[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon
leftypol archives

File: 1670773724482.png (1.06 MB, 703x887, jfk.png)


>John Fitzgerald Kennedy (May 29, 1917 – November 22, 1963), often referred to by his initials JFK and the nickname Jack, was an American politician who served as the 35th president of the United States from 1961 until his assassination near the end of his third year in office. Kennedy was the youngest person to assume the presidency by election. He was also the youngest president at the end of his tenure. Kennedy served at the height of the Cold War, and the majority of his work as president concerned relations with the Soviet Union and Cuba. He was a Democrat who represented Massachusetts in both houses of the U.S. Congress prior to his presidency.

>On November 22, 1963, Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas. His vice president, Lyndon B. Johnson, assumed the presidency upon Kennedy's death. Lee Harvey Oswald, a former U.S. Marine, was arrested for the assassination, but he was shot and killed by Jack Ruby two days later. The FBI and the Warren Commission both concluded Oswald had acted alone. After Kennedy's death, Congress enacted many of his proposals, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Revenue Act of 1964.

Who actually killed this guy? Did the CIA or rogue elements of the CIA kill him? Was there a second shooter? Or was Oswald a patsy, as he always insisted? If so, does that mean a Marxist actually assassinated a president?

After all these years and all the theories, what's /leftypol/'s take on it?


CIA probably, on behalf of certain interests. The Cuban exile connection is highly suspicious.


This is from like a week ago

Article from yesterday:
Folks Are Still Finding CIA Rocks to Turn Over in Search of an Oswald Connection


so apparently the files are being released on tuesday, we will see whats in them


Is there any chance that whoever is revealing these documents won't get Epstein'd?


more likely it will still have redactions




I did.


You do know most of those files are going to be redacted to hell and back. So we won't be getting much from them sadly.


Didn't Oswald go to the Soviet Union for a little?


>Who actually killed this guy?
Big Oil


It was mossad




Didn't Oswald hang out with the Bushes and some White Russian expats?


We already knew he was trained at Monterey language school (a school for spies and diplomats for purposes of the State)


As a spy, yes.


What actual evidence or leads points to Israel in any way?


Just look up Fidel interviews where he's like "yeah, we were convinced that ultra-forces in the U.S. never forgave Kennedy for not invading us when they tried to push him into it, so they considered him a traitor… also we have a lot of experience in marksmanship and did our own experiments and we don't believe Oswald did it, and he tried to come to Cuba but we didn't let him in because we thought he was a provocateur." That's not an exact quote but it's pretty similar to what he said on multiple occasions.

Oswald had also run a fake pro-Cuba group in New Orleans of which he was the only member, with a listed address to a building owned by an FBI agent named Guy Banister who published literature for Cuban anti-communist groups. I don't know if Oswald shot Kennedy or not and I don't get too caught up in the bullet theories, but he struck me as a kinda stupid guy who was led around, and it's quite possible he was just put in the right place at the right time when the serious people shot him. Oliver Stone believes he was shot from the front, the Grassy Knoll being the most likely place. I've been there and it's an interesting thing because it's a recessed position and you can lean back and pretend like you're aiming a rifle at where JFK was when this impact happened and it would've been a near straight shot. Oswald himself said "I'm a patsy" as they were dragging him to the parking lot where a mobster shot him.

As for why they did it, I think JFK had a liberal (and rather Catholic seeming) foreign policy "vision" which was anticommunist, but he reasoned that communism was a reaction to technological shock in poor countries, and that it wasn't worth fighting communists in countries where they had majority support because you couldn't expect to win against a whole population anyways. So, instead, the U.S. should support non-aligned third-world leaders to help them hold out as long as possible like Sukarno in Indonesia (who were also critically supported by communists in those countries), basically try to avoid a direct confrontation and be this "progressive" third way in the world. And I think the ultra-right forces in the intelligence services, with connections to the Mafia and anticommunist Cuban exiles and mercenaries figured this would be a disaster for the U.S. and they were triggered by what they considered to be a betrayal by JFK not to lend enough support to the Bay of Pigs invasion, and a lot of their buddies died on the beach and were taken prisoner because of that.

Another weird thing, Oswald was holding up two newspapers in that photo of himself with the rifle, the Daily Worker and The Militant, so the newspapers of the CPUSA and the SWP. What kinda communist holds up copies of the CPUSA paper and a Trotskyist paper? Most people would have no idea that doesn't make any sense.

It's just /pol/.

Frankly, I'm kinda blackpilled that Americans would even believe "the truth" were it to come out. That basically the people who killed JFK were the (Ret.) Gen. Michael Flynns of the early 1960s. The reason is because the liberals have come to believe in the CIA as the good guys. They don't wanna believe that hard-right anti-communist forces in the U.S. produced *by* their beloved institutions are willing and able to operate outside the bounds of legality and the Constitution to get rid of "traitors" including a liberal president if deemed necessary. Like, look at that Jan. 6 capitol putsch thing, you couldn't throw a snowball without hitting some ex-military guy.

Flynn himself was the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency under…. Obama… and that retired general believes in a bunch of stuff that wouldn't be out of place in Dr. Strangelove with the rogue general trying to carry out a rebellion to save America from communists who are putting flouride in the water. These guys start to believe their own psyop bullshit, which they applied abroad, and then turn it around and apply it at home. The Jan. 6 thing was a color revolution-style set of methods, which liberals support when done abroad by similar people who attempted it at home. Like assassinating heads of state in the 1950s/1960s.

For /pol/, they're probably more likely to believe in a conspiracy, but they don't realize – or don't wanna realize – that they're the Deep State (basically). Or the patsies for it anyways, or that their politics was produced by it. Because the stuff they do or support could be (depending on your perspective) "traitorous" because it goes outside the bounds of institutional norms, to get rid of "traitors." The JFK assassination was a long time ago, so now they can believe that they're fighting the people who also killed Kennedy, even though their contemporaries in the early 60s considered Kennedy a traitor. That to me is proof of the success of the psyop. Or they blame "the Israelis," some other group from without, not from within, because that doesn't implicate their own politics.

There were villagers in Guatemala that came to believe that anti-communist death squads which killed their family members were "communists," because they engaged in black propaganda to blame communists for those false-flag attacks, and that communism is "authoritarian and when the government shoots people," and since the right-wing junta government was doing that, it must have been "communist."




File: 1670801469419-0.png (2.27 MB, 1440x1303, imrs.png)

File: 1670801469419-1.jpg (118.2 KB, 1200x675, p02fk6hz.jpg)

Don't see how this really connects to the assassination though. Like I'm sure the people who shot him were fine with an Israeli nuclear program to counter Soviet-backed Arab states, but we also know that Oswald was glowed up with anti-Castro forces who were infuriated at the failure of the Bay of Pigs. A communist government in Cuba is something which these guys DO NOT tolerate today, and especially at that time. They viewed Fidel as an existential threat, that that USSR had introduced nuclear missiles there before then, and JFK didn't do what he was "supposed to do" by invading Cuba to remove the threat once and for all – and their buddies died on the beach or were hauled off to Cuban prisons as result – after JFK had given the go-ahead. That was unacceptable and not something to be forgiven.


a discordian


File: 1670803514226.png (Spoiler Image, 91.53 KB, 1200x720, 1200px-Flag_of_the_U.S._Ce….png)

>Who killed JFK, really?


No, it's illegal for them to do involve themselves in domestic issues.
They would get Canadian intelligence to do it.


my only mild criticism is your assumption that the fate of Brigade 2506 members getting killed or captured was really a motivating factor either way for the people involved, I doubt anyone cared about them because if you were on that beach you were expendable and a rube who was not expected to succeed on your own with what they gave you. I think they just wanted to kill Kennedy because there was a chance he would move towards détente with the USSR after burying the hatchet over the missile crisis and the implications of that probably could have been existential for capitalism at that moment in history


>it's illegal to kill JFK
Mind = blown


Yeah I think that's the underlying motivation for the high-level people, but with multiple groups working toward the same goal for different reasons.


IKR? Assassinations happened so often I was wondering why there wasn't a law against it.
Turns out there was.


his head just did that


File: 1670811215413.mp4 (227.16 KB, 640x480, hero.mp4)


File: 1670811410920-1.png (87.14 KB, 2552x4200, img_5761_2_300.png)

File: 1670811410920-2.png (163.09 KB, 2552x4200, img_5761_4_300.png)

File: 1670811410920-3.png (167.12 KB, 2552x4200, img_5761_5_300.png)

File: 1670811410920-4.png (49.21 KB, 4200x2552, img_5761_7_300.png)


<(audio included for those too lazy to read)

In 1976, more than a decade after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, a letter arrived at the CIA, addressed to its director, the Hon. George Bush. The letter was from a desperate-sounding man in Dallas, who spoke regretfully of having been indiscreet in talking about Lee Harvey Oswald and begged George Herbert Walker "Poppy" Bush for help:

>Maybe you will be able to bring a solution into the hopeless situation I find myself in. My wife and I find ourselves surrounded by some vigilantes; our phone bugged; and we are being followed everywhere. Either FBI is involved in this or they do not want to accept my complaints. We are driven to insanity by this situation . . . I tried to write, stupidly and unsuccessfully, about Lee H. Oswald and must have angered a lot of people . . . Could you do something to remove this net around us? This will be my last request for help and I will not annoy you any more.

The writer signed himself “G. de Mohrenschildt.”

scans of these letters are attached. they are real

The CIA staff assumed the letter writer to be a crank. Just to be sure, however, they asked their boss: Did he by any chance know a man named de Mohrenschildt? Bush responded by memo, seemingly self-typed: “I do know this man DeMohrenschildt. I first men [sic] him in the early 40’3 [sic]. He was an uncle to my Andover roommate. Later he surfaced in Dallas (50’s maybe) . . . Then he surfaced when Oswald shot to prominence. He knew Oswald before the assassination of Pres. Kennedy. I don’t recall his role in all this.” Not recall? Once again, Poppy Bush was having memory problems. And not about trivial matters. George de Mohrenschildt was not just the uncle of a roommate, but a longtime personal associate. Yet Poppy could not recall—or more precisely, claimed not to recall—the nature of de Mohrenschildt’s relationship with the man believed to have assassinated the thirty-fifth president. This would have been an unusual lapse on anyone’s part. But for the head of an American spy agency to exhibit such a blasé attitude, in such an important matter, was over the edge.

At that very moment, several federal investigations were looking into CIA abuses—including the agency’s role in assassinations of foreign leaders. These investigators were heading toward what would become a reopened inquiry into Kennedy’s death. Could it be that the lapse was not casual, and the acknowledgment of a distant relationship was a way to forestall inquiry into a closer one? Writing back to his old friend, Poppy assured de Mohrenschildt that his fears were entirely unfounded. Yet half a year later, de Mohrenschildt was dead. The cause was officially determined to be suicide with a shotgun.

Investigators combing through de Mohrenschildt’s effects came upon his tattered address book, largely full of entries made in the 1950s. Among them, though apparently eliciting no further inquiries on the part of the police, was an old entry for the current CIA director, with the Midland address where he had lived in the early days of Zapata:


When Poppy told his staff that his old friend de Mohrenschildt “knew Oswald,” that was an understatement. From 1962 through the spring of 1963, de Mohrenschildt was by far the principal influence on Oswald, the older man who guided every step of his life. De Mohrenschildt had helped Oswald find jobs and apartments, had taken him to meetings and social gatherings, and generally had assisted with the most minute aspects of life for Lee Oswald, his Russian wife, Marina, and their baby. De Mohrenschildt’s relationship with Oswald has tantalized and perplexed investigators and researchers for decades.

In 1964, de Mohrenschildt and his wife Jeanne testified to the Warren Commission, which spent more time with them than any other witness—possibly excepting Oswald’s widow, Marina. The commission, though, focused on George de Mohrenschildt as a colorful, if eccentric, character, steering away every time de Mohrenschildt recounted yet another name from a staggering list of influential friends and associates. In the end, the commission simply concluded in its final report that these must all be coincidences and nothing more. The de Mohrenschildts, the commission said, apparently had nothing to do with the assassination.


>be oswald
>spend all of the 1950s telling everyone in the US Marine Corps that you're a communist
>never get discharged for it
>become sharpshooter in USMC while screaming to the high heavens that you're a communist to anyone with 2 ears
>move to USSR
>meet and marry the daughter of a high ranking soviet official in months flat
>move back to the USA
>suddenly say you hate the USSR to anyone with 2 ears
>hang out with anti-castro cubans
>hang out with anti-soviet white movement exiles in Dallas, who all have close ties to the oil industry and the CIA
>Start literally passing out leaflets for a CIA front group
>hang out with George De Mohrenschildt, a family friend of CIA director George HW Bush who loves to go on vacations that last several months in countries that are about to be couped
>George De Mohrenschildt gets you a job at the book depository
>kill JFK
>go on trial
>oops a mobster with ties to the CIA and anti-castro operations kills you

what did he mean by this?


shhhh this is a toxic truth, do you really want the federal governments legitimacy to run dry? we got a liberal experiment to keep running here, get with the times


If you ask me the protestant glowies weren't ready for a Catholic States of America, so the protestant deep state killed him to stop the Catholics from taking their rightful place as the chosen rulers of the promised land.


George H. W. Bush/CIA/Deep State for wanting to pull out of Vietnam.


File: 1670815160068.jpg (28.63 KB, 416x416, EmF3I0TWMAUmzTZ.jpg)

Was his assassination the point of no return in corporations taking control of the government? Or was that Reagan? Obvious litlet here btw my bad.


its was the point of no return in regards to the tension and contradiction between liberal republicanism and the rise of the American national security state/empire. Reagan sealed the deal on the rise of the modern oligarchy we have today.


File: 1670816155373.png (1.68 MB, 2000x1290, Lincoln, nooooooo.png)

the point of no return was reconstruction. America was firmly on the capitalist road from that point onward. reconstruction was the last opportunity america had to avoid capitalism. New Deal was succdem reformism that procrastinated on dealing with the contradictions of capital. Neoliberalism was reactionary economics that procrastinated on dealing with the contradictions of capital. Whether or not America has strong labor unions and good welfare, whether or not America is outsourcing jobs and importing immigrants, the contradictions of capital will have to be dealt with eventually. But America can't deal with the contradictions of capital because its ruling class is bourgeois and would have to disempower themselves. They never want to do that. Even when they accepted the New Deal it was to avoid revolution and guarantee a generation of prosperity.

I suppose in the long term you can view The crushing of labor militants in 1877, the co-opting of the labor movements of the 20s and 30s into the New Deal Coalition, The assassination of Kennedy, Reagan neoliberalizing the economy and crushing the Air Traffic Controllers, Citizens' United, etc. not as "points of no return" but as waypoints along a Path of No Return that was already taken while Lincoln was still alive.


File: 1670816315377-1.png (32.6 KB, 1920x1080, Madison.png)

part 2

while I did say lincoln was the point of no return (since the civil war presented a real opportunity to avoid capitalism, pic 1 related) I would be remiss to point out that this probably wouldn't have happened anyway since the seeds of industrial capitalism were planted by the slave-owning proto-bourgeois leaders of the war of independence (pic 2 related). Whether you're talking about the federalists, who viewed the rabble as beasts who needed to be controlled, or the anti-federalists, who were often slave owning planters, the seeds of capitalism were already planted.


This is a good watch



The Manhattan project was the birth of the deep state and it was already too late when Truman was on his death bed.


How was the Manhattan Project the birth of the deep state?


File: 1670823293820.png (677.99 KB, 1200x800, covert ops meme.png)

the birth of the deep state began before WW2 but culminated in the NSC directives after WW2

watch this


I don’t think Capitalism was really avoidable in America. But I think FDR’s death sealed the deal on any remotely peaceful transition towards a kind of managed or “planned” capitalism/socialism.

Like, we had the ingredients right there. FDR had a personal friendship with Stalin, mass popularity, he’d laid the infrastructure that could’ve overseen a general control of the economy, and IIRC he was even planning for the rebuilding of Europe to include the Soviet Sphere.

Then he died, Truman came to power, and you had everything laid for the Cold War.


File: 1670824703803.jpg (15.15 KB, 230x346, Talbot.jpg)

he wanted to drain the swamp


Oswald being employed by the CIA to hand out anti-castro leaflets, oswald getting the book depository job through a family friend of the Bushes, Oswald's years of pretending to be communist, and Oswald getting murdered by a mobster/CIA asset are enough to let anyone know something fishy was going on. All the glowies have left is the shit. It's not that we don't have evidence, it's that they won't release the missing piece of the puzzle. Why be so guarded if you have nothing to hide? These things are far beyond the point where they should be declassified.


File: 1670866589508.png (247.27 KB, 550x564, 684506854890609456.png)


>Then he died, Truman came to power, and you had everything laid for the Cold War.
Given that both FDR and Woodrow Wilson wanted to make good with soviets and both of them died suddenly before they did makes you ask the question if JFK was the only one who was killed by porkies for being inconvenient president.


File: 1670877833345-0.png (235.33 KB, 1088x828, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1670877833345-1.png (175.9 KB, 1068x608, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1670877833345-2.png (488.28 KB, 709x767, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1670877833345-3.png (268.5 KB, 560x700, ClipboardImage.png)

posting actual letters contained in that tweet


>But I think FDR’s death sealed the deal on any remotely peaceful transition towards a kind of managed or “planned” capitalism/socialism.

Glowies orchestrated the Wallace coup for a reason.



Gotta link to that reconstruction pdf? Asking for a friend.



So that means the CIAs plan was to off JFK so they could do a bay of pigs part 2? Did LBJ know or did the CIA just hope he would do it? Wtf


File: 1674538678206.jpg (88.04 KB, 1280x720, 2nd-Bill-of-Rights..jpg)

I've had that suspicion too personally. Considering FDR was pushing for things like picrel before his death , and the Right was trying to pull shit like The Business Plot; I think it is at least very plausible to say the least.


Maybe his head just did that. Like a sneeze went down the wrong pipe.


this guy


saw this over a month late, sorry


(2:38 - 3:20)
>"What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children–not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women–not merely peace in our time but peace for all time."






If the rabble were mostly religious fanatics, I wouldn't blame them for that view.


I'd like to see you and any other wannabe Stalin on this board try to sell communism to Americans back during the foundation of the country, or even before reconstruction.

If the majority of the people reject communism, then the only way you will get it is to impose it on them, making them despise you even more, their children, grandchildren, etc.


The liberal experiment will fail irregardless of attempts to keep it alive.


Oh, a virus. Splendid.


is it really?

Unique IPs: 44

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]