Author Topic: Did the power elite consider Kennedy a threat to the system?  (Read 7471 times)


  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 80
Did the power elite consider Kennedy a threat to the system?
« on: August 25, 2013, 11:39:55 AM »
Interesting news from The Guardian newspaper here in London that it is to collaborate more closely with the The New York Times in relation to the material being provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden:

The arrangement was made when the Guardian was faced with demands from the UK government to hand over the GCHQ files it had in its possession. "In a climate of intense pressure from the UK government, the Guardian decided to bring in a US partner to work on the GCHQ documents provided by Edward Snowden. We are working in partnership with the NYT and others to continue reporting these stories," the Guardian said in a statement.

It appears that The Guardian is bringing in a major US newspaper in a deliberate attempt to take advantage of the free-speech protections provided by the US Constitution:

Journalists in America are protected by the first amendment which guarantees free speech and in practice prevents the state seeking pre-publication injunctions or "prior restraint".


It is intended that the collaboration with the New York Times will allow the Guardian to continue exposing mass surveillance by putting the Snowden documents on GCHQ beyond government reach. Snowden is aware of the arrangement.

This is relevant to this forum because one of the things that has always baffled me is why the so-called free press in the US has never shown much interest in investigating and reporting on the JFK assassination.  And, of course, top of the list of those showing a distinct lack of interest is the New York Times ("All the News That's Fit to Print").  Bear in mind that the various governmental (and related agency) pronouncements on and reports into the assassination were full of shortcomings and inconsistencies, any number of which would have provided the ideal "in" to an editor interested in finding out the truth.

But this never happened - why not?

Recently, I have been re-reading Martin Schotz's 1996 book "History Will Not Absolve Us".  Dr. Schotz presents a thought-provoking response to this question, and one I would like to share with forum members.

Schotz argues that the assassination was not considered a threat to the security of the country because most people in power at the time considered it to be an acceptable, even necessary, act:

I suggest we consider that possibly the assassination of JFK was not a wound to American democracy. It was a wound against certain political forces in our democracy, but not to the democracy itself. In fact, I submit that the assassination was totally within the framework of how American democracy works, and that this was instantly the opinion of people who were knowledgeable, sophisticated, and leading participants in the so-called democratic politics of this society.

The notion that American democracy was not wounded by the assassination of its President is supported by the fact that virtually every segment of the establishment - right, left, and center - lined up to support the mystery cover-up and participate in the pseudo-debate. Not a single member of the Kennedy Administration resigned in protest over what had been done. Not a single member of Congress resigned in protest. Not a single judge in the entire country, not to mention a single justice of the Supreme Court, resigned in protest over the role of the Chief Justice of the United States in this case. The President's brother did not resign in protest, and the entire Kennedy family publicly accepted the Warren Report, albeit with their behind-­the-scenes maneuvering and their delayed and lukewarm endorsements. Not a single editor of a major newspaper resigned over being forced to swallow this obviously phony story (Schotz, 1996:17).

Schotz goes on to argue that the reason that none of these resignations occurred was that some or all of the people concerned considered that the assassination was an unfortunate but required act.  In other words, it was acceptable to them:

But how is it possible? How can you have a democracy in which there is a coup and literally no one, not a single person in power, protests by resigning? You could have this only if it is not really a coup. You could have this only if, no matter how distasteful it may be, all these people are prepared to find what had been done ultimately acceptable. The fact that for American democracy it was acceptable for the CIA to shoot Kennedy is proven by the fact that it was accepted virtually without protest.

At first glance this idea may seem disorienting, shocking, even bizarre. Is it really conceivable that it is acceptable to the entire spectrum of the governmental establishment, the entire spectrum of the university establishment, the entire spectrum of our media establishment that the CIA can very obviously carry out the murder of a president? This seems crazy. But it is what happened. It was accepted, ergo it was acceptable (p.18).


We are thus left with a conclusion that the President's murder by the CIA was accepted throughout the entire establishment. Indeed the liberal leadership ultimately confirmed that the murder of the President by the CIA and the military could go unpunished and unrevealed without disturbing our constitutional process. It is they who made the decision that the murder of the President by the CIA would be politically acceptable. And as a result, this murder did not cause the ripple of a single resignation. It was business as usual. This is not an ideological conclusion. This is a logical conclusion based on a factual analysis of the way our democracy reacted to the crime (p.23).

Now in further consideration of this proposal I am hoping that forum members will not dwell overlong on the various media operations conducted by the intelligence services (Mockingbird, Nightingale, and such like), nor on their payment to journalists to "devise and place propaganda" (a la Church Report).  These were active efforts by the intelligence services to ensure that the truth remained hidden.

I am more specifically interested in the idea that some or all of the power elite were fully capable of working out what had happened, but CHOSE to go along with the official storyline and to remain silent about the obvious flaws with it.  And that they made this choice because, at some level, they agreed that the assassination was a necessary evil to restore stability to the American political system.

So, the question is ... do you think that a significant part of the reason for the silence of the establishment was (and continues to be) that this establishment considered President Kennedy to be more of a risk to the American political system than his assassination was?

Schotz, E. M. (1996), History Will Not Absolve Us: Orwellian Control, Public Denial, and the Murder of President Kennedy. Brookline, Massachusetts:Kurtz, Ulmer & DeLucia.

« Last Edit: August 25, 2013, 11:50:23 AM by echelon »


  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 216
Re: Did the power elite consider Kennedy a threat to the system?
« Reply #1 on: August 25, 2013, 06:39:30 PM »
Hi Echelon, welcome to the forum again. I thought you were already here, but maybe that was the last forum or the one before that.  :o

Anyway, I don't agree with Schotz's analysis. When an extreme faction within the military-industrial-intelligence-criminal complex kills the President to try and provoke a war, such an action can threaten the whole System and the facade of "democracy" that has been built up for 200 years. The public has to continue believing in that System or the show is over.

The corporate media is a huge part of that System, and they see themselves as the defenders and promoters of it. The cheerleaders for "good government." The people who cried, "The system worked!" when Nixon resigned. The folks who continue to berate "conspiracy theories" and "mistrust of government." They circled the wagons and got the Warren Commission together to protect their institutions, so that the American people and our allies wouldn't see the US as just another banana republic ruled by a military junta. This is not El Salvador or Argentina, we are the leader of the Free World!
« Last Edit: August 25, 2013, 06:49:20 PM by TLR »


  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 80
Re: Did the power elite consider Kennedy a threat to the system?
« Reply #2 on: September 08, 2013, 06:09:28 AM »
Hi Echelon, welcome to the forum again. I thought you were already here, but maybe that was the last forum or the one before that.

Yes, I've been a "Newbie" so many times over these past six months that I'm half expecting a brutal, initiation ceremony at any moment!

I agree with you that there was a "circling of the wagons" to protect the system but that was not really my point.  What I think Schotz was trying to say and what I picked up on was that the vast majority of the power elite (a) had nothing whatsoever to do with Kennedy's assassination but (b) came to accept what had happened and may even have supported it in some philosophical way.  Thus, the underlying reason that nobody came forward to challenge the obvious flaws in the government's case against Oswald was that most (if not all) of the power elite accepted that Kennedy had to be stopped, and that requirement overruled the need to obey the law of the land.

Jan Klimkowski (at DPF) said something similar recently when he wrote:

"[T]he deep political truth of recent research into the actions and beliefs of John Fitzgerald Kennedy in the last year of his Presidency reveal him to be a traitor to the class into which he was born.

So his class slaughtered him, in public."

It's convenient, is it not, to label the other party a "traitor" as it relieves one of the burden of looking in the mirror?  Hoover was quite good at that, as I recall.

It's also very troubling for American democracy more fundamentally as it indicates that there really are no "checks and balances" in the system.  One element of society can completely overturn the constitution and nobody bats an eyelid.

The public has to continue believing in that System or the show is over.

I agree with this bit, but I was certainly not conflating the views of the general public with those of the power elite.

Leslie Sharp

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 39
Re: Did the power elite consider Kennedy a threat to the system?
« Reply #3 on: September 23, 2013, 12:45:00 AM »
You've introduced additional aspects that require time to digest and contemplate, but it seems we're on a similar tack which may in some way align with the theory posited by Dan Hardway... that in the counter intelligence world, necessity is justification for murder.  (I didn't know it at the time of my response to his comment that Hardway was an investigator for the HSCA.)  I think it was PD Scott who coined the term "grand unifying theory" as it relates to the Kennedy assassination, and I've been on that quest for almost two decades.  How did so many in positions of power and influence turn away from pursuing justice, not only for John Kennedy the man, but for those of us who operate under the assumption that America achieved democracy centuries ago?  I think of it as concentric circles of varying strengths ranging from denial to passive collaboration to active participation.  I'll study your post and add my further two cents in a few days.  Cheers.