April 5, 2018

50 years ago today: Robert F. Kennedy gave a speech, "On the Mindless Menace of Violence."

"He delivered it in front of the City Club of Cleveland at the Sheraton-Cleveland Hotel on April 5, 1968, the day after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr." (Wikipedia).
With the speech, Kennedy sought to counter the King-related riots and disorder emerging in various cities, and address the growing problem of violence in American society....

Speaking for only ten minutes, Kennedy outlined his view on violence in American society before a crowd of 2,200. He criticized both the rioters and the white establishment who, from his perspective, were responsible for the deterioration of social conditions in the United States. He proposed no specific solutions to the internal division and conflict, but urged the audience to seek common ground and try to cooperate with other Americans.

Kennedy's speech received much less attention than his famous remarks in Indianapolis and was largely forgotten by the news media. However, several of his aides considered it to be among his finest orations.
From the speech:
What has violence ever accomplished? What has it ever created? No martyr's cause has ever been stilled by his assassin's bullet. No wrongs have ever been righted by riots and civil disorders. A sniper is only a coward, not a hero, and an uncontrolled, uncontrollable mob is only the voice of madness, not the voice of the people....

[T]here is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors....

Our lives on this planet are too short and the work to be done too great to let this spirit flourish any longer in our land. Of course we cannot vanish it with a program, nor with a resolution. But we can perhaps remember—even if only for a time—that those who live with us are our brothers, that they share with us the same short moment of life, that they seek—as do we—nothing but the chance to live out their lives in purpose and happiness, winning what satisfaction and fulfillment they can.
2 months later, RFK was himself assassinated.

137 comments:

Achilles said...

Robert and John F would be kicked out of the modern democrat party.

Mike Sylwester said...

... the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay

Sloppy thinking

Sigivald said...

As Mr. Sylwester said, it's pretty goddamn sloppy thinking to label "indifference and inaction" as "violence".

Not all bad things are violence, Mr. Kennedy.

Michael K said...

I took my son to Disneyland and we were right behind Robert Kennedy as he walked out of The Pirates of the Caribbean ride. I had him on my shoulders so he could see. He was 3. Two nights later, I listened to Kennedy's speech at the Ambassador and then turned of the radio and went to sleep. When I got up the next morning, I heard about the shooting. The next day, I was on duty in the shock ward of LA County Hospital and we were told he was being transferred to us. He died first.

John said...

Yeah, he was shot by a fully semi-automatic assault rifle, right?

Oh, crap, wait.

It was a fully semi-automatic revolver, wasn't it.

Well. That hardly fits the narrative, does it?

John Henry

zipity said...

"2 months later, RFK was himself assassinated."

By a Palestinian Arab upset about RFK's support of Israel.

Etienne said...

He, like Mrs Clinton, was a carpetbagger Senator for New York.

langford peel said...

Violence is often the best solution. It is messy and crude but sometimes it is the only thing that works.

Violence built this nation. We needed it to throw out the Brits and to steal the land from the redskins and the Mexicans.

The Kennedys are dead and buried. Let them rot and be food for the worms

AllenS said...

Two events that happened when I was in Vietnam. A violent place in itself.

Ambrose said...

Clever the way he used MLK's assassination to further his own presidential bid.

dreams said...

"2 months later, RFK was himself assassinated.""

And it's still not known to what extent he had in Marilyn Monroe's death.

Howard said...

Blogger Achilles said... Robert and John F would be kicked out of the modern democrat party.

That would be an improvement to how they were removed from the 60's Demoncrap Party.

Luke Lea said...

The problem is not racism but class. Our governing elites don't believe everyone's happiness is equally important, though they might say they do. That's why they tolerate or even encourage our current trade and immigration policies. It hurts the lower working classes generally, among whom African Americans are disproportionately represented, for genetic reasons not because of discrimination. Everybody knows this, though few are prepared to admit it.

If we designed social policies in which everyone who worked hard and played by the rules could reasonably look forward to a rich and fulfilling life regardless of IQ then a lot of the racial tension in our society would simply disappear. At least I believe it would.

https://goo.gl/8cWYCW

langford peel said...

He had her killed.

She was going to spill the beans about her affairs with both of he Kennedy brothers.

The Kennedy family would do anything the had to do to ge power.

exhelodrvr1 said...

"the violence of institutions ..." - That's what The Deep State gives us

Big Mike said...

Chris Kyle was no coward.

Larry J said...

What has violence ever accomplished?

"Except for ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism and Communism WAR has never solved anything..."

traditionalguy said...

As I recall the Kennedy boys were both assassinated because Bobby used his Attoney General office to destroy the same Mob bosses that had made JFK President in a deal with Daddy Kennedy.

And then there was the biggest Criminal Mob of them all, calling itself the CIA. The Kennedy boys crossed them both and soon both ended up killed by crazy loner nut cases that somehow shot them from several directions at once.

rcocean said...

JFK was assassinated by a Communist
RFK was assassinated by a left-wing Palestinian.
George Wallace was crippled for life by a Leftist shooter.
A SF leftist tried to assassinate Gerald Ford
A Leftist shot Reagan
A leftist tried to kill several Republican Congressmen.

See a pattern?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

What has violence ever accomplished he asked, standing on land his ancestors conquered, as a free citizen of the United States (not a British subject), speaking to an audience in part comprised of people whose ancestors were freed from slavery by a war that killed over 600k people.

But other than that what has violence ever accomplished?

William Chadwick said...

"Liberals" (by which I mean of course "tax-happy, coercion-addicted, power-tripping State fellators") generally muddy up the waters when it comes to violence. They often condemn violence while advocating coercion. Often violence is condemned when it is defensive (whether personal self-defense, defense of neighbors and family, or of country), as in the cliche "violence never solved anything" (tell that to the Third Reich). On the other hand pious "liberals," even the most seemingly pacifistic, seem to love coercion when it furthers their agenda.

Even MLK got caught up in this contradiction. And I'm not even talking about his personal armory (completely justified), or his reported ties to the Communist Party. I mean his advocacy of State measures, even when morally just. The federal troops who enforced desegregation weren't armed with leaflets or posters of Mahatma Gandhi.

traditionalguy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
traditionalguy said...

And then there is Clint Eastwood's Oscar winner " Unforgiven." The best Trump like line in it is in the denouement scene inside the Bar where Muney's dead friend is being displayed, and the owner pleads that he cannot be shot because he is unarmed.

Clint sums up righteous violence by saying, " Well if he was gonna display my friend Ned's body like that, then he should have armed himself," as he blows him away with a shotgun.

Owen said...

Who wrote that speech? RFK? Or Ted Sorensen?

n.n said...

A minority of women, and men, tend to be Pro-Choice (i.e. selective) and avoid reconciliation.

tcrosse said...

Another blast from the past:
Senator Bobby

rhhardin said...

What has violence ever accomplished?

It ends bullying.

mccullough said...

23 years after World War 2 and he asks “what violence has accomplished”?

Too broad a brush. I prefer Trump’s approach to speaking.

campy said...

From '65 to '68 Robert Kennedy was one of my senators. Today, his grandson Joe III is my congressman.

Just sayin'.

Quaestor said...

Howard wrote: That would be an improvement to how they were removed from the 60's Demoncrap Party.

Not much given that the 21st century Democratic Party's most likely presidential nominee advocates murderous violence against the sitting President.

It seems the Democrats are our nation's most violence-prone political movement. Poster child fringe groups like those assorted "Aryan identity" and skinhead mobs are hardly a patch on the Democrats of the anti-desegregation resistance (Bull Connor, Robert Byrd, et al.) not to mention those 19th century Democrats who fired on Fort Sumter rather than submit to the inevitable abolition of slavery. The Democratic Party is the "gateway drug" of America's very own totalitarian politics, While the run-of-the-mill registered Democrat isn't sufficiently educated to reflect on the oppressive tendencies of their party's platform or even slippy slope to serfdom their leaders would choose if given the power, it is nevertheless true that every homegrown communist or revolutionary socialist was formerly a Democrat and not a Republican.

madAsHell said...

MLK's assassin was James Earl Ray. Without Googling, can you recall his motivations?

Robert Cook said...

"JFK was assassinated by a Communist
RFK was assassinated by a left-wing Palestinian.
George Wallace was crippled for life by a Leftist shooter.
A SF leftist tried to assassinate Gerald Ford
A Leftist shot Reagan
A leftist tried to kill several Republican Congressmen.

See a pattern?"


We don't know who actually killed JFK.
How do you know what Sirhan Sirhan's politics were?
The SF leftist who tried to assassinate Ford was a head case.
The person who shot Reagan was a head case infatuated with Jodie Foster, whom he was trying to impress with his act. He is not known to have been political at all.
Your last example is too vague to know what you're talking about.

What pattern? (I see you excluded MLK's assassination, as the purported assassin, James Earl Ray, doesn't fit your flimsy "pattern." But, it wasn't Ray, anyway.)

n.n said...

Violence perpetrated in self-defense has social and fitness benefits. But, yeah, violence is often elective, and a choice for wicked, secular, and even shallow causes.

Quaestor said...

No martyr's cause has ever been stilled by his assassin's bullet.

The Kennedys have never been noted for their brains. Style and charm have always been their fortes, sufficient it seems for the knuckleheaded Irish who are their most reliable core. Therefore, we are sadly unsurprised by RFK's lack of sophistication on this point. But equivocation and rhetoric rarely mix. One supposes that reflection on the history of Muslim theocracy or the Albigensian Crusade would only lead the tragic Senator to quip that 13th-century men-at-arms didn't use firearms

tcrosse said...

The threat of Mindless Violence is not nearly as serious as the threat of Mindful Violence.

hawkeyedjb said...

Institutions aren't violent. Generally, they are indifferent. Institutions have self-interest - that is, the institution serves the interests of those who are part of it. "Government" is an institution, and as such it is mostly interested in the benefits and power of its members. Because that's what the members are interested in. Violence is just a tool, used only when needed to accomplish the goal of the institution.

Robert Cook said...

"Institutions aren't violent. Generally, they are indifferent. Institutions have self-interest - that is, the institution serves the interests of those who are part of it."

Right, because institutions aren't people, the Supreme Court to the contrary.

Michael K said...

MLK's assassin was James Earl Ray. Without Googling, can you recall his motivations?

To this day, I don't know. I have always suspected that he was hired but no proof has appeared all these years latter.

We don't know who actually killed JFK.

I know but I am not in love with communists.

I do wonder about his incentive and whether he was a KGB asset in the Marine Corps as Joseph Epstein has written, fairly persuasively. Whether the KGB was behind it, probably a rogue element if so, is a mystery that the Venona records have not disclosed. The Warren Commission was an obvious coverup. Mostly for J Edgar Hoover's benefit.

Quaestor said...

We don't know who actually killed JFK.

Penned by Robert Cook, flat-earther extraordinaire.

How do you know what Sirhan Sirhan's politics were?

Sirhan Sirhan's pre-assassination diary for starters.

The SF leftist who tried to assassinate Ford was a head case.

Not according to most psychiatrists. Both Lynnette From and Sarah Jane Moore were followers of Charles Manson. None of Manson's "family" who were charged with crimes ever successfully argued insanity or even diminished capacity. Moore, in particular, had a long history of leftist associations, including the Blac Panthers and the Weather Underground.

The person who shot Reagan was a head case infatuated with Jodie Foster, whom he was trying to impress with his act. He is not known to have been political at all.

Two out of three is not bad. One out of four is well within stupid territory.

Robert Cook said...

"I know but I am not in love with communists."

What does this even mean?

Robert Cook said...

"Sirhan Sirhan's pre-assassination diary for starters."

What did it say?

So far, the only known shooter named who we know identified as leftist was Sara Jane Moore. (Squeaky and the Manson clan weren't political in any identifiable way...they were essentially a band of non-persons in thrall to a malevolent ex-con.)

virgil xenophon said...

AllenS@12:11pm/

Was over there at exact same time period, brother Allen..

mccullough said...

Oswald killed JFK. Oswald was a communist. He wasn’t on orders from Moscow or Havana. Rather, he was inspired by the communist struggle. The leaders of Russian and Cuba had no use for Oswald. He was just a typical communist scum. Oswald also killed Officer Tippit.

Conspiracy theories are fun but cotton candy. The JFK assaination conspiracies are silly. Same with MLK. Racist killed King. Palestinian nut job killed RFK.

dda6ga dda6ga said...

"What has violence ever accomplished? What has it ever created?"

Did his bro think that before he sent me, my brother and my cousin on tours of SE Asia?

madAsHell said...

MLK's assassin was James Earl Ray. Without Googling, can you recall his motivations?

Times up! Please close your exam books.

I googled it. He plead guilty to avoid the death penalty. There was no trial before a jury. The evidence include fingerprints on the murder weapon, and months of evasive traveling around North America, and Europe. No indication how he funded these travels.

madAsHell said...

"evidence include"....should be...."evidence included"

I propose the Althousian Typo. Any typo that can ONLY be seen after you hit the publish button!!

mccullough said...

Ray was a career criminal. Among other things, he robbed banks. Got $30,000 in a bank job in his hometown in Alton I’ll after his 1967 prison escape. Bought a Ford Mustang in Alabama for cash. Also bought the gun he used. This is basic stuff. Ray was a stupid career criminal who was a racist. When he was in LA, he went to George Wallace campaign HQ in Noryh Hollywood.

Let’s quit pretending that dragons have slayed our leaders. Their deaths were not that heroic. Killed by morons with no morals. Cases closed

Quaestor said...

Michael K. wrote: I do wonder about his incentive and whether he was a KGB asset in the Marine Corps as Joseph Epstein has written...

Actual KGB members have labeled such speculations as the product of ignorance in matters of clandestine intelligence gathering. It was not for nothing that most of the proven Soviet agents were recruited while in university. The Cambridge Four (or was it five?), David Greenglass and Julius Rosenberg were recruited while yet students. Notable exceptions were Robert Hanssen, Robert Walker, Clayton Lonetree, and Ethel Rosenburg. Hanssen and Walker were walk-in spies. Each initiated contact with Soviet intelligence, KGB, and GRU respectively, and brought with them sample material as bona fides. Lonetree was a Marine Security guard in the American Embassy in Moscow when he was seduced by a KGB sparrow into spying. Without already having access to various secure rooms within the embassy Lonetree would have never been targeted. Ethel Rosenburg had nothing to offer the Communist Party except her loyalty and her typing skills. Except that her husband was sufficiently skilled in engineering as to be able to prioritize the materials brought to him from Los Alamos by David Greenglass, Ethel would have never had knowing contact with Russian Intelligence.

Lee Oswald had nothing in his background to attract the attention of the KGB (MGB at that time) as a potential asset. He was a young man of only average intelligence and no education beyond spotty attendance in grade school, therefore the likelihood that he would ever be in a position to steal valuable secret material was remote at best. Furthermore, as a Marine PFC Oswald proclaimed to his barracks mates his adherence to Marxism. No KGB asset would be so profoundly stupid. Lastly, the Mitrokhin archive reveals no awareness of Lee Harvey Oswald except the briefly entertained suspicion that he was a CIA asset when Oswald requested asylum as a defector to the Soviet Union! Their suspicions quickly faded when Oswald's deficiencies became clear, which is doubly trustworthy given the archly mistrustful nature of Communist Russia in the 1950s.

Quaestor said...

The best theory about Oswald's motives that we have read centers on Oswald's trip to Mexico City in September 1963. While there he visited both the Soviet Embassy and the Cuban Embassy. Soviet archives reveal that he sought an interview with the consular office, supposedly about a new defection. However, it seems clear that he was kept waiting each time he came to the Russian embassy (the FBI documented at least four visits). Having established himself as a worthless malcontent while employed at the television factory in Minsk, Oswald was no one the Russians wanted living in their country, so they blew him off with lines like "The Second Secretary is in a meeting. You may have a seat and wait if you like." The Cubans have never revealed what Oswald said or did at their embassy, probably the same. Oswald hated his life as an insignificant minimum wage drudge. He wanted to live in a "worker's paradise", by which he meant a place that would provide him a comfortable lifestyle in return for basically nothing. Having tried Russian and found it wanting and unwanting, he latched onto the illusion of Cuba — Fidel's sugar-sweet land of free stuff and tropical comfort. But they didn't want him, either, being aware of his history as a defector. Frustrated, Oswald left Mexico convinced that he needed to demonstrate his worthiness by striking a blow at anti-communism. As a consequence his attack on retired General Edwin Walker, a well-known John Birch Society figure in Dallas. Kill the red-baiter, and the Cubans will welcome me with a triumphal parade must have been his fantasy. Unfortunately for his grandiose plans Oswald only succeeded in damaging a window. That must have been an unendurable blow to Oswald's self-image as a revolutionary assassin. It is known that Oswald initiated a violent argument with his wife shortly after that shooting attempt. He must have seen his life as an inevitable descent into deeper and blacker obscurity until out of the blue, Castro's arch-enemy would come within easy rifle range of his workplace, the Texas Schoolbook Depository. It would be entirely in character for Oswald to see this as a providential miracle akin to Imperial Germany facilitating Lenin's return to Russia in the midst of the World War.

Quaestor said...

Typo alert: As a consequence his attack on retired General Edwin Walker, a well-known John Birch Society figure in Dallas.

Should read: As a consequence, his attack on retired General Edwin Walker, a well-known John Birch Society figure in Dallas, developed.

Quaestor said...

Robert Cook wrote: What did it say?

Do your own homework. It will last longer.

madAsHell said...

@mccullough

Excuse my summary! I did not want to lionize him. I failed to imagine the unintended consequence.

So, did you google that, or was all that your recollection??

I'll assume the guilty plea pre-empted the prosecutor from providing a motive.

I think we've all met someone like Ray. Some mixture of entitlement, ignorance, and card carrying Vegan PETA member!!

madAsHell said...

As a consequence, his attack on retired General Edwin Walker, a well-known John Birch Society figure in Dallas, developed.

You're on a roll, but how does Jack Ruby fit in?

Virgil Hilts said...

Blogger Achilles said... Robert and John F would be kicked out of the modern democrat party.

So would Obama circa 2005 and H Clinton circa 2001-2005, if someone with a different name/face said the same things today that they said then.
Just as penguins could once fly, the democratic party is evolving fast.

Robert Cook said...

"Do your own homework. It will last longer."

Well, I did look, but I can't find much about the specifics of his diary, except that he wrote that "RFK must die." But, what I was really wondering is it was he said that you interpret as marking him as "leftist." You guys throw the term around so much as a catch-all pejorative that it has been leached of any meaning. That's a non-Orwellian negation of meaning.

Howard said...

Blogger Quaestor said...
Not much given that the 21st century Democratic Party's most likely presidential nominee advocates murderous violence against the sitting President.


Hysterical isn't a good look. It's a astronomical stretch from Kamala Harris making a silly joke with the politic assassinations of the 1960's.

Quaestor said...

It doesn't surprise us that someone as ill-served by his brain as Robert Cook would believe that the killer of JFK is unknown. If we were confident that detailed and flawless argument is persuasive to such a person we would recommend Reclaiming Hisrtory by Rudolph W. L. Giuliani KBE as a cure for such intellectual depravity.

The forensic evidence alone would have been sufficient to convict Oswald of the murders of Kennedy and Tibbett, the stupid fucker being so careless with his weapons and spent casings. With eyewitness testimony and other circumstantial evidence, Oswald's trial would have been sewed up in a few days at most. His only hope was an insanity plea. We know Oswald was guilty with as much certainty as any question resolved in a courtroom.

Howard said...

Sirhan Sirhan was definitely a Christian.

Quaestor said...

Howard wrote: It's a astronomical [sic] stretch from Kamala Harris making a silly joke with the politic assassinations of the 1960's.

Puerile insults are hysterical, Howard. Lee Harvey Oswald's entire life was a silly joke until the opportunity arose. Kamala Harris is the only Democrat to advocate violence against DJT, she just the most recent. And by the way, the words that begin in a vowel take an as the indefinite article.

Quaestor said...

Sirhan Sirhan was definitely a Christian.

So what?

Howard said...

Q: Some people claim he was a deranged leftist and leftism killed RFK with no evidence. We do have evidence he is christian, so that mythos may have led to RFK murder because Bobby pro-Israel. More direct evidence of a religious and/or externality of the Palestinian question motive as compared with idiological.

Duh

Drago said...

Robert Cook: "You guys throw the term around so much as a catch-all pejorative that it has been leached of any meaning."

No True Scotsmen everywhere!!

Howard said...

Thanks, Q. I like to troll for spelling OCD dweebs. Fuck grammar because it don't build, drive or fly shit.

Howard said...

Well, Drago, Robert has a point. You people like to scare the peanut gallery with the lefty leftist boogerman. It's a simular tactic to painting all conservatives as dickless wannabe macho gun nuts, where achewly Chuck is the ten-ring for you lot.

Mark said...

Because when a great black man is killed, it is all about the white man.

Howard said...

So, then Quaestar you buy into Oswald being a mere toilet-seat "marksman" could nail 2/3 shots including a head and neck shot on a very low target moving away?

Robert Cook said...

"No True Scotsmen everywhere!!

Why bother typing a non-answer?

Mark said...

Meanwhile, number of blog posts dedicated to Martin Luther King on the anniversary of HIS assassination? Number of extended quotes from this historic civil rights leader who gave many outstanding speeches/sermons in his brief life -- a hell of a lot more than this white man of privilege?

ZERO

Mark said...

Let's not just relegate Dr. King to the back of the bus. Let's kick him off the bus altogether. After all, their lives don't matter.

mccullough said...

Madashell,

I didn’t mean to come off as confrontational.

About 20 years ago, around the time Ray died in prison, the King Famuly pressed for a conspiracy. There was some bullshit “civil trial” in Memphis trying to prove some conspiracy, which an ignorant jury bought into.

Anyway, the Justice Departmemt, in response to the sham civil trial, did an investigation and issued a long report that found Ray was a racist career criminal who acted alone and funded his year or so on the lam with proceeds from robberies.

The King family, just like the Kennedy conspiracy theorists, want to believe that lone wackos can’t and wouldn’t assasinate Great Men. That’s a bullshit approach. Just like the guy who shot Reagan. Julius Caesar’s murder was a conspiracy. Most famous murders aren’t.
he

Robert Cook said...

“And I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own government.” MLK, 1967

Yep. This is probably when they decided to kill him.

tcrosse said...

It would be hilarious to joke about assassinating Kamala Harris. It's unlikely they could fuck her to death.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Conservatives I hear love violence because they believe that ultimately it is the heart of what runs the world and that reason is only an illusion.

Jim at said...

A leftist tried to kill several Republican Congressmen.

Your last example is too vague to know what you're talking about.

I see James Hodgkinson's name has gone down the memory hole.
That didn't take long.

William said...

Let us mark the passing of Winnie Mandela. Who was closer to being the true embodiment of both the spirit and the purpose of the ANC--her or her ex-husband?

Drago said...

Robert Cook: "Yep. This is probably when they decided to kill him."

"they"

"they" are EVERYWHERE!

Whatever you do, don't get too specific. And the SR-71 line is already used up so don't attempt to reuse that one either.

William said...

Robert Kennedy was shot by a Palestinian nationalist. It was not purposeless violence. Robert Kennedy''s murder had nothing to do with the mindless violence of America and everything to do with the murderous politics of the Middle East.

Curious George said...

"Howard said...
So, then Quaestar you buy into Oswald being a mere toilet-seat "marksman" could nail 2/3 shots including a head and neck shot on a very low target moving away?"

Go to the Texas School Book Depository, look out the window he used. See where JFK's car was. With a scoped rifle no one could miss.

William said...

The Rev. Jim Jones was active in politics. He supported a lot of left wing causes. There are pictures extant of him smiling and shaking hands with well known Democratic polticians.

Robert Cook said...

"They" being the government. Who else?

I have no idea what "the SR-71 line" is.

Drago said...

William: "Let us mark the passing of Winnie Mandela."

Well, I guess with Winnie gone we should see a significant reduction in the murder by burning tires ("necklacing") in South Africa.

Of course, guns and machete's will probably be sufficient to "persuade" the white farmers in South Africa to "voluntarily" vacate their lands in order to achieve the desired leftist agricultural paradise, just like Zimbabwe! And for that matter, Venezuela!

tcrosse said...

Let us mark the passing of Winnie Mandela.

Chris Rock's tribute to the Mandelas

Drago said...

Robert Cook goes full LLR Chuck.

Cookie, you are a noted advocate (on this very blog) of the "October Surprise" Conspiracy Theory whereby Reagan/HWBush "colluded"/conspired with the revolutionary Mullahs of Iran to hold US citizens hostage throughout the campaign in order to secure an election win for Reagan.

Since the left has to have a conspiracy theory for every republican election victory (the laughable "southern strategy" for Nixon, "October Surprise" for Reagan and HW, W stole Florida/butterfly ballots, Russia collusion for trump).

The funniest key element of the laughable "October Surprise" nonsense is the assertion that HW Bush hopped an SR-71 to fly to Paris to "secretly" meet with iranian officials smack dab in the middle of the campaign.

Hilarious.

William said...

What are the odds that some woman will come forward and talk about her "me too" moment with MLK?

Howard said...

Blogger tcrosse said... It would be hilarious to joke about assassinating Kamala Harris. It's unlikely they could fuck her to death.

Female privileged. Up until youtube, no one takes girls threats serious.

tcrosse said...

What are the odds that some woman will come forward and talk about her "me too" moment with MLK?

The FBI already plowed that furrow back in the day.

Howard said...

... I especially like that Firestone has issued a commemorative necklace in Winnie's honor.

Howard said...

...have you noticed that you can't never get in trouble plowing the field as long as you trim the hedge.

Howard said...

tcrosse: you're onna roll keep it up.

mccullough said...

The government didn’t kill King. He wasn’t an enemy of the state. Like most people he spoke out against Vietnam. He was a socialist and maybe a communist, like most who were against Vietnam(and most who wanted to stay out of WW2 until Hitker broke his pact with Stalin and invaded the Great Communist Utopia, then the Red Scum dropped their bullshit pretend pacifism). But they come and go here all the time. Like JFK, he was much more important in death as the Mythic Rev King. If he lived long enough, he would get the Ali treatment without the myth busllshit. He was an economic fool like most Socialists/communists and he was a personally weak philanderer and plagiariser like most politicians and Religious Figures.

Jesse Jackson personally benefitted most from King’s death. If we were going to delve into conspiracy theories, that moralimbecile would be the first one to look at. But that’s bullshit, too.

Childish paranoia.

tcrosse said...

tcrosse: you're onna roll keep it up.

So's a bratwurst.
It's not possible to tell the story of JFK and RFK without bringing in Sam Giancana, another Great American. Google the old gagootz.

Howard said...

Without googling, didn't Sam get chopped up and left for dead inside a 55-gallon DOT-rated drum?

Quaestor said...

Fuck grammar because it don't build, drive or fly shit.

Humpty Dumpty.

The first symptom of a degenerate mind is a disregard of clarity.

Drago said...

Howard: "I especially like that Firestone has issued a commemorative necklace in Winnie's honor."

Michelin pondered it for just a moment, then promptly surrendered the campaign.

Drago said...

Quaestor: "The first symptom of a degenerate mind is a disregard of clarity."

And what the heck is that supposed to mean?.....

fivewheels said...

"What has violence ever accomplished?"

"Anyone who clings to the historically untrue and thoroughly immoral doctrine that violence never settles anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms."

CWJ said...

"So, then Quaestar you buy into Oswald being a mere toilet-seat "marksman" could nail 2/3 shots including a head and neck shot on a very low target moving away?"

Yes. But then again, I never know when you are being serious. If you are, then you know nothing about this.

CWJ said...

Jim at @ 4:56,

Yes, I too thought Robert Cook's comment simply stunning on that point. Much to say about "ancient history," but last year is another country.

Quaestor said...

Without googling, didn't Sam get chopped up and left for dead inside a 55-gallon DOT-rated drum?

No. What you describe is similar to the tactics of Roy DeMeo, a made man of the Gambino family whose specialty was "disappearing" troublesome rivals. It is alleged that DeMeo dismembered his victims in a bathtub and then stuffing them into cardboard boxes after the body parts were neatly wrapped in butcher's paper. Those nondescript boxes were then dumped on a garbage scow to be buried at sea along with the legitimate refuse.

FullMoon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Quaestor said...

And what the heck is that supposed to mean?

It means people who don't give a shit about grammar probably don't value clear thinking either.

CWJ said...

Curious George @ 5:08,

Yep, that's what convinced me along with going to the parking lot behind the grassy knoll (it's still there) and trying to make the deflection shot of a passing car with minimal time to acquire the target.

Michael K said...

Lee Oswald had nothing in his background to attract the attention of the KGB (MGB at that time) as a potential asset.

Quaestor, have you read any of Epstein's books? They are interesting.

He has written that Oswald was in the Marine station that was monitoring U2 flights in Japan.

He also had Japanese girlfriends that a Marine corporal could probably not afford.

The books on this and several other topics, like the Warren Commission, are interesting.

Michael K said...

Also, it is rewarding to stand in the window of the Book Depository building and look at the spot where Kennedy was hit. It is a pretty easy shot. The car was moving about 5 mph at the time.

I was there years ago and am not sure it is still there,

Michael K said...


Blogger Howard said...
Sirhan Sirhan was definitely a Christian.


Surely you don't think that has anything to do with it in 1968.

George Habash was also Christian.

Bay Area Guy said...

1963 - JFK shot
1968 - MLK shot
1968 - RFK shot
1969 - Teddy Kennedy derailed by Chappaquiddick, obvious blatant lies to cover- up something worse.

The official story is that each are 4 independent events.

I'm not so sure though. Father Joe Kennedy was a multi-millionaire, mobster bootlegger and probably had a role in the international drug trade. He made a lotta enemies. He ran with a rough crowd. Think of the powerful enemies RFK made: Jimmy Hoffa, Lyndon Johnson, Carlos Marcello, Fidel Castro, Aristotle Onassis.

Quaestor said...

Howard wrote: So, then Quaestar you buy into Oswald being a mere toilet-seat "marksman" could nail 2/3 shots including a head and neck shot on a very low target moving away?"

I suppose the"toilet-seat" malarkey is intended to disparage. Oswald's marksmanship. Here are some documented facts rather than rumors. Oswald qualified as sharpshooter during his tenure with the USMC using iron sights. That involves "slow fire" at 200, 300, and 500 yards. Later his score degraded to marksman. While less accurate than a sharpshooter, a Marine marksman can outshoot most civilian riflemen using optics. And this was using the then-standard .30-06 M1 Garand.

Oswald used a softer shooting Mannlicher-Carano 6.5mm carbine with optics which he was known to have used in practice sessions on a public rifle range located just outside the Dallas city limits. In contrast to the falsehoods propagated by conspiracy mongering hacks who make their livings from the credulity of the untutored, the Mannlicher-Carcano Modello 91/38 carbine is a well-crafted weapon which fires a remarkably accurate and stable projectile. The weapon used over the distance involved (75 meters to the first shot and about 82 to the fatal shot) means that a person would not require an expert's skill to hit the President. As it was Oswald missed his first shot and only wounded JFK in the second. The third shot was within two inches of missing him entirely. Oswald got lucky

Howard said...

Quaestor thinks the map is the terrain.

CWJ and George I think you are overestimating results from the ease and comfort target shooting with real-time marksmanship of hunting.

Howard said...

Q: A marksman badge in the Corp is called a toilet seat. I agree with your conclusion

Quaestor said...

He has written that Oswald was in the Marine station that was monitoring U2 flights in Japan.

Not true. Epstein is peddling bullshit. During Oswald's service, the Marine Corps air bases were on Okinawa and Sasebo on Kyushu, later at Iwakuni on Honshu. The U-2 was operated by the CIA (its pilots were civilian contractors) with the USAF providing operational and logistical support. The few occasions when the U-2 operated from Japan it may have flown occasionally from Atsugi (not likely given the proximity of Tokyo), but more often from the much more remote and conveniently located Chitose Air Base on Hokkaido.

The Marines had nothing to do with the U-2, nor did they "monitor" their flights. Atsugi is nearly 800 miles from Iwakuni and nearly 1100 miles from Chitose. Not only did the Marine not "monitor U-2 missions, they could even see those flights arrive or depart on their radars. If the Russians were interested in U-2 flights they would have recruited an Air Force officer with access to secret material and a three-digit IQ.

Quaestor said...

He also had Japanese girlfriends that a Marine corporal could probably not afford.

Silly speculation that demonstrates nothing. Oswald also wooed and wedded Marina Nikolayevna, a not-bad-looking Russian girl. Perhaps he had a degree of personal charm. One thing is certain, however. Oswald had no access to anything truly interesting or valuable to Soviet intelligence. He trained but ultimately did not qualify for Air Traffic Control duty. There's little that is significant or classified about that skill which cannot be more safely and accurately deduced from electronic eavesdropping on control tower frequencies.

Quaestor said...

I think you are overestimating results from the ease and comfort target shooting with real-time marksmanship of hunting.

As a rifleman who has hunted and killed deer, coyote, and feral swine I can surmise that shooting an unsuspecting seated man in a slow-moving open-topped car at 80-90 meters is easier than shooting a wary, fast-moving, and unpredictable animal that uses cover and camouflage.

Quaestor said...

Furthermore, Oswald had a fairly comfortable spot (He evidently used a book carton as a seat and other stacked cartons as protective cover on his right and left.) and a steady brace for his left arm on the broad, flat windows sill. Shooting from Oswald's sniper's nest was more like range shooting than deerstalking.

Howard said...

Q:you must be expert level. I only shoot stationary animals to avoid wounding them. It takes more concentration to keep the adrenaline down when sighting in on a creature. I can only imagine that shooting at the President would be several orders of magnitude more nerve wracking. That said, I think Oswald could have pulled it off. Like you said, he got lucky and a Marine toilet seat is a decent shot.

CWJ said...

Howard,

I think you are trolling. You know nothing about this. You seem intelligent. So I don't understand your comments. I'm really sorry that your contributions to this blog are as purile as they are. You could contribute so much more.

Howard said...

CWJ: I'll put that in my pipe and smoke it, thanks.

CWJ said...

Enjoy.

Michael K said...

Questor, I merely asked if you had read his books. I am not the only one who respects his work. You are obviously not one.

The answers will never be forthcoming, thanks to Jack Ruby.

Michael K said...

More on Oswald and the Epstein books.

The account relies a lot on the Warren Commission and the House Committee on Assassinations.

Quaestor said...

Q: you must be expert level. I only shoot stationary animals to avoid wounding them.

Deer tend to move slowly through cover which helps them maintain silence. Hogs, however, tend to bolt suddenly. My first shots at swine missed because of their habit of sudden and un-telegraphed dashes. Whitetail deer will often look in the direction of a sound or odor for a brief moment before bounding away, which makes a kill shot a bit easier. Pigs just scamper. To kill feral pigs it is best to aim just below and behind the eye so that if the hog bolts just as just as you commit to a shot the hit will be in the brain, through the windpipe, through the lungs, or the heart. Aim at the heart and you're likely to hit the loins or just miss entirely. Ordinarily hits in the neck are bad news, the animal runs and dies slowly of blood loss or trauma. However, I use SIg-Sauer solid copper 7.62x35 120-gr rounds which mushroom beautifully on impact, thus ensuring a maximum wound channel and tissue disruption. A hog will collapse from any decent neck-shot in one or two seconds — in other words, 10 to 30 meters tops. Solid copper also eliminates the lead problem. Big game is bound to run and die out of sight occasionally. Even the best hunters have had this happen, and it is sad. But no more sad than the kind of death most often suffered by deer that mostly die from injuries inflicted by vehicle incidents or disease. There just aren't enough top predators to kill off the unfit before they suffer. Consequently, every year eagles and other predators such as wolves and coyotes, are afflicted by lead poisoning caused by eating the meat of dead animals wounded by lead-core bullets.

Coyotes are quite different. Being predators they are often attracted by sounds and odors that panic deer and swine, Typically they stop and approach a detected sound for several seconds to determine whether the sound or smell represents an opportunity or a threat. Basically, if you see a coyote in range you will kill him cleanly, assuming, of course, you see him at all, which is very rare given their remarkable, almost mystical stealth.

Jon Ericson said...

How long did it take before getting bumped off after this speech?

Quaestor said...

Speaking of coyote stealth. A coyote that breaks cover and approaches a hunter is all too often rabid. I kill coyotes because they are a significant threat to native wildlife, livestock, pets, and especially humans, not for any other reason. I know a man who was grievously mauled by two or perhaps three coyotes that attacked his pet terrier that was turned out to pee before bedtime. They tore up his wrist and knee quite savagely and caused him to undergo rabies therapy. Very nasty, and this happened in an urban backyard and not on some farm in the boonies. Some people take coyote pelts, but I don't bother. Too risky. I just take a documentary picture or two and bury the varmint where it fell.

William said...

Re Bay Area Guy's list. All those killers had some skills. Oswald defected to the USSR and then back to the USA. That took some doing. James Earle Ray busted out of a maximum security prison. Sirhan managed to find his way from Palestine to the USA. That took some resources. The only killer on he list who was clumsy, stupid, and lacking in life skills was Teddy Kennedy.

Howard said...

Quaestor: Cool stories, thanks

William Chadwick said...

I had lost interest in this thread until the Toothless State-fellator stepped in as the apostle of non-violence and reason. Priceless.

RichardJohnson said...

Robert Cook:
How do you know what Sirhan Sirhan's politics were?

Golly gee whiz Robert, you just might try a search engine, or Wikipedia.Wikipedia_Sirhan Sirhan footnote 3.

Which leads us to:
NYT 2/20/1989:Sirhan Felt Betrayed by Kennedy.

In the interview, Mr. Sirhan, who is a Jordanian immigrant, said that when Mr. Kennedy gave a speech in support of sending United States fighter jets to Israel, ''that seemed as though it were a betrayal.'' 'His Sole Support of Israel'

''My only connection with Robert Kennedy was his sole support of Israel and his deliberate attempt to send those 50 bombers to Israel to obviously do harm to the Palestinians,'' he said.


This is old news. Really old news. I recall reading around the time of the RFK assassination that RFK's support for Israel was Sirhan Sirhan's reason for killing RFK.

But apparently it escaped the attention of Robert Cook. Which tells me that Robert Cook isn't very well informed.

openidname said...

James Earl Ray hated black people. Also, he was right on the margin of crazy. That seems like plenty of motive for me.

Not absolutely ruling out the possibility that he was paid. But if so, that's why someone chose him to pay, and that's why he chose to be paid.

Quaestor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Quaestor said...

All those killers had some skills. Oswald defected to the USSR and then back to the USA. That took some doing.

Let's think about that. Oswald flew to Moscow on a 10-day tourist visa. As soon as he got settled in a hotel he made his way to the Interior Ministry, the bureaucracy in charge of the criminal police, border security, customs and immigration (the immigration part never had much business and was mostly staffed with goof-offs waiting to retire) and demanded to be admitted as a permanent resident. He claimed to have secrets. The Russians figured him out quickly and told him to fuck off and go home. Oswald went back to his hotel and slit his wrists. Not deep enough to truly endanger him, but enough to make a nasty display that would probably make a column inch or two in the Western press. The Inhuman Soviet Union Turns Away Desperate Defector — just the kind of propaganda headline the Kremlin bosses love to hate. Consequently, they reconsidered and admitted Oswald and gave him their equivalent of a green card. Then they sent him to Minsk, a boring minor city with nothing going on that would interest the CIA on the off chance that in spite of being an obvious malcontent and skill-deprived showoff, Oswald was some kind of CIA asset on a weird-ass mission. There he was given a low-skill job in a television factory. Oswald had a troop of friends at first, mainly because he was a novelty — an American living and working in Russia's answer to Des Moines, Iowa. The friends whittled down to scare to none as they figured out Oswald, a touchy, know-nothing poseur. He got in trouble at the TV factory by fiddling with the calibrations on some of the machines stationed in his area. His foreman suspected Oswald of sabotage, a capital crime in the old USSR, but the plant managers thought he was being his normal smart-ass self and just recommended he be fired and relocated. Consequently, the Interior Ministry asked him to either agree to take a job in a lumber mill in Siberia or leave Russia. Oswald made a smart move for once and took the plane home, probably because his new wife didn't relish living in fucking Siberia.

Nope. Quaestor sees no evidence of some doing.

Robert Cook said...

"How long did it take before getting bumped off after this speech?"

One year to the day.

Robert Cook said...

@Richard Johnson at 11:18PM:

I saw that about Sirhan. But that doesn't tell me he is or was a "leftist." That's why I wanted an explanation as to what Sirhan had written to mark him as a "leftist." As a Palestinian himself, he needn't have had any particular political leanings to oppose Israel...he need only to have been angry about Israel's actions against Palestine. After all, there are many Americans on the right and the left who oppose actions of our own government, some even violently so.

This is the thing: the rightwingers commenting here (and, in general) throw around the term "leftist" so carelessly that, as I said above, it no longer means anything, other than, "someone I don't like," or, "someone not on my team."

What do we know in detail about Sirhan's political ideology that would identify him as what we can consider to be a leftist? If there is information there that shows this, I am happy to look at it, but I couldn't find anything.

William Chadwick said...

Robert Cook writes: "This is the thing: the rightwingers commenting here (and, in general) throw around the term 'leftist' so carelessly that, as I said above, it no longer means anything, other than, 'someone I don't like,' or, 'someone not on my team.'" Sort of like how statists used the term "fascist" or "racist."

Not saying you are wrong, RC; I have noticed that same tendency among the less educated Trump supporters who pretty much have taken over the Instapundit comments section. (Odd, because it still is supposed to be a libertarian blog.) The most egregious example that I can think of was when one of them called Jonah Goldberg a "leftist," Could happen, of course; I thought maybe Goldberg was now an apostate and could now expect formerly hostile "liberals" to start praising and recommending
his work, (I call this "The Garry Wills Effect.") But when I questioned the commentator about this, it turned out that all he had was that Goldberg didn't like Trump. I don't think "leftist" means what this guy thinks it means.

Personally, I think the terms "right" and "left," as they are currently used, are so a-historical as to be meaningless. As I'm sure most of us know, the terms originated in the French Parliament of the Ancien Regime, when the "right wing" was the section that supported Church and State. In other words, the authoritarian section. If we have any authoritarians in US politics these days, it's what we call "the Left." Raise those taxes, stifle those industries, seize those guns! But I'm curious: how do YOU define "leftist"?

Etienne said...

Oswald was the Manchurian Candidate.

He was sent to kill the President, so the Vice President would invade Indochina, and be stuck in the mud while the USSR neutralized Europe.

Robert Cook said...

"Personally, I think the terms "right" and "left," as they are currently used, are so a-historical as to be meaningless."

I agree.

"As I'm sure most of us know, the terms originated in the French Parliament of the Ancien Regime, when the 'right wing' was the section that supported Church and State. In other words, the authoritarian section. If we have any authoritarians in US politics these days, it's what we call 'the Left.'"

I would call them "the right." But, of course, "the left" can be authoritarian. Authoritarianism is not unique to any political faction.

"Raise those taxes, stifle those industries, seize those guns! But I'm curious: how do YOU define 'leftist'?"

Raising taxes is not authoritarian in and of itself, though the power of taxation can be employed in an authoritarian manner, (generally against the poor, not the rich). As society grows, so do expense, and so must taxes. Regulating industries is also not authoritarian, in and of itself; regulation is necessary and good to protect the public from unsafe or dangerous goods or from monopolistic over-pricing (often accompanied by poor service and quality), and to protect workers from onerous, unsafe or dangerous working conditions, etc. Regulation can proliferate without coherent design such that the result can impose onerous requirements on businesses, (small businesses more than giant corporations).

Which is to say, good intentions to achieve valid objectives can go wrong and have undesired consequences without having been borne of authoritarian or malevolent intent. This is inevitable as government grows bigger, which is inevitable as the society the government is tasked to manage grows bigger. Of course, it goes without saying that authoritarian and tyrannical governments exist and serve only the interests of the powerful and wealthy at the expense of the populace at large.

How do I define "leftist"? That's a hard question to answer. Someone concerned with human rights, social and civil equality, freedom of speech and expression, opposed to authoritarianism and tyranny, opposed to predatory capitalism and the unchecked aggrandizement of corporate power, etc.

Robert Cook said...

Oh, I think we're developing an authoritarian government in America, already well-along. The militarization of police forces throughout the land is a frightening and dangerous indication of that, as is our brutal "justice" system, and the normalization of torture as official policy and of our illegal military invasions of other countries.

William Chadwick said...

"Oh, I think we're developing an authoritarian government already. . ." Congratulations! You got your wish! You must be happy. As . . . what's the problem, slugger? It's not being authoritarian enough against the "right" people? Is that what's troubling you, bunkie? Still too much freedom to suit you?

William Chadwick said...

Shorter Robert Cook: Those right-wing authoritarians are evil! My kind of authoritarian, on the other hand. . . .