Let's look at the state of political correctness today concerning the JFK assassination. Basically, there is no tolerance for dissent from the official story that Oswald did it and did it alone. The only departure from it that is semi-tolerated is if you say that it's hard for you to believe that Oswald acted alone, that someone may have helped him in some way, but you don't know who or how. As long as you leave it vague and don't suggest that anyone connected to the US government was involved, you may get away with it. After all, the government's own investigators, the HSCA, came to that conclusion, and really it is Government Story #2, for those who aren't happy with Government Story #1.
But, if you try, in any way, shape, or form, to suggest that Oswald was innocent, that he didn't do it, then you've had it. You're in trouble. You will lose your job. If you work for the federal government, and you are vocal about it, you will lose your job.
And I can give you an example about that except that it pertained to 9/11 truth rather than JFK truth. I am speaking of Van Johnson, who worked at Obama's Green Secretary. It was discovered that he had signed a 9/11 truth petition years before. He tried to disavow it, saying that people are constantly shoving things into his hand to sign. But, soon afterwards, he resigned, which is to say that he was told that he could either resign or be fired. So, he chose to resign.
And here is an example pertaining to JFK except it involves the media rather than the government, which is scary in itself because the media is supposed to be free of political correctness. I am referring to Judge Andrew Napolitano who had a show on Fox called Freedom Watch. I saw and heard what happened live.
Judge Napolitano had a guest on and they were discussing financial matters including the Federal Reserve. On national television, Judge Napolitano said:
"The last President to stand up to and challenge the power of the Federal Reserve was John Kennedy, and you know what happened to him."
Wow! You have to understand how politically incorrect that was. It was equivalent to saying that the government killed Kennedy. And, he didn't even mention Oswald, implying that Oswald had nothing to do with it. You have realize how bad this was, how threatening and damning it was to the official story. It was was as threatening and damning to the official story as anything I have ever said, including Oswald in the doorway.
And the result was, he lost his job; he lost his show. Even though it was successful; even though it was profitable; even though the audience was growing and expanding, FOX pulled the plug. Why did they do that?
They did it because they are a news organization, and 90% of the news is government news. What did the government do today? What new law did they pass? What new data did they release? What new person did they appoint? What new grant did they award? Who'd they kill? That's most of the news. Government is what provides news organization with most of their fodder. So, news organization tend to be very pro-government, pro-official-stories, pro-official-explanations, etc. And, there is a lot of traffic between government and media. George Stephanopoulos started as a campaign operative for Bill Clinton and then, in his administration, became his Communications Director and Policy Adviser which he did until 1996. Today, he is the top political correspondent for ABC News. The role of media today is to spoon-feed government dictums to the people. There is no independent media. There is no fourth estate. Look what happened in the lead-up to the Gulf War. All the media stations supported George W. Bush's war. And if they invited someone on to debate it, to denounce it, who was it? An actor like Mike Farrell. A comediane like Jeanene Garofalo. And hey, I appreciate what these individuals tried to do, which was stop the war. But, they walked into a trap. They were invariably outnumbered and made to look fringe, alien, and out of touch. And, I think they held up very well under the circumstances. Still, they were used and abused.
But, it wasn't always that way. There were plenty of Northern newspapers- not just Southern ones but Northern ones- that denounced Lincoln's war and really trashed him for it. Of course, Lincoln responded by shutting down newspapers and locking up editors and throwing away the keys. Habeus corpus rights? Forget about it. Chief Justice Roger Taney was so appalled, he stated publicly that what Lincoln was doing was unconstitutional. And how did Lincoln respond? He ordered U.S. marshals to arrest the Chief Justice Taney and haul him off in shackles. Fortunately, the marshals refused to do it, and the matter ended there.
There was more tolerance for open debate on the JFK assassination in the early days than there is today. The televised debate between Mark Lane and William F. Buckley (for which wide sentiment said Lane won) was historic, looking back on it.
Do you realize that such a thing could NEVER happen today? No way. Not even during the 50th anniversary, when there was a lot of JFK programming, did such a thing happen. They invited Cyril Wecht on, who gave his spiel about the Single Bullet Theory being impossible, that there was definitely a shot from the front, hence multiple shooters, hence conspiracy, but hey, that fits with Government Story #2, as I said at the beginning. Cyril Wecht NEVER claims Oswald innocence. In fact, he usually expresses his acceptance of Oswald being A shooter, but that there had to be someone besides Oswald. Cyril Wecht defends Oswald about as much as Joseph Backes does, which is to say: not at all. And that's why they put Wecht on tv. He is put there as the "opposition" but he espouses most of the official story, including the part about Oswald doing it. So, he is really helping them because he is helping to paint the picture that the JFK debate involves Lone Nut Oswald accusers having it out against Oswald-did-it-with-help accusers. Yet, the fact is that most JFK conspiracy theorists, today, believe that Oswald was innocent.
What a nauseating display of tribute to lies the pomp and circumstance in Dealey Plaza was for the 50th anniversary. But, behind the barriers were a swarm of people protesting that smug exercise in denialism. And that was uplifting. The swarm of protesters was uplifting.
There is no doubt about how this is going to end. It's going to end the way all State lies eventually end. It was true of the Soviet lies, the Nazi lies, and it will be true of U.S. lies too, including the JFK lie. The only question is when. But, there is too much already out there to doubt that the official story is going to collapse. It's going to end, and it's going to end badly. I'm looking forward to it.