If President John F Kennedy Had Lived

If John Kennedy Had Lived

 Columnist by RBN

By Dave Hodges
Republic Broadcasting Network
Anyone who has studied history knows that the life of a nation as well as its citizens can turn on a dime. On November 22, 1963, the fate of the United States took a dramatic turn for the worse. On that fateful day, some very evil forces asserted their absolute control over the country. This is significant because some of these same evil forces, as well as their descendants are actively enslaving America today.

John Kennedy An Unlikely President

John Kennedy was never a perfect man and his exploits with many beautiful and often controversial women, such as Ingrid Arvid, Judith Exner and Marilyn Monroe speaks to JFK’s imperfections. In fact, the present day corporate controlled media has continually revealed JFK’s womanizing ways as an attempt to remove any sympathy for the slain President.
JFK had the dubious legacy of being born into a family of very active criminality. His father, the former ambassador to England, stock market insider trader and mafia bootlegger, Joseph Kennedy, used his underworld ties to convince Meyer Lansky as well as key members of the Chicago mafia to steal the Cook County, IL., presidential election of 1960.
Illinois was the ultimate swing state. If JFK had not carried Cook County, Illinois, the presidency would have fallen to Nixon. Nixon was the insider’s choice. As Vice-President, he circumvented Ike and exacerbated the crisis situation in Southeast Asia on behalf of the furtherance of the CIA’s heroin trafficking through the infamous “Golden Triangle”. Nixon was in bed with the military industrial complex as Ike called it in his farewell address. Nixon was subservient to the whims of the Federal Reserve and ran interference for them, often to the chagrin of Ike, who desperately wanted to dump Nixon from the 1956 Republican ticket. Nixon was the elite’s errand boy, however, what the elite did not count on was the dramatic impact that the combination of television and JFK’s personal charm would play in the outcome of the 1960 election.

In the famous Nixon-Kennedy debates, which were simulcast on radio and television, Nixon actually won among radio listeners. However, among the largest audience, the television audience, JFK won hands down and history was changed. JFK’s charismatic appeal was something that the elite had underestimated. The insiders were left to deal with the son of a criminal and most likely they thought they could work with the son of the Adolph Hitler supporting and bootlegging thug.

JFK Became a Changed Man

When JFK entered the White House, his party ways came with him, but there would soon be a series of events that would make John Kennedy a changed man. In 1961, the CIA and director Dulles circumvented JFK by launching a secret invasion of Cuba in the Bay of Pigs fiasco. It was only at the last moment did JFK discover the unfolding events in which he refused to provide air cover and the invasion failed on the beach. Kennedy fired Dulles and threatened to break the CIA into a thousand pieces. This even marked the beginning of the bifurcation between JFK and the elite because the CIA had become their errand boy. The elite and their mafia partners desperately wanted Cuba back under their control and JFK blocked their ambitions. The following year, as a result of the Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK had another chance to redeem himself in the eyes of the elite and again he failed. It did not matter that JFK had averted WWIII, he failed to put boots on the ground in Cuba and again, the elite and their designs for Cuba were thwarted.

Simultaneous to the events in Cuba, JFK was dragging his feet on Vietnam. He was reluctantly continuing on the path of allowing combat advisers to continue to operate in South Vietnam.
Vietnam was potentially a huge cash cow to the establishment elite. Chrysler Corporation received 90% of all US defense contracts in 1963, mostly in a middleman capacity. Bell Helicopter and Chase Manhattan Bank would reap record profits from the Vietnam War. Unfortunately for the elite, JFK was growing more isolationist. He became a changed man following the Cuban Missile Crisis as this event shook him to his core. He feared putting the US in military situations that could result in another confrontation with the Soviets. In 1963, JFK had announced that he was bringing home all combat advisers in 1965. JFK and South Vietnamese President, Diem, agreed that America would never send ground troops to Vietnam. Diem and his brother were assassinated by the CIA and 21 days later, JFK was dead. Nine months following these assassinations, America sent 100,000 ground troops to South Vietnam following the now discredited Gulf of Tonkin incident and the elite bathed in their blood money.
JFK had been so shaken by the real possibility of WWIII, that he and the Soviet Premier were actually having discussions regarding the capping of nuclear arms production. The elite could not have any part of  this unprofitable course of action. There is no money to be made in peace especially if you are Martin Marietta (today known as Martin Lockheed). The establishment elite wanted to continue down the path arming America’s nuclear arsenal to the teeth. JFK had become a major impediment to profits in this regard.

The Changed Man Takes Center Stage

JFK, no doubt motivated by the fear of WWIII, was blocking Vietnam and was going to kill the cash cow of nuclear arms production. No doubt, JFK saw the establishment elite as the enemy of humanity. They were willing to take the country to war so that they could fatten their wallets.
JFK began to take action against the elite. He was taking away half of their unwarranted oil depletion allowance. JFK stuck a big stick in the eye of the Federal Reserve by printing over $4 billion dollars of silver backed money, thus threatening the stranglehold the Federal Reserve had enjoyed over the country for the past 50 years.
JFK began making speeches, very damning speeches, in which he called out the establishment elite and their “secret societies” and then JFK signed his death warrant with his American University speech in which he announced, among other things, a desire to pursue peace with the Soviets. Once again, there is no money in peace.
On behalf of “the greater good”, JFK had to be eliminated and he was. However, I have often wondered if JFK had survived, how would America have been changed.

If JFK Had Lived

If JFK had lived, so too, would have 58,000 Americans and untold millions of Vietnamese. If JFK had lived, we would not have spent two trillion dollars on nuclear arms. The money could have been spent, as JFK suggested, on education. America might not have become the hopelessly dumbed down nation that it has become. If JFK had lived the Federal Reserve would have eventually gone the way of the two previous central banks in the United States. The US Congress would have retaken the constitutional power of coining money, interest free money. America would have remained solvent.
If JFK had lived, he would have continued to confront the oil companies and today, we might have achieved energy independence and could be paying about a buck for a gallon if gas. Alaska would be the new Middle East and the petrodollar, which threatens to plunge us into a world war over Syria and Iran, would no longer be a problem. The world would be coming to the US for its energy needs and our economy would be booming.
If JFK had lived, the people would have had their true representative in the White House. The events in Cuba so changed John Kennedy, that he became a true Ron Paul in the last two years of his life. It was the last time, that anyone, outside the elite establishment, had anyone in top level government that cared for them.
The day that John Kennedy died, November 22, 1963, was the beginning of the end for America. These same forces, the interlocking directorates of the military industrial complex, the Federal Reserve, the major oil companies and the media that they control, continued to suck the life out of America to the point of where we stand today, a shell of our former country.

Conclusion

If in the last year of JFK’s presidency, he hadn’t offered such hope to the American people and to the future of the country, I would have lost interest in the life of JFK and his subsequent assassination a long time ago.
I falsely held out the hope that the 50th Anniversary of his death would rekindle a curiosity about who killed JFK and why and then subsequently link that knowledge into today’s America. This could have been the impetus for change in America. Alas, the elite controlled the narrative this fall with plethora of documentaries which lead away from the truth that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. As a result, the country’s interest will continue to wane and with it, the belief that JFK was killed as a result of a conspiracy.
In 1993, 80% of the country believed that JFK was killed as the result of a conspiracy. With the rash of media propaganda, that number has reduced to 61%. The elite have weathered the storm and continue unabated on their journey towards sucking the life out of this country. They will continue to do so until there is nothing left and we are thrown onto the junk pile of history.
There will be no 51st anniversary recognition as the JFK researchers have approached their twilight. Soon the JFK assassination will carry the same weight as the assassination of McKinley. Who? That’s my point. The King is dead, long live the King.
On November 23rd, as we turn our collective eyes back on our future, we might want to begin to prepare for adaptation for there will be no great awakening because your future and your very lives are being threatened by forces that John Kennedy foresaw over 50 years ago in his “Secret Societies” speech.

Muslims Say They Will Make Rape Legal On White Women When They Take Over...

THE LECTRO!! A New Real Currency For the People

INTRODUCING - THE LECTRO!!

Michael Rivero

As the world financial markets watch as the Plunge Protection Team shovels US taxpayer dollars into the flames of reality, propping up the stock markets in a gravity-defying display (I would bet on gravity to win), it is becoming obvious to all that the debt-based currency system of the private central banks, while quite profitable for the bankers, is a dismal failure for civilization as a whole. Humans have labored under this failed experiment for almost 200 years while the media proclaims this is the only form of banking possible, leaders who say otherwise are assassinated, nations trying alternatives are invaded, and hotel maids assaulted. As a means to great wealth for little effort, private central banking using debt-based currency is a marvelous invention, although contrary to the devotees of Adam Smith, this elaborate exercise in personal greed has not advanced civilization along at all. Quite the contrary, any advances made have been in spite of the extreme hindrances and burdens placed on the world at large by the private bankers. Modern economic theory, usually bought and paid for by those bankers, strive to reconcile the revealed dogma with the ever-growing evidence that the system is deeply flawed and should be abandoned. In this, said economists are not unlike students of epicycles, who strove valiantly to reconcile Galileo's observations suggesting a heliocentric solar system with the church's enforced-by-torture geocentric dogma.
The fact is that this model of a private central bank creating money out of thin air to loan to the people and governments was the very economic system this nation fought a revolution to be free of. While our schools teach us of tea parties and stamp acts, they rarely mention the Currency Act any more, even though it was the primary reason for the revolution.
The American colonies issued their own currency, which existed in ample supply to ensure full employment and prosperity for all. But when Ben Franklin described this economic paradise while ambassador to London, the Bank of England panicked! England was even then in the grip of monumental poverty for the masses brought on by the predations of the bankers, and the Bank of England feared that if word of an alterative system reached the people, riots would be the result. So, the Bank of England lobbied King George III to pass the Currency act which ordered the colonists only to use banknotes borrowed at interest from the Bank of England. It took only a few years for this Currency act to reduce the American colonies to the same level of poverty and starvation as their English brethren.
"[It was] the poverty caused by the bad influence of the English bankers on the Parliament which has caused in the colonies hatred of the English and . . . the Revolutionary War." -- Benjamin Franklin
Naturally our schools stopped teaching about the Currency act the same time the Federal Reserve system was brought into being, to obscure the fact that we had all been returned, courtesy of a corrupt Congress and a corrupt President, into the clutches of the very same sort of banker slavery we had fought a war to be free of.
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by its system of credit.We are no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -- Woodrow Wilson 1919
More and more citizens everywhere cry for a return to the economic system that worked best for the people. They yearn for a government issued value-based currency such as this nation was started with. But should we return to a gold standard?
Throughout history, many materials have been used as a medium of exchange. Primitive people used shells, Arabs used salt (origin of the expression "the man is worth his salt.") , and during the last Great Depression a town newspaper printed up their own promissory notes good for free advertising in the paper and used them to barter goods in the town. These ad-based currencies came to be more trusted than the US issued dollars! Germany, when freeing itself from the private central bank imposed by the Treaty of Versailles, redeemed their value-based currency in units of labor. The result was the German Miracle that so terrified the private bankers they organized a boycott to destroy the new German economy before other nations decided to copy it.
Click for larger
World War 2 was the result.
More recently, Libya established a state-controlled bank issuing a value-based currency, the Gold Dinar, which was gaining in popularity across Africa. Invasion followed. Even in the United States, we have had three Presidents try to pry the nation's finances back from the grip of the private bankers, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, and John F. Kennedy.
"Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you out." -- Andrew Jackson
Of the three, only Andrew Jackson succeeded in shutting down the bank. He is also the only US President to pay off the National Debt completely. There was an attempted assassination shortly afterwards, with a confession that clearly indicated a financial motive for the attempt. Both Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy used Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution to issue government money free of interest to the private banks. Both men were assassinated and their interest-free money destroyed. In Kennedy's case, a banker, John J. McCloy, President of the Chase Manhattan Bank and President of the World Bank, was appointed to the Warren Commission that whitewashed the circumstances of the assassination.
So, should we return to the gold standard?
My reply is "no."
To be useful as money, the medium for exchange must be something that is universally agreed upon to have value while at the same time existing in enough supply to prevent manipulation by the money-junkies. In arguing about a new value standard for money one detractor argued that gold was the only possible basis for a new monetary system because only gold was universally valued. Obviously, that is not true. One could walk into any nation carrying a gallon of gasoline and find someone willing to trade for it. So clearly, other mediums of exchange are possible, even if we did not have prior history to assure us if their validity and success.
The problem with gold and silver as mediums of exchange is they exist in too small a quantity relative to the growing population. Gold and silver can be manipulated, hoarded, and shorted, to make the speculators rich at the expense of everyone else. Most of the existing gold and silver are already in the hands of the very same bankers who wrecked our present system, so moving to a gold standard merely trades one form of banker-slavery for another.
What is needed is a medium for exchange that increases in supply right alongside the population itself, in order to maintain stability and constant value.
So, my suggestion is to use electricity as the universal basis for a new value-based money system. For the purposes of discussion I call the new US monetary unit the "Lectro." It is redeemable for one kilowatt hour of electricity. The reason I think this is an idea worth pursuing are as follows.
1. While the US Government will have a motive to create electrical power in order to redeem the tokens (coins) and claim checks (Lectro certificates) issued for commerce, creation of electricity and hence money cannot be monopolized. There is no central issuing authority. Every home can have solar panels generating power to the grid, which is redeemable in Lectro notes. In a way we already do this when we pay for power for paper notes and for those able to sell power back to the utility, trade generated power for notes back. This is simply taking the idea to a national scale and making it the de-fact monetary system. and because everyone can generate electricity, artificial scarcity of supply cannot be created.
2. Because power is now the actual monetary system, this approach encourages efficient (and with the proper tax penalties for pollution) clean power generation as well as conservation at the consumer and factory levels.
3. Nobody can short the money supply because everyone can create their own power and monetize it through the treasury. Runaway inflation is impossible because all the coins and certificates in circulation are tied to the available power grid. As power is created, coins and certificates flow into circulation. As power is used, the coins and certificates are taken out of circulation.
4. In the long term, creation of an energy-based money system will smooth the transition from a human-labor to machine-labor society. At present, human labor precedes all capital, payable in a monetary system that pays primarily for human labor. In switching to a monetary system that pays for machine based power production, we evolve towards a society where machines become the primary creators of capital, and all humans shift towards the demand side of the economy. Instead of creating poverty, the push towards automation creates more wealth.

UAF thug cries wolf after being caught assaulting elderly BNP leafleter ...

The Fall of the United Kingdom - Coming Catastrophes in the UK Economy

 

Why hard Atheists shouldn’t be taken seriously

by Steve Harris.

The people who concretely affirm that there is in fact no higher being whatsoever are among the people that I do not agree with nor trust. I see such declarations as the epitome of self importance. Hard atheism is a belief structure and it is just as prideful and dangerous as the unflinching beliefs of religious extremists.
…But, like hard-line religious fanatics, the hard atheists’ character flaw is an uncompromising belief in self. The individual fanatic and hard athiest both share the belief that they are right and disagreeing others are terribly misguided and wrong…
“Why Hard Atheists Shouldn’t be Taken Seriously” by Edgar Alverson

What he means to say, but doesn’t quite say, is that hard atheists and other fundamentalists base their beliefs in themselves, not in the world. They are using ideology to make themselves seem more important than they are. You can see this phenomenon in every belief system, from white power to hard greens to democrats and onward. The only philosophies that escape it, briefly, are those that negate the self, but even the Buddhists now are mostly egocases: “I am, indeed, holier and more passive (non-aggressive) than thou.”
Belief systems based in promoting the individual in the name of changing the world are “cult-like” in that like viruses, they attack the ego and lowered self-esteem, and make their victims act in zombielike obedience toward impossible or untenable goals.
I stopped posting at the internet infidels forum (see my parting shot using Alverson’s article) for this reason. I went there hoping to find people who, like me, believe our society is off-course and we should re-create it using the best ideas we have and discarding the worst. I figured that if they were atheists, they had already rejected much of the thought-conditioning around them; instead, I found that they accepted that thought conditioning, and revelled in the rebel identity granted them by telling off God.
This resulted in a forum where the admins did not know basic philosophy, the posters would chime in with smarmy comments but would tolerate blatant ignorance as long as it was atheistic, and there was a cult of revenge against Christians. When that forum was newer and healthier, its members rejected this kind of schoolboy bullying. But now it seems encouraged, and ignorance is rife, all while calling Christians ignorant, stupid, etc. and implying that all who are not good liberal atheists are somehow redneck morons who got on the internet because AOL dropped a computer in their laps.
When I was a blaspheming youth, I did it because I believed the religious path was a failure — and for most interpretations of religion, I still believe this, although I also now believe that the same problem applies to science, politics, philosophy and culture — not to make myself into some Antichrist Superstar. My goal was to find an ideological truth, use it to get humanity back on course, and then — go back to doing what I always do. My life is full, in fact possibly overflowing, and I don’t have a need to compensate for failure in it. What I would like, selfish perhaps, is to get my species to stop failing so the future is brighter and the smart people around me stop flaking out.
In the same way, I reject the idea of becoming self-righteous: “I have the right answer, you’re all below me, therefore I rise.” When I believe I have the right answer, I am the attack dog of its ideology, but that is because I believe the ideology will affect the world in positive ways, leaving my condition relatively unchanged. Ask yourself: if your ideology impacted the world as you would like it to, what would be your change in status? If the answer is that you go from night watchman to king, beware, you’re in a cult state of mind.
Alverson does a good hit job on the hard atheists, who were like the skeptics a blooming internet cult for computer programmers and others, but now are fading. We really need to look out for this mindset, as it occurs everywhere, including in people of all religions.

Liberalism offers you half of a civilization

Jan, 2014

by Brett Stevens.

Joseph de Maistre famously said that “wherever an altar is found, there civilization exists.” While I acknowledge the importance of religion, and more importantly of sacralization, I think basic civilization-building is a far simpler process.
In the most essential terms, civilization is an agreement. It’s a decision to leave behind the near total autonomy of independent hunter-gatherer bands in exchange for certain options offered by stability. My feeling is that what really drove it was the urge by parents to have suitable breeding partners for their children.
To keep such a venture together, there must be a very basic understanding that all can rely on. It is most fundamentally an agreement to collaborate, and it works because it is based on the most essential of promises: good to the good, and bad to the bad.
Both halves of this are essential. If you do well by the civilization, you must be rewarded; if you harm it, you must be excluded from the benefits to those who did not transgress. Although it mentions two categories, this simple promise also creates a third, which is “…and nothing to those who do neither good nor bad, but simply participate.”
This of course creates tension and nobody likes tension (well, until they get bored). As a result, a market is formed for those who offer a path into civilization that has less tension. This path is achieved by cutting out parts of the equation that require people to be constructive. Instead of “good to the good, and bad to the bad,” the new paradigm is “bad to the bad” which implies reward on an equal level for those who do good and those who simply participate.
This makes simple participation more important than doing good. It also makes it more efficient; it is pointless to spend extra energy for no reward when you can simply avoid a few taboos, thus not be “bad,” and get the same reward as if you had done well. However, there is also social pretense to consider. You want to look as if you are doing good things. This encourages the creation of institutions through which individuals can make a small monetary contribution or otherwise demonstrate support, and be assumed to be doing good. It also encourages the creation of jobs and roles well where one can succeed without doing anything good, productive or helpful.
Jonathan Haidt has posited a more complex version of this schism based on six categories. In the illustration below, liberal concerns are indicated in yellow, conservative in blue, and shared concerns in green:

• Care/Harm
• Fairness/Cheating
• Liberty/Oppression

• Loyalty/Betrayal
• Authority/Subversion
• Sanctity/degradation

Haidt has made a great start, but perhaps has overstated the scope of the categories he has selected, in part because he is not looking at them from the perspective of those who elect them. In particular, the three liberal categories:

1. Care/Harm
2. Fairness/Cheating
3. Liberty/Oppression

These are not as universal as he thinks. For liberals, these are interpreted through the individual as fear of negative events. In other words, I don’t want to be harmed, the victim of unfairness, or oppressed. But these categories say nothing about the corresponding contribution by the individual. They’re entirely defensive, for liberals. Conservatives, who see these categories in the context of the other three, tend to approach them more as universal principles. To a liberal, “fairness” means “I get what anyone else gets.” To a conservative, “fairness” means “good to the good, bad to the bad.”
This difference can be wholly explained by the focus differences between liberals and conservatives. Liberals focus on the individual; conservatives focus on the whole, the process and the civilization. Thus a liberal is inherently utilitarian in that what matters most to them is that people consider their own situation good; a conservative, who looks more at the whole, finds it most important to see what the results as affect everyone and the future of the civilization will be.
Christopher Lasch, a former liberal, distanced himself from the movement when he saw how it was creating a wave of narcissism, or self-worship, spreading across the United States. As he hints, this is a natural outpouring of the focus on the individual. With “good to the good, bad to the bad” the individual is incentivized to do good; with “bad to the bad” only, the individual out of the box considers himself perfect and to be a good person, only for not having done bad. There is zero positive contribution requirement.
As a result, narcissism — or more properly “solipsism,” which is an inverse of the normal relationship where we see ourselves as part of the world, and one in which we see the world more as part of ourselves, corresponding to the Greek hubris — spreads because people are encouraged to see themselves as perfect without having to prove it, thus the only requirement for them is to intend something, to wish it or to feel it. They become atomized and isolated in their own little worlds.
This is why liberalism offers you half of a civilization. It ignores half of what is necessary for a healthy civilization and, in return for your accepting that, makes you a member of society just as you are. This erodes societies in any form, whether through hopeless shrugs in the Soviet Union, to rigid ideological mania in the French Revolution, and finally to consumerist-socialist narcissism here in the USA and EU. It takes a whole civilization to stay functional. But where the individual fears, there will always be a liberal offering an easier way, but at the price of civilization itself.

Golden Dawn: The Voice of the Greek People ENGLISH

UK Column Live - 29th January 2014

War is a BANKSTER Racket