The mainstream media and the acolytes of the U.S. national-security establishment continue to emphasize that there are no “smoking guns” in the tiny (2 percent) of the 50-year-old JFK records that President Trump, the National Archives, and the CIA have recently permitted the American people to see.
Of course, these people define “smoking gun” as a videotaped confession or a memorandum summarizing how and why the CIA orchestrated the November 22, 1963 regime-change operation. If the released records don’t contain a confession or such a memorandum, then in the minds of the people that means the official narrative must stand: A lone-nut former U.S. Marine communist with no motive suddenly decided to kill the president.
Even with the tiny release of records, however, it is possible to draw logical inferences that show the falsity of the official narrative. This type of analytical analysis, however, only works for people who have a critical and analytical mindset. It doesn’t work for people whose mindset is one of deference to authority and inconceivability that the CIA would be willing to protect national security with a domestic regime-change operation.
The records that the National Archives just released included a secret FBI analysis on civil-rights leader Martin Luther King. The thrust of the analysis is that King was a communist, and an immoral communist at that. In a November 4, 2017, article entitled “In the Latest JFK Files: The FBI’s Ugly Analysis on Martin Luther King, Jr., Filled With Falsehoods,” the Washington Post writes:
The 20-page document, dated March 12, three weeks before King was assassinated in Memphis, is included in the latest trove of government files about President John F. Kennedy’s assassination, which the National Archives released Friday. It alleges that King’s political ideologies and the creation of his civil rights organization, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, were heavily influenced by communists, specifically the Communist Party USA. The FBI document went into great detail about one of King’s most trusted advisers, Stanley Levison, a New York lawyer and businessman who served as a top financier for the Communist Party years before he met King in 1956.
One big question that arises, of course, is why the FBI chose to keep this 50-year-old analysis secret from the American people until now.
One possibility, of course, is that the FBI was just embarrassed about having published such a report.
A second possibility, however, is that the FBI orchestrated the assassination of King and decided that the analysis would constitute evidence of motive. After all, don’t forget, this was the era of the Cold War, when the CIA was targeting communists for assassination. Before anyone cries, “Conspiracy theory, Jacob!” let’s not forget that in a civil lawsuit brought by King’s family, after weighing all the evidence the jury found, in its official verdict, that government agencies conspired to kill King.
Does the FBI analysis on King have any bearing on the Kennedy assassination?
Actually, yes. That’s where critical thinking, circumstantial evidence, inferential thinking, and common sense come into play.
The FBI analysis on King reflects the national-security establishment’s overwhelming obsession with Russia (i.e., the Soviet Union) and communists during the Cold War. It is impossible to overstate the magnitude of this anti-communist obsession—it is 1000 times greater than the national-security establishment’s and mainstream media’s obsession with Russia today. Think of the Korean War. The McCarthy hearings. The search for communists in the Army and the State Department. The invasion of a country that never attacked the United States (Cuba). Regime-change operations, including assassination, in Iran, Guatemala, Cuba, Congo, and, later, Chile. The U.S. invasion of Vietnam.
Not to mention COINTELPRO, MKULTRA, secret hiring of Nazis, infiltration of the U.S. Communist Party and the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, prosecution of members of the U.S. Communist Party, and other totalitarian-like domestic programs to protect America from communists and communism.
The focus on King was all part of this anti-communist obsession. The FBI, especially its head J. Edgar Hoover, was absolutely, totally convinced that King was a communist, which is why they spied on him, wiretapped him, smeared him, and even blackmailed him in an attempt to get him to commit suicide. In fact, Hoover was convinced that the entire civil-rights movement was a secret front for the international communist conspiracy.
Okay, so you have the picture? Communists are bad. Communists are trying to take over America. Spy on them. Infiltrate their organizations. Kill them or try to destroy them. Or try to get them to commit suicide.
Now, here’s a funny part. That Washington Post article concludes with the following sentence: “The FBI document was among the 676 files that the National Archive released Friday. Among the recent disclosures are more than 500 never-before-seen CIA files that contain information about Lee Harvey Oswald….”
Why is that funny? Because it shows how obtuse the mainstream press can be when it comes to Lee Harvey Oswald. They just leave it at that!
This is where common sense, logic, and an analytical and critical mindset come into play.
What does the official narrative say about Oswald? Doesn’t it say that he was a communist?
Let’s review the facts.
Oswald gets interested in communism and joins the Marines, an institution that hates communists and kills communists. He is stationed in Japan at the military base that houses the top-secret CIA U-2 spy plane. He learns fluent Russian while in the military. Fellow soldiers laughingly refer to him as “Osvaldovitch.”
And yet, no one does anything to him, notwithstanding the national anti-communist crusade that is ferreting out and destroying communists everywhere!
Does that make any sense?
Oswald travels to Moscow, enters the U.S. Embassy, announces that he wishes to renounce his citizenship, and says that he is going to reveal everything he learned in the military to the Russians. He ends up living in Russia, marrying a woman whose uncle was a colonel in the Soviet Ministry of Internal Affairs.
Oswald changes his mind and decides he now wants to return to the United States, with his Red wife. U.S. officials let him back in and even help him to return.
He moves to Dallas, where he hangs out with right-wing people rather than fellow-traveler, left-wing, commie types. He gets a job at a photography business that develops top-secret photographs for the CIA.
He moves to New Orleans, where he somehow gets a job with business owned by a right-wing, anti-communist American. He is seen at the offices of a former FBI agent, who seems to be connected to U.S. intelligence. He openly proselytizes for one of the organizations that the FBI and CIA are trying to destroy, the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. He even stamps one of his FPCC pamphlets with the return address where the FBI agent had his office. He approaches a secret CIA anti-communist front organization, the DRE, and offers to help train its members.
Oswald travels to Mexico City, where he visits with the Cuban and Soviet embassies. He supposedly meets with one of the top assassins for the Soviet Union.
Okay, you get the picture?
Now, think about what they did to Martin Luther King, who arguably wasn’t a communist at all. Think about what they did to Dalton Trumbo and the Hollywood 10. Think about what they did to all the people hauled up to testify before Sen. McCarthy and forced to answer whether “they are now or ever have been members of the Communist Party.” Think about all the communists they targeted for assassination. Think about all the communists they killed in Korea and Vietnam. Think about what they did to Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, and Communist Cuba. Think what they did to Mossadegh, Arbenz, Allende, and Lamumba.
Now, ask yourself: What did they do to a supposedly real, died-in-the-wool, honest-to-goodness, self-avowed American communist named Lee Harvey Oswald?
Answer: They did nothing! Nothing at all. No COINTELPRO. No harassment. No abuse. No prosecution or persecution. No torture. No jailing. No military tribunal. No hauling before a federal grand jury. No criminal indictment for treason. No humiliation. No nothing!
And here’s the thing: It’s not as if they didn’t know about Oswald. In fact, as Jefferson Morley figured out several decades after the Kennedy assassination, a small section of the CIA, headed by CIA counterintelligence chief James Jesus Angleton, was secretly monitoring Oswald’s movements in the weeks leading up to the JFK assassination.
Why not harass, abuse, prosecute, or persecute this supposed communist? Why not treat him like they treated Martin Luther King and other people they were convinced were communists?
There can be only one logical answer: Oswald wasn’t a real communist. Instead, he was exactly what some people were saying he was after the assassination: He was a U.S. intelligence agent who had been trained to behave as a communist in order to infiltrate the Soviet Union, the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, and perhaps even Cuba as part of the CIA’s many assassination programs against Fidel Castro. In fact, recently released records among the two percent that were released also reveal that the CIA was in fact using secret agents to infiltrate communist organizations.
And don’t forget: Oswald vowed to give all his military secrets to the Russians. Would U.S. officials really ignore that threat, especially given that CIA pilot Francis Gary Powers was shot down while flying a CIA U-2 spy plane illegally flying over Russia while Oswald was living in Russia? Not a chance! Look at how they have treated Edward Snowden who simply revealed illegal acts of the NSA to the world.
So, why would the CIA be secretly monitoring Oswald and, equally important, why keep that secret from the American people for decades? Indeed, once the CIA learned that Oswald had supposedly met with a top Soviet assassin, why not report that to the Secret Service?
Indeed, where are the telephone recordings and photographs of the CIA’s Mexico City surveillance of Oswald? Why was Lyndon Johnson told that someone had impersonated Oswald in Mexico City? Why are the CIA and the National Archives still keeping the CIA’s records on Oswald’s trip to Mexico City secret from the American people?
There is only one answer that makes any sense: Oswald was exactly what he said he was after he was arrested. He was a “patsy” — a person who was being framed by the people around him. In order to make the frame-up succeed, they needed not only to fortify his bona-fides as a “communist,” they also needed to watch him carefully to make sure that he hadn’t figured out that he was being set up.
As Jefferson Morley recently pointed out at JFKfacts.org, “Pre-assassination communications about the unimportant Lee Oswald went straight to the top of the agency, i.e., to James Angleton.”
Needless to say, however, the mainstream media and the acolytes of the CIA are pointing to a recently disclosed CIA record that denies that Oswald was a U.S. intelligence agent.
Well, duh!
Let’s not forget one important thing about the CIA: It lies. Everyone knows it. In fact, lying is one of the core features of the CIA.
For example, recall CIA Director Richard Helms. He intentionally and knowingly lied under oath to Congress about the CIA’s role in instigating the Chilean coup in 1973. Perjury. He lied to protect “national security,” which meant protecting the secrecy of what the CIA had done to bring regime change to Chile.
Even though other CIA officials clearly knew that Helms had committed perjury, they intentionally and knowingly let the perjury stand. The need for secrecy was considered of paramount important.
Moreover, when Helms returned to the CIA after being caught and sentenced, he was treated by his fellow CIA operatives as a hero and a patriot. They thought his lying was great. They even passed a hat around to help him pay his fine.
At the risk of belaboring the obvious, if they would lie to protect the secrecy of their regime-change operation in Chile, why wouldn’t they lie to protect the secrecy of their regime-change operation here in the United States on November 22, 1963?
Indeed, let’s not forget the last word in the title of the recent Washington Post article about the FBI’s analysis of Martin Luther King: “In the Latest JFK Files: The FBI’s Ugly Analysis on Martin Luther King, Jr., Filled With Falsehoods.”
