Get PJ Media on your Apple

Ed Driscoll

Interview: James Piereson on Camelot and the Cultural Revolution

December 8th, 2013 - 11:08 pm

piereson_camelot_cover_12-8-13-1
“Liberalism entered the 1960s as the vital force in American politics, riding a wave of accomplishment running from the Progressive era through the New Deal and beyond. A handsome young president, John F. Kennedy, had just been elected on the promise to extend the unfinished agenda of reform. Liberalism owned the future, as Orwell might have said. Yet by the end of the decade, liberal doctrine was in disarray, with some of its central assumptions broken by the experience of the immediately preceding years. It has yet to recover.”

“What happened?” That’s the question that James Piereson of the Manhattan Institute asked in his 2007 book Camelot and the Cultural Revolution, which was recently republished with a new forward by Encounter Books, to coincide with the 50th anniversary of JFK’s assassination. Building on his 5,000-word 2006 Commentary article, “Lee Harvey Oswald and the Liberal Crackup,” whose opening paragraph we quoted above, Piereson sets out to explore why the 1960s ended on a much darker note than they began, with the American culture in tatters.

As I wrote in 2007, when I first reviewed Piereson’s book for Tech Central Station:

It’s not primarily an attempt to once again prove that Oswald acted alone, as authors such as Gerald Posner, and most recently, Vincent Bugliosi have demonstrated, to the satisfaction of virtually everyone whose name isn’t Oliver Stone. But it is an attempt to explain an incredible transformational shift in American culture, which occurred during the years from 1963 and 1968, particularly in the media and on college campuses.

Even simply looking at photographs, it’s obvious that a decade that began with Sinatra and Miles Davis in cool sharkskin suits and ended in the mud of Woodstock had undergone a enormous cultural shift. In 1973, Pat Moynihan looked back on the decade which had recently concluded and said, “Most liberals had ended the 1960s rather ashamed of the beliefs they had held at the beginning of the decade.” The attitudes amongst liberal elites changed particularly radically during that decade.

Piereson believes that it was a combination of the news of the days leading up to Kennedy’s assassination, Jacqueline Kennedy’s desire to have her husband be a Lincolnesque martyr to civil rights, and a fear of upsetting the Soviet Union and Cuba that caused the background of Oswald to be suppressed.

But the actual causes of liberal disorientation regarding Kennedy’s death and the motives of his killer predate his assassination by several years. It was during the 1950s and early ’60s that that liberal elites declared America’s nascent and disparate conservative movements to be a greater threat to the nation than the Soviet Union, as illustrated by films of the day such as Dr. Strangelove and The Manchurian Candidate. And the subtext of those films was very much based upon “a vast literature that developed in the ’50s and early ’60s about the threat from the far right,” Piereson says, specifically mentioning Richard Hofstadter’s The Paranoid Style In American Politics, and Daniel Bell’s The Radical Right.

A trend that continues to this very day, as seen by the virulent paranoia displayed by the media and the Obama White House over the rise of the Tea Party movement in 2009.

During our interview, Piereson will discuss:

● The cognitive dissonance that occurred when Kennedy’s death at the hands of a pro-Castro Communist was recast to make Kennedy a victim of the Civil Rights movement.

● How the Camelot myth became associated with JFK’s biography — but only after his death.

● How the nostalgia that Camelot introduced into the “Progressive” movement itself also caused a dangerous element of cognitive dissonance.

● Why the country began to come apart at the seams in the years after Kennedy’s death.

● How JFK’s death transformed the center-left into a much nastier form of what Piereson calls “Punitive Liberalism.”

And much more. Click here to listen:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

(19 and half minutes long; 17.8 MB file size. Want to download instead of streaming? Right click here to download this interview to your hard drive. Or right click here to download the 3.35 MB lo-fi edition.)

If the above Flash audio player is not be compatible with your browser, click on the video player below, or click here to be taken directly to YouTube, for an audio-only YouTube clip. Between one of those versions, you should find a format that plays on your system.

Transcript of our interview begins on the following page; for our many previous podcasts, start here and keep scrolling.

piereson_camelot_cover_12-8-13-1

MR. DRISCOLL:  This is Ed Driscoll for PJ Media.com, and we’re talking today with James Piereson, a senior fellow with the Manhattan Institute, and the author of the 2007 book Camelot and the Cultural Revolution, which was recently republished by Encounter Books, to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. And Jim, thanks for stopping by today.

MR. PIERESON:  Ed, delighted to be here.

MR. DRISCOLL:  Jim, is it safe to say that your book is built on four assumptions:

One: Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole assassin of President Kennedy.

Two: Lee Harvey Oswald was an admitted Marxist.

Three: This makes President Kennedy the most prominent victim of the post-World War II Cold War between, on the one side, the Soviet Union and its allies, and on the other, the free west, particularly the United States.

And finally, Four: The previous three facts caused an enormous amount of cognitive dissonance amongst American liberals in the 1960s, creating negative ramifications that influence American culture to this very day. Is that a fair assessment?

MR. PIERESON:  Ed, I think that’s an excellent summary.  It starts with three facts which are hard to dispute, and it leads to a political conclusion that this event caused a great deal of difficulty for many Americans to absorb and interpret and understand.  And it stays with us to this day.

MR. DRISCOLL:  Almost immediately after Kennedy’s death, there was a collective official statement from the news media that it was a quote-unquote climate of race-based hatred that killed President Kennedy. How did that opinion manage to congeal so quickly, when it was also known very quickly after Oswald’s capture, that he was a capital-C Communist?

MR. PIERESON:  Well, Ed, that’s the 100,000-dollar question.  Because you know, the — on the day after the assassination, the New York Times ran, of course, a big banner headline, and down the center, they had a story written by a reporter, in which he detailed Oswald’s arrest and all the evidence against Oswald, which summarized his various Communist activities:  his defection to the Soviet Union, his correspondence with pro-Castro groups, his lobbying for Castro, and indeed, his visit to Mexico City in an effort to travel to Cuba.

But next to that was a column by James Reston, the dean of American journalists at the time, who went on to say that Kennedy was the victim of a climate of hate in the country that sprung out of opposition to the civil rights movement and was promoted by anti-Communists and bigots of various kinds.

And so the question was, which of these things was going to stick?  Is it going to be the facts or is it going to be the civil rights interpretation of this event?  And the Reston interpretation is the one that dominated all the commentary of the Kennedy assassination.

There are a lot of reasons for why that happened.  Many of the events preceding the assassination were linked to the civil rights movement.  There was a lot of violence against civil rights activists in the South in 1963.  And so when Kennedy was killed, people interpreted it within that framework.

MR. DRISCOLL:  And yet, if you look at the Zapruder Film, with the exception of the man with an open umbrella, who was apparently protesting Kennedy’s father’s appeasement of the Nazis, by invoking the memory of Neville Chamberlain, it doesn’t resemble a climate of hate at all. There are no protestors other than the so-called umbrella man, and the crowd appears eager and friendly to see the 35th president. They certainly don’t appear at all angry.

MR. PIERESON:  No.  You know, we have to remember that Kennedy and Johnson carried Texas in the 1960 election.  And Kennedy’s trip to Texas was an effort to keep Texas in the — in the Democratic column in 1964.  And you know, this view that Dallas is responsible for it, as a city of hate, that was an idea that congealed immediately after the assassination, even though it made no sense, because the assassin was a Communist.  That continues to this day.  The New York Times has run two or three articles in the last week discussing Dallas as the city that was to blame for the assassination.

MR. DRISCOLL:  Jim, your book is titled Camelot and the Cultural Revolution. Let’s talk about the first half of that title. How did the myth of Camelot come to be associated with John F. Kennedy?

MR. PIERESON:  Well, the dominant interpretation of the event as it happened was that Kennedy was a victim of hatred and prejudice and bigotry in the American culture, in Dallas and across the South and America in general.  That was the interpretation.

They ignored the fact he was shot by a Communist.  I mentioned Reston.  Many preachers, political leaders, talked about hatred and prejudice and bigotry that weekend as the source of the assassination.  Many said we are all responsible for the assassination.  Chet Huntley went on television the night of the assassination and said that it was caused by hatred in the country and a spirit of lawlessness.  Again, this is a reflection of some of the events that happened across the South in 1963.

But it had nothing to do with the event itself.  The event — the assassination was an event in the Cold War.  Oswald killed Kennedy.  There’s no doubt about that.  And he probably killed Kennedy to protect Castro.

So but this was the first event in post-war America in which this idea is turned loose that America is to blame; the country is guilty.  It occurs with the Kennedy assassination.  And then through the 1960s, it spreads into other areas.

So this idea of America being the guilty party, the sense of anti-Americanism, becomes a prominent element in discourse on the American left through the 1960 as we proceed.  And it has its roots probably very deeply in the ideology of the left, but it surfaces in the Kennedy assassination.

And then as the 60s proceed, the Kennedy assassination is then listed as one item in the indictment of America.  We killed this president.  America killed John F. Kennedy.  He was too good for us.  And so America is guilty.  And that is a thread, I think, that continues to be prominent in commentaries on America, down to the present day.

MR. DRISCOLL:  But it was Jacqueline Kennedy who initially put the Camelot myth into mass circulation, right?

MR. PIERESON:  Yes, that’s true.  It was — that — the Camelot myth was somewhat distinct from this idea that America — that this was an event in the civil rights crusade, though Mrs. Kennedy was sympathetic to that.  Because the Kennedy family did not want John F. Kennedy remembered as a victim of the Cold War.  They wanted to have him remembered as an Abraham Lincoln figure, who had died as a martyr for civil rights.

So they certainly pushed this idea that Kennedy was a victim of bigotry and prejudice.  But she added an additional layer, when she introduced the Camelot idea.  Because now the Camelot idea of King Arthur suggests that the Kennedy White House was a magical place of the highest standards of peace and justice and that he is now gone and can never be replaced.  And so this introduces a kind of a note of nostalgia into the whole discussion that we’ve lost the best and the brightest, and we’ll never regain it again.

Mrs. Kennedy was very — very much like the Broadway play Camelot, which had a successful run on Broadway from 1960 to 1963.  And a recording of the song — cast recording of the songs in the musical reached number 1 on the bestseller charts in that period.  And she claimed that she and the President liked to listen to that record before they went to bed at night.  And they especially liked the title tune that ended with a couplet that:  “Never let it be forgot that once there was a spot for one brief shining moment that was Camelot.”

And that theme, she gave to Theodore White, the journalist, who put it in an essay in an issue of Life magazine, a commemorative issue of Life magazine dedicated to President Kennedy.  And this idea, as sentimental as it sounds, really stuck.  The public bought it and it sticks down to this day.  The Kennedy years are now remembered as Camelot, a kind of a magical period.

Obviously, that’s an exaggeration of what really happened.  It’s also — the term was never used while Kennedy was alive.  It was imagined and circulated in the week after Kennedy’s assassination.

MR. DRISCOLL:  And nostalgia for an ideology that calls itself “Progressive” seems like it would be a pretty fatal combination.

MR. PIERESON:  Well, yes, I think that’s right.  Liberalism, progressivism, has to look toward a bright future.  And when the idea is that they’ve now lost their best chance, their best opportunity is in the past, that introduces a sense of depression, pessimism, or fatalism into the liberal outlook.

And then when you mix that with this idea that America has killed Kennedy, that — that kind of introduces a further destructive element in the outlook.

And so when you look at the liberalism that emerged in the later 1960s, leftism or radicalism, it might be called, you see all of these elements:  a kind of destructive nihilism is in there, an anti-Americanism is in there.  And some of this, I think, grew out of the Kennedy assassination.

When you stop to think that when Kennedy set out to Dallas in late 1963, we had a very stable country, a great deal of consensus around our social values and political institutions.  And Kennedy was quite a popular president.  And we had a growing economy.

By 1968, five years later, the country was coming apart at the seams.  We’d lost our faith in our institutions.  Students were burning the American flag.  Campuses were coming apart.  There were riots in the cities, rampant crime in the cities.  Drug abuse is rampant.  And now we have the assassinations in 1968 of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy.

So in a short period of four and a half or five years, the country goes from a very stable nation to a nation that’s coming apart. And the Kennedy assassination was the first event in this unfolding sequence of events.

MR. DRISCOLL:  Jim, I recently interviewed Jesse Walker of Reason magazine about his new book, The United States of Paranoia. Jesse’s theory is that all political ideologies, and smart as well as stupid people are apt to have their share of conspiracy theories. However, over the past 50 years, the American Left have demonstrated a propensity for them. First the belief that Kennedy was killed by a mass conspiracy over the cause of civil rights. Prior to the election of Barack Obama, a large percentage of the left believed that President Bush somehow engineered the destruction of the World Trade Center and the attack on the Pentagon. In January of 2011, the left convinced themselves that somehow, Sarah Palin’s clip art caused a crazed gunman to shoot Democratic Senator Gabrielle Giffords and 18 others. And most recently, some Democrats have convinced themselves that the GOP somehow sabotaged the Obamacare Website. Added together, that’s some serious paranoia, particularly by a group that bills itself as the quote-unquote “reality-based community.”

MR. PIERESON:  Well, I think that’s true.  I think you could go back — you know, back into the ’70s, ’80s, ’90s and find a thread of such events running all the way through this period.

MR. DRISCOLL:  How does the left come to grips with it all?

MR. PIERESON:  I guess they don’t see it as paranoia.  An interesting thing is, of course, that during the 1950s as they’re dealing with Senator McCarthy, and his attacks on Communists, they began to say that the right was obsessed with conspiracies, and this was the factor that distinguished them from genuine conservatives.  They called them the radical right.  But it was this — it was an infatuation with conspiracies that was the distinctive element.

But of course, as you point out, Ed, this now moved from the right to the left in the 1960s and beyond.

I don’t know how to deal with it.  Of course, you have — you have not only kind of paranoid conspiracies, but you have — had made-up crisis all the way through this period, one thing after another.   Everything’s going to fall apart because of the Supreme Court decision of one kind or another.

So, yes, all the things that the liberals criticized the conservatives for in the 1950s came home to roost on their side in the 1960s and beyond.

MR. DRISCOLL:  Speaking of paranoia, what did you make of Secretary of State John Kerry recently saying that he believed that there was a conspiracy behind Kennedy’s death, and that both he and former Obama quote-unquote Green Czar Van Jones, who was a 9/11 truther, are White House insiders. How do you claim belief in a conspiracy theory, when you have access to both all the files, and the president himself?

MR. PIERESON:  Yes.  Now, I looked at that article by Kerry. He seemed to be suggesting that maybe that Cuba was involved in the assassination.  Kerry was saying that the CIA or the FBI was involved.  He seemed to be saying Oswald was linked up to others.  He wasn’t very specific about it.

And you know, I think that’s actually possible.  Oswald may have been connected somehow to Cuban agents in the United States.  That’s not proven.  But Ed Epstein, who’s really the premier writer on the Kennedy assassination, has a new book — short book — on the Kennedy assassination, where he discusses this possibility.

MR. DRISCOLL:  In the Weekly Standard, you wrote an article describing a virulent form of leftism, which you call “punitive liberalism,” a phrase that also appears in Camelot and the Cultural Revolution.   What is punitive liberalism, and was it spawned by the cognitive dissonance that overcame liberals in reaction to JFK’s death?

MR. PIERESON:  Yes.  I think I developed this idea in kind of watching the liberalism that emerged in the 1960s.  I think the liberalism that Kennedy represented, and Hubert Humphrey, and others, was a kind of progressive liberalism where we’re going to continue to make reforms and perfect the American system of democracy and representative government.

But what you get out of the 1960s is a punitive idea, which is that we have to make these changes to punish America.  America’s been bad.  So America’s been bad to blacks.  America’s been bad to women.  America’s been bad to the environment.  And America somehow has to be punished for all these things by making all these changes.  So as a consequence of which, for example, we have to bus school children.

So really, there’s no question that — people don’t ask, is this going to improve education?  That’s not the question.  The question is, that the whites must be punished for having done wrong in the past.

We have to have quotas and preferences and so on, for women and minority groups.  Will this actually help the bulk of blacks and women who may be actually poor or in the working class and struggling to get ahead?  Well, no, that’s not the point.  We have to punish whites and men for their transgressions in the past.

We have to do various things to fix the environment.  Will this actually help the environment?  It doesn’t matter.  We were bad in the past, and we need to be punished for it.

So the kind of liberalism that emerged from the 1960s, as I suggest, was a kind of punitive idea that we had to make changes and reforms in order to punish America for having been bad in the past not to improve things for the great bulk of the population.

MR. DRISCOLL:  And Jim, last question.  Now that the fiftieth anniversary of Kennedy’s assassination is in the rearview mirror, will his legacy diminish somewhat, simply as time marches on?

MR. PIERESON:  Well, Ed, that’s a good question.  And you know, I kind of think so.  And I think this kind of Kennedy mania — Kennedy — this overblown sense of the Kennedys will begin to recede for a couple of reasons.  One, I think you have to be about sixty years of age or more, even to remember the event.  It was a very large event for people who were relatively young at the time, say, from between their high school years and thirty-five or forty.  Kennedy made a big imprint on them.

And those people are now, you know, sixty years old and well beyond.  So they’re getting older.  And young people don’t really get the Kennedy thing.

The Cold War, of course, is over.  And Kennedy was a prominent figure in the Cold War, and it was the events of the Cold War that really caused the assassination.  The Kennedys are largely out of public life.  There aren’t any more Kennedys, I don’t think, in public life.  Maybe there are one or two, but it’s not a factor anymore.

So I think the passage of time is going to diminish it.  So I think this fiftieth anniversary is probably the final blowout of the whole Kennedy phenomenon.

MR. DRISCOLL:  This is Ed Driscoll, and we’ve been talking with James Pierson of the Manhattan Institute about the latest edition of his brilliant 2007 book Camelot and the Cultural Revolution, It’s published by Encounter Books, and available at Amazon.com and your local bookstore. And Jim, thank you for stopping by PJ Media.com once again.

MR. PIERESON:  I appreciate it, Ed.  Great to talk to you again.

(End of recording; for our many previous podcasts, start here and keep scrolling.)

Transcribed by eScribers.net, with minor revisions (including hyperlinks) by Ed Driscoll. Artwork created using elements from Shutterstock.com.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (10)
All Comments   (10)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
The Kennedy people really rewrote history/ I wonder if the history of their family ever will make it through their censorship.
32 weeks ago
32 weeks ago Link To Comment
I don't think you can write about the 1960s social transformation and ignore the effects of the Vietnam war. It was the biggest divider of all. We may have had hippies and LSD without Vietnam but we wouldn't have the deep divisions that have lasted as long.
The ironies abound. Ike wanted to keep us out. JFK adventurism got us started. LBJ lied us into a huge commitment (Gulf of Tonkin incident). Post 1972, Nixon was pilloried for not getting us out fast enough.
32 weeks ago
32 weeks ago Link To Comment
Great article, but it's quite unfair to label "The Manchurian Candidate" as part of the trend - in that film, after all, it is a secret plan by the Chinese communists, backed by Russian accomplices, to kill the President and place a secret communist stooge in the oval office.

now that I think about it, looks like they figured out how to accomplish that without any need for bloodshed at all.

p.s. don't forget that the Manchurian Candidate, which came out just before the assassination, was suppressed for 25 years (no showings at all, anywhere!) for the thought crime of suggesting that a Vice President might have the most to gain from a President's death. Lyndon Johnston's people didn't like that idea very much, imagine that, and they shut this movie down cold for as long as they were alive. (Jack Valenti, especially)
32 weeks ago
32 weeks ago Link To Comment
The last time I remember the Kennedys being "hip" was in the 1980s - when there seemed to be a wave of nostalgia for the early, pre-crackup, late 50s/early 60s. 80s pop culture used a lot of images and memories from the period. It was the late-Boomers missing their ideal childhoods, I guess. The brief, shining moment just before their older siblings went apeshit and tried to destroy the country. I also had friends - mostly females in their 20s, for some reason - who were Kennedy fans, in the celebrity-obsessed sense.

One more reason I'm glad the 80s are dead and buried...
32 weeks ago
32 weeks ago Link To Comment
It was the drive to regain power by the Kennedys and the Harvard intellectual class that had become their paid courtiers that contributed to the downfall of the left. They felt the White House had been stolen from them by Oswald's bullets and made alliances with the far left wing of liberalism to wrench it back from Johnson as fast as possible.

Democrats had already come out of 11/22/63 thinking that the right had somehow been responsible for the assassination, and the subset saw no problem in demonizing not just the Goldwater campaign but Dallas and all of Texas, including LBJ. Once you're there, de-legitimizing your party's own sitting president comes as easy as doing the same thing to Barry Goldwater, but those doing that thought they could pick and choose what they would destroy -- i.e., take out Johnson over not just Vietnam but also on civil rights (!), by claiming his 1965 Civil Rights Act and the accompanying War on Poverty didn't go far enough.

The Kennedy clan's assumption of the banner of being the leaders of the left side of the Democratic Party, first with Bobby and then, for the next 40 years, with Teddy, meant legitimizing any far left idea that came down the pike. Throw in the guilt trip the family and their backers tried to put on America to give them back ultimate power -- a strategy taken up by other special interest groups in the Democratic Party's coalition -- and you end up where we are now, where persuading others with ideas takes second place to shaming/intimidating them to give in to your ideology.
32 weeks ago
32 weeks ago Link To Comment
We have made so many portrayals of what it is that made the '60s what it was. What leaps out at me are two things:

The first was the wholesale turning away of youth from their parents constraints and value systems or even anything they had liked. That meant everything had to go: commercial illustration, music, literature, fashion, film, etc. Even comic books changed as the Comic Code fell began to fall apart before the end of the decade. Underground comix purposefully parodied the blithe innocence of '50s comics in the most vulgar possible ways.

The second was that the new elements of pop culture had to be seen as giving a message rather than mere entertainment - it must peer through the cracks, enabling perception, deal with social issues, see the REAL deal. Drugs like acid were said to enable perception, not make you merely feel good.

The French Connection (1971) and the now forgotten seminal made-for-TV movie The Marcus-Nelson Murders (1973) for example, show how this affected police procedurals. Literature, especially science fiction literature was far ahead of the game because, unlike a mainstream film audience, their audience was also ahead of the game, and so we saw more nuanced work like Stranger in a Strange Land in 1961 and Dune serialized beginning in 1963 addressing hedonism and environmentalism.

So what's the upshot and legacy of all that: it is still popular to imagine that nothing is what it seems like on the surface - obvious is never obvious. Mitigation and explanation for the most innocent act is the order of the day. We have rhetoric formed around mysterious "systems" that aren't systems, "patriarchies" that aren't patriarchies, and "institutions" that aren't institutions.

I just visited the site of an author of young adult books about goblins and words like "cis," "cissexist," "transphobic," "cis gender," "able-bodied neurotypical," "privilege," "PoC," "colorblindness," "genderblindness," "other," were all in the single newest post and comments section. Such people are adopting the rhetoric almost word for word of the most suspicious group of people in America today - radical black feminists - the newest "hippie."
(show less)
32 weeks ago
32 weeks ago Link To Comment
All this work devoted to Oswald, a Communist who hated America, Capitalism, the Constitution, and Freedom, whose life, itself a variation of Big Bill Haywood, John Reed, and Lincoln Steffens, became a template for generations of Americans, especially in academia, the media, and (Democrat) politics.

He was the strong horse to be followed, the nexus on which all history pivoted, the door through which a third way of Socialism (after the failures of national and international ways) won the world.


Two assassins bookend the destruction of the West, but Oswald is more influential than Gavrilo Princip.

So why in particular was Ruby driven to shoot him?
32 weeks ago
32 weeks ago Link To Comment
So why in particular was Ruby driven to shoot him?"

Why? Really?

Passion, and Opportunity.

Ruby killed Oswald for the same reason I MYSELF would have killed him, had I the same opportunity.... Because we all know the little Rat Punk will never suffer a day in his life any differently than the day he was captured...

Three Hotts and a cott, and a lifetime of Twisted Celebrity Status...Sir Han Sir Han, Manson, Holmes, Major Hassan....none of them will ever be "punished", and we all know it.


So for some folks (like Ruby, or ME if you ever hurt someone I love) wont mind at all not getting away....Nothing else matters, but JUSTICE, when you know none will be forthcoming by any other means.

The only question for some will be, can I reallly REALLY get to him.

And if they can, God willing, they will...

Because Justice is more important than Law
32 weeks ago
32 weeks ago Link To Comment
"So why in particular was Ruby driven to shoot him?"

Why? Really?

Passion, and Opportunity.

Ruby killed Oswald for the same reason I MYSELF would have killed him, had I the same opportunity.... Because we all know the little Rat Punk will never suffer a day in his life any differently than the day he was captured...

A cell, three hots and a cot with no "final punishment" ever administered...a lifetime of Twisted Celebrity Status and Fan Mail to feed their pathetic ego...in otherwords, EXACTLY what they always wanted...

Add Sirhan Sirhan and Manson to that list, and of more recent vintage, the likes a Major Hassan, Jared Loghtner, James Holmes, or your garden variety Child Rapist or Cop Kill...scumbags you KNOW will never face any real punishment at the hands of an imasculated "justice" system that is DESIGNED to render the exact opposite anymore.

The Motive for most any normal person is there, the only Limiting Factor is a "real" Opportunity to be successful in the attempt

And some folks (like Ruby, or me if you hurt someone I love) wont mind at all not getting away....Nothing else matters, but JUSTICE, when you know none will be forthcoming by any other means.
32 weeks ago
32 weeks ago Link To Comment
Thanks for a thought provoking interview on the beginning of the culture of pure fantasy we've suffered through since the '60s. I was 18 when Oswald shot Kennedy and I saw Ruby shoot Oswald as it happened on TV. I've never doubted that Oswald acted alone and have been immune from conspiracy theories, although leftist friends have tried to convince me otherwise.

I speculate that the webs of paranoia spun by the left serve a more nefarious purpose which is understood and exacerbated by liberal elites. They create an atmosphere of general suspicion so pervasive that it serves to muddy the waters enough that all truth is lost. The truth is the real enemy of the left because exposure would destroy them and their poisonous ideology.
32 weeks ago
32 weeks ago Link To Comment
View All