be some doubt about this but many of the most important parts of this book may not involve whether or not JFK was assassinated by a government conspiracy; instead it may be some of the activities the government was conducting before and after JFK’s death and the motives behind them. This includes the war in Viet Nam as well as many other cold war activities and other activities that continue to go on today including the war on terror and the war on drugs. The cumulative effects of all these activities are much more important than the life of any one person, even JFK. Douglass isn’t the first one to speculate and write about the possibility that JFK may have been killed because he may have been planning the end of our involvement in Viet Nam nor is he necessarily the most detailed researcher into the assassination; however he has covered some of the potential contributing factors, assuming he is right, of the motive behind JFK’s assassination and even if he is mistaken many of these factors are still important for other reasons. However even Douglass probably doesn’t cover some of the most important contributing factors nor can any single researcher. There are certainly many different factors affecting both the Cold War and the assassination of JFK. When it comes to the assassination of JFK the most important research isn’t what Douglass or any other conspiracy theorist has done; it should be what the government has done and presented to the public in several reports including the Warren Report, the Clay Shaw trial transcripts and the House Select Committee on Assassinations. If they provide a rational explanation that stands up to scrutiny it would probably be more reasonable to believe them unless there is strong evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately that doesn’t seem to be the case though. If there were only a few minor mistakes that would be understandable but the Warren report alone has serious problems with it. These are easy for most people that take the time to read it to see.

It would be better if you read it and found out for yourself; however it would also help to have a few highlights to look at that are easy to see and remember which I provided in a link below and this is backed up with links to the government reports and other sources. One of the most widely known researchers into the subject is Jim Marrs; although I haven’t trusted all of his work there is one thing he clearly got right. In the beginning of his book he starts by saying “Do not trust this book. In fact, when it comes to the assassination of John F. Kennedy, don’t trust any one source or even the basic evidence and testimony.” This statement would work well for many of the activities of the government, the CIA and many of the most powerful corporations and other institutions. There have been many cases where the official version for many events including the assassination of JFK hasn’t made sense or there have been multiple contradictory versions. In the case of the assassination of JFK none of the three versions listed above provide the same version of events as the others and if you look at the many conspiracy theories you’ll come up with dozens if not hundreds of explanations. In this case it would be best to organize the information in the best way possible and trust the details that can be confirmed by multiple sources the most. In most cases it would be helpful to take note of the source and whether or not it is an official document confirmed by many people or the testimony of a single person which may carry less weight. In fact as indicated above what is more important than who killed JFK are the wars that preceded and followed the assassination and figuring out how to prevent future wars and strengthen democracy by educating the public about their own government. 

Most conspiracy books focus on the details of the assassination with very little attention to the social factors that may have contributed to the motives behind it and many of the other factors that may be related. It may help to understand the basics of several different subjects in order to figure out what happened to JFK and what led to many of the covert activities and wars conducted by the US government. This is true even if the connection isn’t immediately apparent. Related subjects include the early upbringing of children and how it could lead to the escalation of violence, the class systems and how they are used to control society and the typical operating methods for military and espionage organizations as well as other subjects that may turn out to be relevant. 

In order to understand what happened and why it will help to keep in mind the environment that people lived in during the cold war shortly after WWII. The majority of the country was still very concerned about another world war and there was a lot of panic going on. There may have been a situation where a large portion of the country may have had a large case of post traumatic distress disorder. This was a time where the public was being encouraged to believe that the USSR was the evil empire with some justification and that communism was part of that. The part about communism being part of that may have been largely based on propaganda; although it wasn’t perfect that doesn’t mean that communism was synonymous with totalitarianism as the public was led to believe. This was done in a similar manner to the red scare that began during the end of WWI and continued into the twenties when the American Protective League was active. In the fifties it was more extreme due to the threat of nuclear attack and the recent memory of what Hitler had just done. A large amount of the behavior during this time period was based on panic without much rational thinking or many if any attempts to find out whether the “red scare” was justified. Some threat from the USSR was of course justified but it went much farther than that an many of the people behind the “red scare” turned out to be as much if not more of a threat as the USSR. They led to many superstitions that could be, and were, manipulated by many demagogues. Part of this problem was encouraged by the upper classes who were accustomed to having power over the majority and was often raised to believe that this was their right. Part of the problem was the violence that many people learned at an early age and it just escalated in anger without scrutiny. People who act out of anger are much less likely to think rationally. 

As indicated in other entries violence tends to escalate starting at a very early age. People who are abused as a child tend to be more likely to be bullies and, in some cases the targets of bullies. This often tends to escalate to hazing and other violent crimes as an adult. People with violent backgrounds are more likely to think of violence as the solution to problems and they often believe that intimidation is the only way to hold people accountable. People with abusive backgrounds are less likely to feel empathy which may enable them to stand up to a crowd that is going along with a call to war based on emotional grounds. Alice Miller covered this in her books and a lot of this has been confirmed by many other academics including Murray Straus and Philip Greven. They have found that many of the social characteristics found in the Germans during the time period leading up to WWII are also present in many other societies although not necessarily to the same extremes. This has made many people more prone to fight one war after another for thousands of years. This has also led people to be much more obedient to authority than they otherwise might have been. A small percentage of the public has reviewed this but it affects a much larger percentage of the public without their realization, in fact many of them are much more likely to be in denial of this problem and act out of anger. Many children that are taught to accept what they’re told without question from their parents often transfer their obedience to authority to other higher authority figure including the government and employers or the beliefs of the crowd. These children become much more dependent on the approval of their peers and they are often much less willing or able to challenge beliefs when there are obvious flaws with them. This makes them more prone to believing the scare tactics that were used during the McCarthy era and they’re much more likely to support military action without understanding it.

People in the military are more likely to consider violence the appropriate way to handle any given situation since that is the way they’re trained. They are also much more inclined to obey authority without question due to their training. Boot camp is designed to train them to obey orders without question and to maintain loyalty to the chain of command. One of the most extreme cases of military people obeying orders without question was the case of Iran Air Flight 655 where the order to shoot was given by a computer. There was obvious evidence available to the eighteen soldiers on board to indicate that this Air Flight was a civilian flight not military but they were trained to follow orders then once they were implicated they presented a version of the story that justified their actions as best they could. This is just one example where strong bias prevents people from coming out with the whole truth; this is even worse when there isn’t clear evidence available to the public. There have been many cases where the military has misled the public with blatant lies and misinformation about many conflicts and there was some indication that JFK may have intended to put an end to that despite the fact that at times he was involved in these lies as well. It has often been claimed that JFK was assassinated so that they could start a war in Viet Nam; however it seems hard to believe that the military would do such a thing solely for this reason. A closer look seems to indicate that there may have been much more than just the war in Viet Nam that led up to this though. Prior to JFK’s assassination the US government was involved in many interventions around the world under three post WWII presidents and it appears as if JFK may have been reconsidering this approach after the Cuban missile crisis almost led to a nuclear war that could have ended life as we know it. There was a lot of evidence to indicate that many of the generals involved in the decision making process including members of the Joint Chief of Staff thought the only way to settle the cold war was to win it perhaps by using nuclear weapons if they could do this successfully. This may not have been just about the Viet Nam war or the conflict in Cuba but the entire cold war and a quest for global domination. Interventions that happened during or prior to the JFK administrations included the installments of governments sympathetic to the USA in Congo, Iran, Guatemala, Laos, Viet Nam and more countries. They also involved a failed attempt to overthrow the Castro regime. There is little mention of the fact that the support for Batista helped lead to the popular support for a revolution that enabled Castro to take power. Nor is there much discussion about the fact that many of the displaced Cubans were formerly loyal to the brutal Batista regime and they’ve been involved in many activities since then that suppressed democracy in countries like Nicaragua and the Watergate scandal. JFK indicated that he might be more sympathetic to governments that help the poor more in Congo, Indonesia, Laos and perhaps even Viet Nam. In Laos he supported a neutral government that had more popular support than the Capitalist government previously installed by the Eisenhower administration. There may have been some concern that he might have done this in many other parts of the world including Viet Nam, Central America, Africa and other countries around the world. JFK indicated in his “peace speech” at the American University that he would be open to more negotiation with the Soviet Union and other non military methods to solve problems that wouldn’t lead to more wars or the threat of nuclear activity. This contradicts the beliefs of many that the only way to solve problems is through the use of force or at least the threat of the use of force that often leads to escalating violence. Many people are taught this from birth and they are often very reluctant to consider any other way to accomplish their goals. This mentality leads to much more reliance on force to maintain authority than education or open discussion and it sets the ground for greater potential to settle disputes with war and other violent conflicts that often lead from one war to another and with the escalation of technology this often means that the wars tend to be more destructive as time goes on. There have been many people who have indicated that those in power don’t share information about the covert activities that lead to war including Daniel Ellsberg and Victor Marchetti. They have both indicated that only those who are raised or indoctrinated to maintain silence for security reasons should be allowed to have access to many of the most important facts about the decision making process. At one point after Daniel Ellsberg expressed concern about the morality of the Viet Nam war Joe Johnson allegedly told Charles Bolte “We can’t invite Ellsberg to any more of our meetings. He’s lost his objectivity.” This seems to be a common attitude about the military for many people. Consideration for the people that are being killed or tortured is interpreted by many people as being unwilling or able to make the hard decisions but denial of the damage that war does is considered objective by many people. This is the mentality that enabled people in Germany to escalate violent activity until it led to the holocaust and it is the type of mentality that enables the military to use chemical weapons, land mines and the threat of nuclear weapons on massive amounts of civilians. Taking their points of view into account is considered biased; however many of these people have family members who continue to fight guaranteeing that the violence will not stop until the concerns of all involved are addressed. This is why the Viet Nam War went on for so long and why so many other conflicts continue to escalate. Those making the decisions often only consider one side of the issue and those left out have no choice but to submit to their authority or to rebel and risk being labeled a terrorist. In order to reduce or eliminate war there needs to be a much more open decision making process. This can’t happen if the only people allowed to be involved in the decision making are the so called hawks who think that violence and espionage is the only way of addressing the subject.

Understanding the differences between classes may also help to understand how the cold war came about. There is a long history of ruling classes controlling the majority. In most cases this was through royalty that was raised to believe they had the divine right to rule. Many people have been led to believe that with the creation of democracy in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries this was reduced however a closer look at the history doesn’t back this up; instead the royalty was often replaced by republics controlled by the few who were educated and had control over the most powerful institutions. A close look at how some members of the royalty have been raised in the past and comparing it to how some of the upper class people in the present could help clarify this. One of the clearest examples of how the ruling class believed they were entitled to rule over the masses was Alexandra Romanov who often talked about how her son Alexei was entitled to rule over the masses. She was often quite clear about how it was the divine right of her baby to rule over the public because they were taught to think that way from birth. It is rare to see where the leaders talk in this manner any more since this is clearly no longer socially acceptable. However this wasn’t always the case and a closer look may indicate that the members of the ruling class may have learned to be more diplomatic about their beliefs which may essentially mean they learned not to talk this way in public. There may be a few cases where they allowed things like this to slip or when talking in private someone may have leaked this information but there is still a strong class difference and the upper classes still seem to believe they’re entitled to rule the lower classes. This has been indicated in the history of the US when the unions often tried to strike for better wages the upper classes often called in strike breakers and relied on the help of the government that was often much more inclined to protect the business interests than the interest of the masses who had little political power. One of the clearest examples was the Ludlow Massacre which was swept under the rug and instead of acknowledging responsibility the upper classes increased their philanthropy in some cases to maintain better public relations and convince the public that they are indebted to the upper classes. This type of activities was clear when the trusts were at there most powerful at the beginning of the twentieth century and when they rebuilt their power again at the end of the twentieth century after consolidation but it was also present when Kennedy was in power. Douglass describes how the steel companies made a deal with Kennedy and the unions where they essentially agreed they wouldn’t raise their prices if the unions would agree to a lower raise. The workers actually wound up giving up more but the owners were the ones that were disappointed with the deal. Then a representative of the biggest steel companies came to Kennedy and gave him notice of their plan to raise their prices anyway. They presented this as a done deal. Kennedy considered this a breach of their agreement. He called the unions informed them of this and then he proceeded to use the power of the presidency to ensure that the companies that raised their prices would be boycotted by the military establishment forcing the big steel companies to back down. There may have been many people that considered Kennedy a class traitor; in addition to standing up to big steel he also indicated he wouldn’t support many repressive regimes as much as past presidents. This isn’t hard evidence that the people from the upper classes were involved in his assassination of course; however it does provide evidence of a hostile environment and it indicates that some people may have had motive to resent his hold on power. Surely the majority of the upper classes wouldn’t have had anything to do with the assassination but if there was a minority that was more inclined to participate and a larger number of people that may have helped without realizing what they were participating in it makes it a little more likely. This still doesn’t provide what many people would consider a strong enough case for an assassination conspiracy; however if you consider the activities of the CIA and the methods they had already begun to use and continued to use long after the assassination it may be a stronger possibility. 

The pattern of behavior of the CIA was first developed shortly after WWII and it was influenced by activities that actually happened before WWII. Alfred McCoy described how the covert mentality evolved starting with the Philippine war and how it affected the US policy in other areas up to the current day. This was actually a relearning of the same tactics that were used by past civilizations to control their populations including tactics used during the Inquisition and when the Roman and Egyptian empire were in power. The USA and the USSR both developed something similar to empires where they dominated over client states which helped them maintain power. The people of the USA were routinely told that the USA was fighting to defend democracy at home as well as abroad but this wasn’t what actually happened. If the CIA was fighting to defend democracy they wouldn’t have conducted most of their activities in secret. A true democracy allows the public to have the information they need to make decisions as well as a good education to enable them to sort through the details. This means that the way to defend democracy involves educating the public not keeping secrets from them. Instead of educating the public the CIA went where the power was which usually meant the ruling class of any given country and in some cases it also meant the criminal organizations and drug dealers. The CIA has a history of propping up the most powerful land owners and suppressing the masses. This was apparent when they overthrew the governments of Iran and Guatemala in the fifties which had more popular support than the governments they installed. They did this in many other cases including Laos where Kennedy supported the neutral government against the wishes of the upper classes the military establishment and the CIA. They also did this in Viet Nam first with the reluctant support of Kennedy then after his death they escalated the war killing thousands if not millions of innocent people. This type of activity continued into the seventies, eighties and nineties when they supported the tyrannical regimes of Chile Guatemala, El Salvador and many other countries. One indication of whether or not there was a legitimate democracy of many countries is the quality of their education and their literacy rates. If the CIA was supporting education in the countries that they supported that might indicate that they were supporting democracy but this doesn’t seem to be the case. In “Manufacturing Consent” Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky reviewed the double standard used to present the US government in a much more positive way than the governments that are opposed to the USA. In some cases like in Nicaragua they claimed that the elections were far fairer than the ones in the governments supported by the USA including El Salvador and Guatemala. None of these had good literacy rates at the time; however they claimed that the Sandinistas were trying to implement better education programs to better enable the people to participate in the elections while the governments supported by the USA were suppressing their people in many cases this also involved mass murdering of thousands of people. The killing in Nicaragua doesn’t seem to have been nearly as bad although it was presented in the Mass media as being much worse. This was of course twenty years after the killing of JFK; however it demonstrates the typical behavior of the USA and the CIA and how they operate abroad. They have also supported governments that suppressed their people, sometimes with death squads in many other countries including Iran under the Shah, the Philippines, Chile, Indonesia, Viet Nam and more. If the CIA was teaching the public to participate more in a democracy there would have been no need to do it in covert ways. This would have involved setting up schools; therefore one of the most important things to consider about the CIA may be not what they are doing but what they aren’t doing which is helping to educate the public to strengthen democracy. Recognizing this doesn’t involve sorting through any conspiracy or secret activities. 

Whether it was the Joint chiefs of staff or the CIA or other military institutions there was numerous indications that many of the people involved in the decision making process were inclined to use chemical weapons, nuclear weapons and many deceptive tactics to accomplish their goals no matter who they may have hurt. Douglass has argued that many of the leading members of the Military Industrial Complex including the Joint Chief of Staff wanted to win the cold war if necessary by nuclear war. When they thought it may have been a possibility to defeat the USSR by a first strike they may have been willing to do this even though it would clearly have resulted in the death of hundreds of millions of Russians and Chinese as well as the destruction of the environment. They didn’t seem to believe that it would destroy the USA although this was almost certainly false. It is virtually guaranteed that the damage would have eventually destroyed the USA even if the USSR didn’t fire off any nuclear weapons as they probably would have even at that time. According to several sources, including James Douglass and Daniel Ellsberg, the claim that the USSR had more weapons was false and they thought they might have been able to conduct a first strike big enough to prevent the USSR from launching any missiles. However the USSR managed to develop enough weapons to prevent this scenario before Kennedy was killed. The implication was that some people may have wanted to pursue this course of action only if they could win however once the window of opportunity passed they were no longer willing to pursue this possibility.  

There was also a declassified document, Operation Northwoods, that Douglass cites that indicates that General Lemnitzer and perhaps others were willing to instigate a war on false pretences with Cuba. JFK rejected this plan and replaced Lemnitzer so it was never implemented; however many people believe that there may have been other people that thought these types of activities were worthwhile and that the CIA may have used them for other circumstances. In fact there have been many cases where false pretences were used to start or escalate wars or help with propaganda. In Viet Nam there was the Gulf of Tonkin incident; in the first gulf war there was a false story about the Iraqis stealing incubators and allowing babies to die; in the second Gulf war there was the false assumption of weapons of mass destruction and the distorted story of Jessica Lynch. Even if Operation Northwoods wasn’t implemented there is ample evidence to indicate that the US military and the CIA was inclined to use similar tactics.  

A close look at the official version clearly indicates that at best the government did a grossly incompetent job investigating the assassination and accepted an explanation that clearly doesn’t make sense. Instead of trying to investigate the assassination in the most effective way possible at time they clearly seem to be hiding something. The most likely explanation for this is, as many of the conspiracy theorists indicate, that some people from within the government were involved. There have also been attempts to blame it on the Mob, Castro or the USSR; however none of these organizations would have had the resources to participate in the cover-up. In fact some of the people involved in the investigation which clearly appears to involve a cover-up were elected or appointed to much higher positions including Gerald Ford who was nominated to be Vice president without facing a national election and inherited the presidency and Arlen Specter who spent several terms in the US senate before finally losing the primary recently. 

There isn’t enough evidence to know exactly what happened to JFK or all the conflicts that followed it but there is an enormous amount of evidence to indicate that the government of the USA hasn’t been honest with its own people. This isn’t compatible with a sincere democracy and these activities should be exposed in the most effective way possible. One way to do this would be a sincere Truth and Education Commission that is conducted with the participation and cooperation of the public. If this is done it should be carefully planned and done without violence or panic. It may be hard for many people to do this without panic but that is exactly what the USA government and the Mass Media have been encouraging the public to do for the past ten years during the war on terror. It would be far more effective if the truth was exposed on a careful and controlled basis. The control of this shouldn’t be with the government instead it should be with the people and the people should do their best to understand what is going on and set up a democracy based on accurate information available to an educated public with an open government that no longer operates in secrecy. 

For additional information including some of the most important highlights as well as links to free online government documents JFK speeches and related websites see: 

https://zakherys.tripod.com/cia.htm  

For the full HTML version of this blog with table of context see:  

https://zakherys.tripod.com/nonviolence.htm