JFK and a 57 year trail of Collective Amnesia

Michael B-C

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Yesterday was the 57th grim anniversary of the state murder of to my mind the last true president of the United States/world (though I would give Trump some shared credit in his fitful attempts to right that wrong). I thought it was telling that even we here did not mark this terrible signpost date - with arguably everything we are experiencing today kicking off from the horror of Dallas - with some kind of acknowledgment or remembering. Maybe that's a indicator of where we have all come to - the programming is complete and so all we can do is live through it and ride the roller coaster of now. But I found yesterday particularly bleak; a deep sense of the pointless of it all took a grip of me and I couldn't place why and from where it came. I thought about posting something but then decided what's the point... and then thinking about it I realized it was in part driven by my watching the night before an episode of the British TV series The Crown (not by normal fair) that introduced Diana to the grim narrative - and I have to say I was shocked at how brilliantly this was done (no holds barred critique of the horror show she was inducted into from day one) and how the brilliant young actress Emma Corrin captured something of the unique normality and yet rarefied brilliance of the young princess to be - and I suddenly felt deeply affected again by this other dark 'fairy story' of the true one being catured and prepared for eating alive by the ogre in the castle. And it reminded me again of the trauma of her murder and the many reasons why.


That's why this morning I was glad to come upon this fine, heartfelt article by Edwin Curtin who, instead of concentrating once again on trying to prove with fact after fact the odious obviousness of Jack's ritual slaying, rather chose to bravely focus on the personal (and I think therefore the general) confession of the inertia these events (as well as those that followed), had on him and to highlight how the collective, repressed trauma has led us all inexorably to where we are now - with a world-wide populous in a state of collective denial being led willingly by the nose to the gallows. It captures something that Immanuel Velikovsky also covered in one of his last books, Mankind in Amnesia, which explores the danger to humanity of repressing its age old trauma induced by ancient catastrophe and cometary bombardment. That which we choose to forget or repress will come back to terrorize us from the deep dark accountant of our unconscious.

That's why I think this article is so relevant today - for it shows if briefly - how we have created this spawn of our collective nightmares by refusing to deal with it head on all those years ago, and how the past four or so generations have collectively allowed the beast free reign to lurch its lumbering way all the way from Bethlehem to our very own front door.

But above all this article touches on how death and birth are one and the same - and that the gift of knowledge JFK gave with his acceptance of and liberation from his inevitable death still offers us all a pathway to rebirth. His clear refusal to see death as an inhibitor of life, that truth is found by accepting without prejudice our need to some day pass, and to over come that fear and dread with a life spirit that willing accepts this paradoxical gift instead of, as we now see all around us, a fetishizing of life with no allowable end - and in so doing creating the inevitable circumstances that leads to tragedy on a mass scale. For it is only by freeing ourselves from the terror of death do we actually begin to live and live truly.

_john-kennedy-jr-playing-in-the-oval-office-at-the-white-house-washington-dc-october-15-1963-p...jpg

Thank you Jack. You still live true in our hearts. You showed the way. Your message of a life lived without fear will in time be our redeemer...

60_1107_JFK_3.jpg

Unspeakable Memories: The Day John Kennedy Died

By Edwin Curtin

Global Research, November 22, 2020-11-24


Updated on November 20, 2020.

picture-aspx.jpeg
There is a vast literature on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, who died on this date, November 22, 1963. I have contributed my small share to such writing in an effort to tell the truth, honor him, and emphasize its profound importance in understanding the history of the last fifty-seven years, but more importantly, what is happening in the U.S.A. today. In other words, to understand it in its most gut-wrenching reality: that the American national security state will obliterate any president that dares to buck its imperial war-making machine. It is a lesson not lost on all presidents since Kennedy.

Unless one is a government disinformation agent or is unaware of the enormous documentary evidence, one knows that it was the U.S. national security state, led by the CIA, that carried out JFK’s murder.

Confirmation of this fact keeps arriving in easily accessible forms for anyone interested in the truth. A case in point is James DiEugenio’s posting at his website, KennedysandKing, of James Wilcott’s affidavit and interrogation by the House Select Committee on Assassinations, declassified by the Assassinations Record Review Board in 1998. In that document, Wilcott, who worked in the finance department for the CIA and was not questioned by the Warren Commission, discusses how he unwittingly paid Lee Harvey Oswald, the government’s alleged assassin, through a cryptonym and how it was widely known and celebrated at his CIA station in Tokyo that the CIA killed Kennedy and Oswald worked for the Agency, although he did not shoot JFK. I highly recommend reading the document.

I do not here want to go into any further analysis or debate about the case. I think the evidence is overwhelming that the President was murdered by the national security state. Why he was murdered, and the implications for today, are what concern me. And how and why we remember and forget public events whose consequences become unbearable to contemplate, and the fatal repercussions of that refusal. In what I consider the best book ever written on the subject, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters (2009), James W. Douglass explains this in detail, including the James Wilcott story.

Realizing what I am about to say might be presumptuous and of no interest to anyone but myself, I will nevertheless try to describe my emotional reactions to learning of John Kennedy’s murder so long ago and how that reverberated down through my life. I hope my experiences might help explain why so many people today can’t face the consequences of the tragic history that began that day and have continued to the present, among which are not just the other assassinations of the 1960s but the lies about the attacks of September 11, 2001 and the subsequent endless and murderous “war on terror” with its mind-numbing propaganda and the recent anti-Russia phobia and the blatant celebration of the so-called “deep-state’s” open efforts to overthrow another president, albeit a very different one.

On November 22, 1963 I was a college sophomore. I was going down three steps into the college dining hall for lunch. (Many of my most significant memories and decisions have taken place on steps, either going up or going down; memory is odd in that way, wouldn’t you say?) I remember freezing on the second step as a voice announced through a PA system that the president had been shot in Dallas, Texas. When I finally recovered and went down into the building, another announcement came through saying the president had died. The air seemed to be sucked out of the building as I and the other students with a few professors sat in stunned silence. Soon little groups on this Catholic campus joined together to pray for John Kennedy. I felt as if I were floating in unreality.

Later that day when I left the campus and drove home, I thought back to three years previously and the night of the presidential election. Everyone at my house (parents, grandparents, and the five sisters still at home) had gone to bed, but I stayed up past 1 A.M., watching the television coverage of the vote count. My parents, despite their Irish-Catholicism, were Nixon supporters, but I was for JFK. I couldn’t comprehend why anyone would vote for Nixon, who seemed to me to personify evil. When I finally went up the stairs to bed, I was convinced Kennedy would win and felt very happy.

It wouldn’t be for another tumultuous decade before I would hear Kris Kristofferson sing:


Never knowin’ if believin’ is a blessin’ or a curse

Or if the going up is worth to coming down….

From the rockin’ of the cradle to the rollin’ of the hearse

The goin’ up was worth the coming down

and I would ask myself the same question.


In the meantime, the next few years would bring the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile crisis, and the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, among other significant events, and for a high school student interested in politics and world events it was a heady and frightening few years. It was a country of newspapers back then, and I would read perhaps 3-4 each day and sensed a growing animosity toward Kennedy, especially as expressed in the more conservative NYC papers. I can remember very little talk of politics in my home and felt alone with my thoughts. As far as I can remember, this was also true at the Jesuit high school that I attended. And of course nothing prepared me for the president’s murder and the feeling of despair it engendered in me, a feeling so painful that I couldn’t really acknowledge it. At nineteen, I felt traumatized but couldn’t admit it or tell anyone. After all, I was a scholar and an athlete. Tough.

“American Values: Lessons I Learned from My Family” by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Then on Sunday morning my family had the TV on and we watched as Jack Ruby shot Lee Harvey Oswald, the guy the government said had killed the president. The unreality was compounded manyfold, and when later it was reported that Oswald had died, I felt I was living in an episode of The Twilight Zone, a popular television show at the time, whose narrator would say we are now entering the weird world between shadow and substance.

The next day a friend and I went to the Fordham University campus to visit a Jesuit priest who was a mentor to us. He had the television on for JFK’s funeral and we sat and watched it for a while with him. After a few hours, it became too painful and the two of us went outside to a football field where we threw a football back and forth. Perhaps subconsciously we were thinking of Kennedy’s love of football; I don’t know. But I remember a feeling of desolation that surrounded us on that empty cold field with not another soul around. It seemed sacrilegious to be playing games at such a time, yet deep trauma contributes to strange behavior.

Then I went on with my college life, studying and playing basketball, until the day after Malcolm X was assassinated on February 21, 1965. Those New York newspapers that didn’t like Kennedy, hated Malcom even more and were constantly ripping into him. I vividly remember talking to my college basketball teammate the next day. He had been in the Audubon Ballroom during the assassination. His sense of devastation as a young African American struck me forcefully. As we walked to basketball practice and talked, his sense of isolation and gloom was palpable. Visceral. Unforgettable. It became mine, even though I didn’t at the time grasp its full significance.

In 1968 when Dr. Martin Luther King was assassinated, I was driving to visit a girlfriend and remember hearing the news on the car radio and feeling deeply shocked. I felt immediately oppressed by the first warm spring evening in the New York area. It was as if the beautiful weather, usually so uplifting after winter and so joyously stimulating to a young man’s sexuality, was conspiring with the news of King’s death to bring me down into a deep depression.

Soon the country would awaken on June 5 to the surreal news that Senator Robert Kennedy was shot in Los Angeles the night before. Like so many Americans, when he died not long after, I felt his death was the last straw. But it was far from it. For all the while Lyndon Johnson had lied his way to election in 1964 and escalated the Vietnam war to savage proportions. Death and destruction permeated the air we were breathing. The year 1968 ended with the suspicious death in Thailand of a hero of mine, the anti-war Trappist Monk Thomas Merton. Subsequent research has shown that that too was an assassination. And while all of this was going on and my political consciousness was becoming radicalized, I became a conscientious objector from the Marines. I was 24 years old.

By the late 1970s, having been fired from teaching positions for radical scholarship and anti-war activities, and mentally exhausted by the unspeakable events of the 1960s, I retreated into the country where I found solace in nature and a low-key life of contemplation, writing literary and philosophical essays, a novel, book reviews, and becoming a part-time newspaper columnist. By the 1990s, I gradually returned to teaching and a more active political engagement, primarily through teaching and writing.

Then in 1991 Oliver Stone jolted me back in time with his film JFK. I found powerful emotional memories welling up within me, and growing anger at what had happened to the U.S. in the previous decades. Soon JFK Jr., who was investigating his father’s assassination and was about to enter politics and take up his father’s mantle, was killed in a blatantly rigged “accident.” A month before I had been standing in line behind his wife in the bakery in my little town while he waited outside in a car. Now the third Kennedy was dead. I called my old friend the Jesuit priest from Fordham, but he was speechless. The bodies kept piling up or disappearing.

When the attacks of September 11, 2001 happened, I realized from day one that something was not right; that the official explanation was full of holes. My sociological imagination took fire. All that I had thought and felt, even my literary writing, came together. The larger picture emerged clearly. My teaching took on added urgency, including courses on September 11thand the various assassinations.

Then in 2009 I read and reviewed James Douglass’s masterpiece, JFK and the Unspeakable, and my traumatic memories of 1963 and after came flooding back in full force. I realized that those youthful experiences had been so difficult for me to assimilate and that I therefore had to intellectualize them, for the emotional toll of re-experiencing them and what they meant was profound. The book really opened me to this, but so too did the awareness of how sensitive I was to John Kennedy’s death, how emotional I felt when reading about it or hearing him speak or listening to a song such as "The Day John Kennedy Died"by Lou Reed.


It was as though a damn had burst inside me and my heart had become an open house without doors or windows.

I tell you all this to try to convey the ways in which we “forget” the past in order to shield ourselves from powerful and disturbing memories that might force us to disrupt our lives. To change. Certain events, such as the more recent attacks of September 11, have become too disturbing for many to explore, to study, to contemplate, just as I found a way to marginalize my feelings about my own government’s murder of President Kennedy, a man who had given me hope as a youngster, and whose murder had nearly extinguished that hope.

Many people will pretend that they are exposing themselves to such traumatic memories and are investigating the events and sources of their disquietude. It is so often a pretense since they feel most comfortable in the land of make-believe. What is needed is not a dilettantish and superficial nod in the direction of having examined such matters, but a serious in-depth study of the facts and an examination of why doing so might make one uncomfortable. A look outward and a look inward. Just as people distort and repress exclusively personal memories to “save” themselves from harsh truths that would force them to examine their current personal lives, so too do they do the same with political and social ones. When I asked two close relatives of mine, both of whom came close to death on September 11, 2001 at The World Trade Towers, what they have thought about that day, they separately told me that they haven’t really given it much thought. This startled me, especially since it involved mass death and a close encounter with personal death in a controversial public event, two experiences that would seem to elicit deep thought. And these two individuals are smart and caring souls.

What and why we remember and forget is profoundly important. Thoreau, in writing about life without principle, said, “It is so hard to forget what is worse than useless to remember.” This is so true. We are consumed with trivia, mostly by choice.

Perhaps a reason we remember so much trivia is to make sure we forget profound experiences that might shake us to our cores.
The cold-blooded public execution of President John Kennedy did that to me on that melancholy Friday when I was 19, and by trying to forget it and not to speak of it, I hoped it would somehow go away, or at least fade to insignificance. But the past has a way of never dying, often to return when we least expect or want it.

So today, on this anniversary, another November 22, I have chosen to try to speak of what it felt like once upon a time on the chance that it might encourage others to do the same with our shared hidden history. Only by speaking out is hope possible. Only by making the hidden manifest.

T. S. Eliot wrote in “Journey of the Magi” words that echo ironically in my mind on this anniversary of the day John Kennedy died:


All this was a long time ago, I remember

And I would do it again, but set down

This set down

This: were we led all that way for

Birth or Death? There was a Birth certainly,

We had evidence and no doubt. I had seen birth and Death,

But had thought they were different; this Birth was

Hard and bitter agony for us, like Death, our death.

We returned to our places, these Kingdoms,

But no longer at ease here, in the old dispensation,

With an alien people clutching their gods.

I should be glad of another death.



Remembering in all its emotional detail the day John Kennedy died has been a long and cold journey for me. It has allowed me to see and feel the terror of that day, the horror, but also the heroism of the man, the in-your-face warrior for peace whose death should birth in us the courage to carry on his legacy.

Killing a man who says “no” to the endless cycle of war is a risky business, says a priest in the novel Bread and Wine by Ignazio Silone. For “even a corpse can go on whispering ‘No! No! No! with a persistence and obstinacy that only certain corpses are capable of. And how can you silence a corpse.”

John Kennedy was such a man.

Eliot was right: Sometimes death and birth are hard to tell apart.

President Kennedy’s courage in facing a death he knew was coming from forces within his own government who opposed his efforts for peace in Vietnam, nuclear disarmament, and an end to the Cold War – “I know there is a God-and I see a storm coming. I believe that I am ready,” he had written on a slip of paper, and his favorite poem contained the refrain, “I have a rendezvous with death” – should encourage all of us to not turn our faces away from his witness for peace.

We must stop being at ease in a dispensation where we worship the gods of war and clutch the nuclear weapons that our crazed leaders say they will use on a “first-strike” basis. If they ever do, Eliot’s question – “were we led all that way for Birth or Death?” – will be answered.

But no one will hear it.


Distinguished author and sociologist Edward Curtin is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization His website is edwardcurtin.com and his new book is Seeking Truth in a Country of Lies
 
Last edited:
That's why this morning I was glad to come upon this fine, heartfelt article by Edwin Curtin...
I'm glad you did. Had read it back when it was posted, and indeed it was appreciated:

Curtin (your bold):
"President Kennedy’s courage in facing a death he knew was coming from forces within his own government who opposed his efforts for peace in Vietnam, nuclear disarmament, and an end to the Cold War – “I know there is a God-and I see a storm coming. I believe that I am ready,” he had written on a slip of paper, and his favorite poem contained the refrain, “I have a rendezvous with death” – should encourage all of us to not turn our faces away from his witness for peace."
If you ever want to poke around, the JFK Library has some interesting archives - all kinds, including photos not seen in many places.

Here are two of JFK with jr.


1608442365812.png1608442403316.png
 
Here are two of JFK with jr.
The fantasy illusion painted by TODAY unlike what the sessions reviled.

Session 24 July 1999
Q: (L) And, of course, at that exact time we were asking questions about Nazi mind programming, Arizona Wilder and her wild claims regarding present day mind programming, and we actually lost some of the tape because of the speed. We were able to recover a lot by digitizing the recording and speeding it up and enhancing it somewhat. A 45 minute side of tape finished recording in about 15 minutes. And then, another bizarre thing is that it didn't trigger the auto shut-off when it hit the end of the tape. We continued the session thinking we had a tape going, but it had already ended! I had to reconstruct about 20 minutes of the session. Another funny thing was that, last Saturday, we were sitting there playing the last part over and over again to determine exactly where the tape had ended, and it kept ending on "Kennedy." And, of course, that night we hear that JFK, Jr. has been killed. Then, of course, A points out that these Kennedy people aren't very bright. They should have figured out by now that they are under special attack conditions for some reason, and should NEVER take risks. So, I want to know what is the deal on this JFK, Jr. plane crash?

A: Lack of awareness feeds fate.

Q: (L) That's the truth! And of course now all the tabloids and rumor mongers are saying that this kind of plane couldn't do such a nose dive; somebody heard an explosion; the rumors are just flying. And, in relation to rumors, there are a lot of them flying around about the weather. What's the deal with all the recent weather activity? These terribly unusual lightning storms?

A: Increased static electricity in atmosphere.

Q: (A) Is it only in our region or all over the planet?

A: Latter.

Nov 24, 2020
 
So here we are: 60 years on. A day that should live in infamy.

Each November 22nd (11+22=33) we in our household hold this day in remembrance of all that Jack lived and died for and the now six decades of increasing horror that have flowed so inexorably from his wounds that fateful day.

By way of a poor offering in homage, I'm posting below an unfinished article that I started to draft earlier this year before circumstances arose which took my mind elsewhere. It was by way of an introduction to a further three articles I had in mind intended as a psychological study of the processes and paths taken by the Warren Commission, not so much as a further futile demolition of its obvious absurdities, but as a case study in human folly and deliberate self sabotage by those who knew they could have done better but chose to go along to get along. When today dawned I remembered this draft still sat there unfinished and unresolved, let alone the further episodes even close to drafting, and now I don't know if and when I'll have the time and head space to see it through (or whether such a deed has merit in it at all).

But rather than leave it moribund, I'm posting what I had done to date by way of my personal acknowledgement of the day it is. Nothing here you don't already know.


THE WARREN COMMISSION, NEAR 60 YEARS ON

Part 1: The Problem With Truth

JFK1.jpg


The three fatal bullet entry sites (one from behind followed immediately and almost simultaneously by two from the front) detected on the AP skull X-ray of John F Kennedy and as identified by, among others, renowned Associate Professor of Neurology, Dr Michael Chesser.

Entry 1, low in the rear of the head which ended up lodging behind the right eye socket; Entry 2/3, in the right temple before exiting in devastating fashion from the rear of the head, (the circle being the area of the X-ray containing a false impression of intact skull and then blasted by light as necessitated to obscure the corruption of the image); and Entry 3/2 in the hairline above the right eye (leaving a clearly visible trail of fragments deposited throughout the skull, most likely as a result of a mercury dum-dum bullet).



Proving a conspiracy in the Kennedy case is by now a simple enough task. Given someone’s close and unbiased attention, I would estimate it could be fully accomplished well within the hour. But in truth, hasn’t it almost always been so? Courageous and indefatigable defence attorney Mark Lane, (the de facto conspiracy theorist for whom the CIA principally first coined the phrase), achieved it three years on from the event whilst taking great care to barely use the word itself. In his landmark 1966 best seller, Rush to Judgement, Lane proved many things beyond any reasonable doubt, the most infamous being the location of the now eponymous Grassy Knoll as a separate site of execution, thus demonstrating undoubted conspiracy with a minimum of two shooters. Perhaps most significantly, he also proved beyond any shadow of doubt that the Warren Commission – the doyen of the lone gunman theory that has become resolute fact in the ‘real’ world ever since – was a complete sham, investing more time as it did in distorting and perverting inconvenient evidence, (and by so doing, the course of historic justice), than in finding out the actual truth behind the whole sordid affair.

In the 60 years since ‘63, veritable oceans of new evidence have been disseminated by a host of determined researchers, adding so much more to a deeper understanding of Lane’s work, taking us to a place today where for example we know via the medical evidence alone that there were certainly at least two, likely three, professional gunmen situated on and adjoining the Grassy Knoll who fired shots that struck the President in the head from the front with such devastating consequences during the final seconds of his gauntlet before a firing squad on that late November day.

JFK2.jpg

Frame 313 of the CIA doctored version of the Zapruder film, simultaneously revealing and disguising the true nature of the moment of assassination.

And there you have it; the more we know, the less things change. To quote Monty Python, ‘and you tell that to folks today and they won’t believe you! They wont..!’ In truth, the problem really lies with truth itself. Those who spend their lives desperately hoping that by deciphering just one more piece of evidence it will make all the difference, convince the skeptical via a ‘eureka’ moment, finally sway the balance, and at last break us all through to the cleansing light of shared illumination, sadly all miss the point. That point being the depressing but essential truth that the vast majority of people simply don’t want or need or care for the truth like you and I do - ever. At the cognitive dissonance level of reality, they sense that if they were ever brought unwittingly to such a place, their whole worldview - including that of themselves within it - would simply implode and collapse like the pack of cards it is. This they simply cannot let happen, ever. For if they did, how could they possibly get up the next morning and face another bright new day in the shadow world that remained behind?

That is why the more one presents evidence highlighting this or that irrefutable fact, the more one points out the absurdities and incongruencies that false beliefs depend upon, (most notably in this case being the so called Single, or more accurately termed ‘Magic’ bullet theory, without which the establishment narrative completely collapses), the more the listener will double down and scream ‘get away from me you contagious, dangerous, tin-foil-hat wearing, fascist, misogynist, conspiracy theorist…!’ Just as the CIA intended.

This is why circa 70% of the population blindly accepted on trust that a wall-to-wall storm of fear-porn propaganda concerning a virus with a kill rate precisely comparable to a bad dose of the seasonal flu was a good enough reason to close down all normal life, freeze or destroy essential patterns of human relationship, and savage economic well being before taking on face value multiple doses of an untested experimental gene therapy injection with the worst safety history of any such medication on record. It seems therefore that a substantial majority of people will accept immense self-harm rather than deal with or face the truth. For to have acknowledged to themselves the absolute absurdity of such a proposition would have also entailed a crippling acceptance that their elected governments, public health systems, media experts and even science – sorry The Science – itself represents some kind of mendacious fraud for which they themselves had utterly and gullibly fallen for. And if this was indeed true, has it always been so? And what does such a proposition tell us about everything we believe in and which holds us together? No, thank you very much, I think I’ll stay as I am and quietly take my next booster!

JFK2b.jpg

Being in the right – namely being on the right side of the majority view – is integral to the well-being of most humans. Conformity bias is a well-documented if highly embarrassing social science reality. As is the shared propensity of around 40-50% for being an authoritarian follower. Whether of the left or right, in their unquestioning devotion to higher authority – be it in the form of an ideology, a government dictate, a media narrative, or a social or religious convention – it is inbuilt into the core being of such types to earnestly follow their exalted leader’s example. Acceptance by the tribe, cheering along with the crowd, following instructions when given by one’s betters, all these traits are ingrained for survival purposes from the day a child is first reprimanded by a parent. In our early years a struggle between maintaining authenticity of being and gaining acceptance by others takes place and for the vast majority, acceptance wins out every time with authenticity to some lesser or greater extent deeply compromised. Years of family life, schooling, religious and social pressure, unconsciously shapes the modern human mind into a place where being outside of the safety net of such a matrix is simply unthinkable and untenable. To be cast out, to be non-personed, to be cancelled, is an absolute social and personal nightmare, an unacknowledged terror that a substantial majority will do almost anything to avoid. When you add to this the silent dawning over a life time’s feedback that by covertly or overtly maintaining the status quo around which truths are and are not acceptable, then varying degrees of material and social advancement will be made available to you, it is surely no wonder that around 80% of us simply have no incentive to think and live otherwise.

The COVID nonsense demonstrated this admirably; circa 35% proved fully dedicated followers of authoritarian fashion, 40-45% went along to make do and to belong, leaving the tried and tested 20-25% control group who refused to be railroaded into such foolery no matter what was thrown at them. It is interesting to also note here that social and anthropological studies have shown that down through the ages it is around 20% of people who actually imagine and then go out and create successful societies and civilisations, with the remaining 80% passively receiving the benefits without much of a thank you along the way. It has also been calculated that it takes a critical mass of around 23% of people publicly uniting to say no for a revolution and a reformation of the political norms to occur (having inspired enough of the ‘silent middle ground majority’ to switch sides and back them from afar, one of the key lessons from the 1961 Milgram Experiment that is often overlooked). It seems as if a drive to retain individual self-determination in a small minority, and through that a hunger for truth, makes and breaks a society in the end.

Subtle waves of subliminal messaging makes up the vast majority (in the 95% range) of all human self awareness. It is the unspoken sub-text of survival. All the unconsciously received messaging informs one that truth is indeed a worthy if abstract concept but only just so far as it goes; when objective truth clashes with your or your tribe’s self-identity and your personal sense of survival is threatened, it is to be avoided at all costs. It may even be necessary to actively deny the truth, to be seen to crush it, and especially obstruct its persuasive power to impact upon the direction of your reality. Picking up this message from one’s peers does not encourage feelings of conscious shame or self-doubt, rather it brings forth enthusiasm and affirmative action in support of whatever suppression of truth is going on. Nothing malign needs saying, no orders need to be given, merely the tone in the room needs to be set by a mere handful of high status individuals and away the whole automatic process goes (once again the 1961 Milgram Experiment demonstrated this with aplomb). As social animals we all too rapidly learn in that direction lies our greatest reward, that way leads to acceptance at the communal table, that way lies the path to status and self-worth. The opposite direction leads only to ostracism.

JFK3.jpg

The Covered-up Naked Emperor and the Damp-of-foot King Canute

It is often overlooked that, according to the earliest version of the naked emperor with no clothes fable (in which only a child publicly dared call out his apparent delusion), along with the tale of the water logged king Canute, (for whom the waves stubbornly refused to obey his impotent command), both acted out their mockery of truth so as to prove to their respective audiences just how foolish, conformist and gullible they all were in the face of human authority. These were in fact wise leaders who chose to humiliate themselves in a vain attempt to make their respective flocks see just how dangerous it was to conform to untruth in the face of actual reality - for it can make you act out absurdities, and it can actually get you killed - or worse, make you into a killer.

In an effort to break through this stubbornly foolhardy trait, Shake-speare’s King Richard II despairingly dared to lament to his court:

Cover your heads, and mock not flesh and blood​
With solemn reverence; throw away respect,​
Tradition, form, and ceremonious duty;​
For you have but mistook me all this while.​
I live with bread like you, feel want,​
taste grief, need friends - subjected thus,​
How can you say to me, I am a king?​

We seemingly never get away from our Mummy, Daddy, King, God, State, 'Greater Good' fantasy complex. Someone above us, mighty and strong, good and truthful, who will protect us always and never ever lie to us or let us down – ever – even though we secretly know they do so all the time, because they’re merely human like the rest of us. And to be human is to fall – fall all the time. ‘Fail. Fail again. Fail better’, suggested Irish playwright Samuel Beckett.

JFK4.jpg

Members of the Warren Commission hand President Johnson their report. From left to right John McCloy, J. Lee Rankin, Senator Richard Russell, Congressman Gerald Ford, Chief Justice Earl Warren, President Lyndon B. Johnson, Allen Dulles, Senator John Sherman Cooper, and Congressman Hale Boggs. (Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library)

From left to right, vulture eyes sternly catch sheepish eyes; jobs-worth eyes smirk and self-congratulate; eyes cast down by a lone dissenter, hands clasped tight in contrition; eyes of a future president eye up the temporary incumbent; the Chairman’s eyes meet the eyes of the President on a joint cover-up well-done. And in grey, one man’s eyes stand out from all the rest as he scans the compliant in the room; those of ex-CIA Director Allen Dulles, the main man with serpent’s eyes who simply has no eye for a mere publicity stunt.

I have recently returned to reviewing the full Warren Commission Report of 1964 - not so I can once more shake my head in disbelief at its innumerable and obvious calamities, but rather to attempt to better understand what it was that drove so many smart and dedicated officials to collaborate in creating such a grossly and obviously malformed outcome – one that for no just reason has become fixed forever in eternal time as a benchmark of truth relating to not just one but actually four untimely ends. It is often forgotten that the Commission was given the brief of not just clearing up the violent death of President Kennedy but also those of Dallas Police Officer Tippit and their accused murderer, Lee Harvey Oswald, whilst also by default post its publication, that of Jack Ruby, Oswald’s opportune killer, (who at the time the report was being processed was on trial for his murder and who would eventually and mysteriously pass away from a ‘fast working cancer’ in his police cell awaiting retrial not long after the report was published).

At the same time I have also been reading ‘A Lie Too Big To Fail’, an outstanding overview by Lisa Pease of another similar, inter-linked calamity of justice, namely the investigation into the 1968 assassination of Presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy and the legal shenanigans which led to a life sentence for his deemed guilty assassin, Sirhan Sirhan. You should not be surprised that the two cases and the two cover-ups mirror each other in so many ways.

If the JFK case would take about 60 minutes to sway an open mind, then that of Robert Kennedy should be achievable in around 60 seconds. Whilst the medical evidence relating to Jack’s slaying was crucially corrupted from day one (and has thus taken so many years to unravel), that of Robert’s was always crystal clear. In legal terms, the outcome of an autopsy comes top of the bill as conclusive forensic evidence in a murder by gunfire case, along with the ballistics.

JFK5.jpg

Noguchi’s autopsy of Robert F Kennedy was extremely meticulous and garnered high praise from international forensic and pathological specialists, sealing his reputation as one of the world’s top forensic scientists. Thanks to corrupt prosecution and inept defence, it sadly made no difference at Sirhan Sirhan’s trial.

The Coroner in LA, the highly respected and accomplished Dr Thomas Noguchi, was well aware of what had taken place in 1963 and openly stated he would not have another Kennedy case mutilated and muddied by means of false medical evidence whilst on his watch. His 6.5 hr long autopsy of RFK is regarded in the profession as an outstanding case study in due diligence, during which he concluded as an absolute medical certainty that the fatal bullet that killed Robert entered the base of his skull from the rear and at a distance of no more than 2 inches (and most probably from direct contact with the skull by the gun muzzle!) The problem with this is that the convicted murderer was seen by every single one of the dozens of eyewitnesses present to have never once encroached closer than three feet in front of the senator. I will say that again – the convicted killer never got closer than 3 feet in front of Robert Kennedy, but the bullet that killed him was fired from a maximum 2 inches from behind his right ear. If you have any quibbles with this I should also add that the autopsy further concluded that two other bullets entered the senator’s body, all fired at point-blank range from behind, with clear wounds of entry under his right armpit, before lodging in the upper torso from which they were removed during autopsy.

Case against Sirhan Sirhan closed; no further evidence required, innocence of the charge of murder duly proven. The fact that the gun Sirhan fired contained a maximum of 8 rounds but between 12-16 bullets were identified as being fired between the wounds to those present and those found embedded in door framers and in the celling, (though much of this was hidden from the court at trial), and the circumstantial evidence given by a number of close-by witnesses that Sirhan was only firing blanks, is all supportive but unnecessary. The man found guilty simply couldn’t physically have done the killing - period, and there is no counter argument to that fact. Yet he was still convicted and he is still fighting for acquittal, release and public acknowledgement of his innocence 55 years later.

Now, where have we heard about the means behind such successful public absurdities before? Oh yes:

…All this was inspired by the principle – which is quite true within itselfthat in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.
It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.​
— Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X


“What, can the devil speak true? ... “And oftentimes, to win us to our harm the instruments of darkness tell us truths, win us with honest trifles, to betray us in deepest consequence.” - Banquo​
"And, you all know, security is mortals' chiefest enemy." - Hecate, Foul Queen of Night & the Dark Side of the Moon.​
— Lines from 'Macbeth' by William Shake-speare

When looking at epoch defining conspiracy, one of the many problems faced is that when skeptics begin to grasp the apparent scale of both the plans for the various murders and the lengths being suggested that were necessary to perpetuate their cover up, they throw up their hands in exasperation and say ‘how could everyone involved have been in on it?’ and ‘surely someone would have talked by now?’ and ‘after all this time surely the truth would have come out?’ In terms of the second and third concerns, dozens and dozens of witnesses have talked – and as much of the truth that is possible to uncover against the decades long resistance of the state and media has indeed already reached the public domain; but next to no one heeds this without first getting confirmation from the very source of authority that has worked so tirelessly to suppress it – the permanent state itself and its status quo apparatus, especially the media. And as we have already explored, it’s merely a pitiful handful of people who are psychologically pre-disposed to see reality, hear the truth about it, and speak out on truth’s behalf, come what may.

JFK6.jpg
The three wise human-monkeys are a Japanese pictorial maxim. The three monkeys are Kikazaru, who hears no evil, covering his ears, Mizaru, who sees no evil, covering his eyes; and Iwazaru, who speaks no evil, covering his mouth.

As to the idea that those at the active heart of the conspiracy would have talked, well there is no answer to that other than a smile of sympathy; people who knowingly set in motion such events never have and never will talk – for their psychological profile and scale of crime ensures a lifetime of silence. They also tend – again because of their psychotically profile and self-interest - to prove extremely skilled at collaborating closely only with those like themselves who lie as a profession, (need to know basis), are as equally immoral, and who share in the responsibility of ensuring that no one of importance will ever talk, for as the epigram by John Harington puts it:

"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason".​

In a late on in life interview, George Herbert Walker Bush is reputed to have succinctly distilled the great fear that bedevils those in the know:

“If the American People ever finds out what we have done, they will chase us down the street and lynch us."​

This fear of ‘normal’ humans within pathological power elites runs deep. They have never forgotten what happened back in 44BC when a gleeful public demonstration of culpability by the conspirators who brutally murdered the great champion of the people, Julius Caesar, led to their hunting down and decapitation (with their successors only solution to this calamity being a rewriting of history so as to effectively demonise the victim of the crime). Nor in our own era have the lessons of the French Revolution gone unnoticed. No, silence is golden, and they now have a huge interdependent, co-dependent system with massive self-interest in protecting them at its heart. One predicated on conspiracy, compliance and a perpetual suppression of truth.

‘Conspiracy’ is actually one of those much abused words we should now banish to the waste bin of history – in the same way that the corrupted term UFO is currently transitioning its identity to the more benignly bland UAP just in time for its public normalization as an integral part of the system, not an unmanaged and unmanageable threat to it. ‘Conspiracy to…’ is of course a commonly used legal term. It never ceases to astonish how people seek to deny the prevalence of conspiracy in our society when over 60% of all incarcerated criminals have been convicted in a court of law on a charge of conspiracy to do such and such. But no matter. I now prefer the term ‘convergence of interest’ to describe how people who actively seek power for the purpose of accumulating vast financial reward and systemic control, (they are called psychopaths in the academic literature), naturally collaborate with similar types to themselves so as to enhance their predatory instinct for dominance over others. No one in ‘the room’ has to say ‘let us conspire’, no one has to spell out what the need is before whispering into each other’s ears sweet promises if they will only go just along with it. If you are already in the room, you conspire, period, because that’s your natural evolutionary purpose being fulfilled – the use of partnerships of self-interest to ensure that you come out on top. You accept the need that others will also come out on top with you, but that’s your guarantee of protection – each needs the other to stay safe and be successful. Conspiracy as convergence of interest self-sustains and self-protects. You simply do not get into a position of power where a tendency towards conspiracy can be utilized unless that is your normal means of doing business in the world.

JFK7.jpg

Photograph taken at the 1961 crash site of the mutilated body of Secretary General of the UN, Dag Hammarskjöld, revealing the playing card tucked into his shirt collar. The plane he was traveling in was most likely shot down by a Belgian fighter jet, with the crash registered as happening at 0:15am. Hammarskjöld’s wristwatch, however, stopped at 3:55am, suggesting he experienced quite another story.

Those rare individuals who somehow breakthrough into this top-end world whilst retaining some kind of intact moral compass or potential for human like ‘weakness’ such as empathy are simply eliminated, either socially or physically. During JFK’s time one of the most high profile examples of this harsh fact concerns the last independent and great minded Secretary General of the UN, Dag Hammarskjöld, who died in a ‘mysterious’ plane crash in 1961 and whose body was the only one not horribly burned but was instead found with multiple wounds and a playing card stuffed into his throat collar. Fifteen other people also died so as to kill this one world famous man (now almost completely forgotten). Kennedy himself privately shared with close colleagues the inside knowledge that Hammarskjöld was indeed murdered, but no one ever went to trial, no serious investigation followed and as of today authorities have still not acknowledged yet another ‘mysterious’ miscarriage of justice. The message was again clear to all to see – we have no bounds to which we will not go to maintain our parasitic worldview against yours; you are all dully warned. Two years later Kennedy himself faced the same fate for daring to cross those very same power groups whose interests converged.

In most of the academic literature on the matter it is recognized that between 1.5-5% of the population are by their born nature, psychopathic. It is also recognized, and increasingly well documented, that (a) only failed psychopaths turn overtly criminal and end up in jail and that (2) by their very nature successful psychopaths seek out positions of power and authority over others so as to be able to play out their nature to the fullest extent, leading to there being a much higher percentage concentration of such types at the apex of all social power structures – be they in politics, finance, religion, education, media, medicine, academia, the arts, you name it. The saying ‘Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely’, may be superficially correct but at a deeper level of reality entirely misses the point; that’s why I prefer:

‘The corrupt seek out power, the absolutely corrupt corrupt power, absolutely.’​

JFK8.jpg

Political Ponerology by Polish sociologist Dr Andrzej Łobaczewski

Polish sociologists Dr Andrzej Łobaczewski wrote from deep personal experience about what he termed the creeping process of ponerologisation, (evil enveloping political power structures), and how when established to a critical mass it eventually affects the citizenry below so they too become deformed of mind by the communal stresses caused by the increasing predominance of Cluster B pathocratic types at the pinnacle. As such cultures slide further and further from the ethical and moral foundations, so the populous themselves take on the attributes of the snakes in suits that command them, aping their deformities of mind and echoing their preferences in their everyday activities. In a desperate attempt to remain within the boundaries of the shifting sands of the ‘New Normal’, they in effect become mirror-psychopathic in their thinking and doing without even knowing it. Both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia are witness to this phenomenon as was the whole West during those increasingly deranged two plus years of COVID mania. This process commences at the micro-level first – within the walls of organized power structures and elite groups – before eventually spilling out across the wider society as a whole. Rather like an inverse Swiss cheese where the holes represent such groups, and if these holes are allowed to prosper and grow, eventually the whole cheese becomes nothing but a series of holes mascaraing as a whole.

Looking back to the early 1960s, when this creeping ponerologisation in the West was still in its relative infancy but still well and truly on the march, it tended to localize itself, hidden within the power system via circles of secrecy deposited within externalized circles of secrecy. For example, when people declare that ‘the CIA killed Kennedy’ they miss the crucial point; yes, the CIA was established as a by nature pathocratic entity, and yes, from day one its activities served the interest of its higher masters and not those of the American people, but that still doesn’t mean that the whole agency was fully corrupted – far from it. Despite agreeing with ex-President Harry S. Truman when he stated "I never would have agreed to the formulation of the CIA in forty-seven, if I had known it would become the American Gestapo", it is clear that many if not the majority of its operatives believed back in ’63 that they were operating for ‘the greater good’ of America and would very likely have balked at the idea that murdering a US President could be included in this modus operandi.

In a culture based on absolute secrecy, (along the lines of a secret society which in effect was what the CIA was and still is), no better lair for pathocrats to prosper in could have been envisaged. But we need think of no more than a small handful of monsters, with select, totally obedient career hungry authoritarian followers by their sides, for a secret agency hidden within a publicly facing agency built on utter secrecy, to prosper. Existing, evidence points to three names in particular; former CIA Director Allen Dulles, Chief of Counterintelligence, James Jesus Angleton, and David Atlee Philips, Chief of Operations for the Western Hemisphere and likely Oswald’s direct case handler. This is not the place to delve into how each of these men directed actions behind the curtain of CIA secrecy for interests that were not as such known or directed by the CIA itself as an organisation. Dulles in particular made great use of his firing by JFK – did he almost deliberately encourage it by his actions? – to create a perfect case of plausible deniability (I’m just an elderly retired intel officer who sits by the fireside sagely smoking my pipe) whilst maintaining an iron like grip on his old insider relationships to oversee matters in the fatal build up to the main event in ’63.

More disturbing of course is the fact that he of all people – fired by Kennedy (who he was known to despise) - was then appointed by Lyndon B. Johnson to sit on the Warren Commission with the duty of investigating the President’s death.

JFK9.jpg
“Ask the question! Ask the question!”… Kevin Costner as New Orleans Attorney General Jim Garrison in Oliver Stone’s JFK, reading the Warren Report with mounting frustration.


As I only got so far as this, it's fitting to end here with a link to Oliver Stone's JFk for anyone with a mind to watch. For all its minor limitations, it still stands as an astonishingly brave landmark for the truth.
 
Last edited:
So here we are: 60 years on. A day that should live in infamy.

Each November 22nd (11+22=33) we in our household hold this day in remembrance of all that Jack lived and died for and the now six decades of increasing horror that have flowed so inexorably from his wounds that fateful day.

By way of a poor offering in homage, I'm posting below an unfinished article that I started to draft earlier this year before circumstances arose which took my mind elsewhere. It was by way of an introduction to a further three articles I had in mind intended as a psychological study of the processes and paths taken by the Warren Commission, not so much as a further futile demolition of its obvious absurdities, but as a case study in human folly and deliberate self sabotage by those who knew they could have done better but chose to go along to get along. When today dawned I remembered this draft still sat there unfinished and unresolved, let alone the further episodes even close to drafting, and now I don't know if and when I'll have the time and head space to see it through (or whether such a deed has merit in it at all).

But rather than leave it moribund, I'm posting what I had done to date by way of my personal acknowledgement of the day it is. Nothing here you don't already know.





As I only got so far as this, it's fitting to end here with a link to Oliver Stone's JFk for anyone with a mind to watch. For all its minor limitations, it still stands as an astonishingly brave landmark for the truth.
Thank you. I will read today your article because all what you write is very good, excellent. The study of the Kennedy's assassination is a fascinating study of how the oblivion of those who gave their lives for change comes back to bite us in the nose, and the pain of that oblivion is the price we have to pay. Everything about the JFK tragedy is important. I hope you have the energy and time to continue your article and thank you for bringing your knowledge and intelligence to us. Thank you very much!
 
Political Ponerology by Polish sociologist Dr Andrzej Łobaczewski
Polish sociologists Dr Andrzej Łobaczewski wrote

sociologist? :huh:

As I only got so far as this, it's fitting to end here with a link to Oliver Stone's JFk for anyone with a mind to watch. For all its minor limitations, it still stands as an astonishingly brave landmark for the truth.
Well, with all due respect, there are things he avoids there like the plague. Check out the film producer, for example (hint).
 
A few weeks ago, shortly before the 60th anniversary of the assassination, the rgru website (05 Nov, link goes to G-transl.) and then the magazine “Rodina” (12 Nov) for the first time published documents from the related archive files of the CPSU Central Committee. Those are notes, cables and letters, quite interesting to read but there is one little detail that particularly caught my attention. I thought I'd record it here since it doesn't seem to be available in English yet. It may be nothing of any importance but it also may suggest something that very few try to address. So FWIW.

There is a phrase concerning JFK's worries that's been quoted here and there in a few slightly different versions.

For example, here is what seems to be the original source for the West:

Letter From Jacqueline Kennedy to Chairman Khrushchev of 01 Dec 1963

The paragraphs read:

The danger which troubled my husband was that war might be started not so much by the big men as by the little ones.

While big men know the needs for self-control and restraint—little men are sometimes moved more by fear and pride. If only in the future the big men can continue to make the little ones sit down and talk, before they start to fight.

Of course, it's about nuclear war.

Now, see the footnote: "The original letter has not been located."

No classification marking. The original letter has not been located. The authenticity of the text printed here has been verified by comparing it to the Russian translation in the Department of History and Records of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Mrs.Kennedy wrote the following note on a folder in which she presumably put the letter but which is now empty: “Important: Mrs. Lincoln/This is my letter to Khrushchev to be delivered to him by Ambassador Thompson.” (Kennedy Library, President’s Office Files, Countries Series, USSR, Khrushchev Correspondence) According to Manchester, the handwritten letter was forwarded to Khrushchev by McGeorge Bundy after clearance at the Department of State by U. Alexis Johnson. Two undated typed drafts of the letter are at the Johnson Library. On one draft Bundy crossed out several words and added several other words in his hand. These revisions were incorporated in the second typed draft. (Bundy Files, Chron) In the final version, one phrase in the second typed draft was reworded and one sentence added.

Was it sent with Bundy's edits? I doubt it unless Jackie wrote it again and observed the edits. See below, Russians don't mention any edits. Maybe the edits had been done for American archives only? No idea.

Here, for example, it's in different wording:
and it reads:
"The danger troubling my husband was that war could be started not so much by major figures as by minor ones."
So they seem to be coming from different drafts, or - maybe - from different translations and back-translations. The original letter was handwritten in English.

Now, "Rodina" (meaning: Homeland) is a Russian Historic Magazine, included in the list of leading peer-reviewed scientific journals and publications since 2007. Founded by the Russian PA and gov. in 1989, it is a continuation of a much earlier magazine of the same title published by the Russian Empire in the years 1879—1917.


On 12/11/2023 they published the above mentioned declassified documents including Jackie's letter as translated into Russian back then. The related part (official Russian translation of that time) reads:

Опасность, которая беспокоила моего мужа, заключалась в том, что война может быть начата не столько большими людьми [некорректный перевод слова people, здесь и далее имеется в виду "народами". - Авт.], сколько маленькими.

Transl:

The danger that worried my husband was that the war might be started not so much by big people/men [incorrect translation of the word people, here and hereafter meaning "nations". - Auth.], but rather by small ones.

Since the added note appears in the online Rodina's version and is not present in the document itself, it seems the publishers, having access to the final versions of Jackie's original letter as been sent to Moscow, and to its translation, believe that Jackie used the word "people(s)" meaning "nation(s)" but it was translated into Russian (by Dobrynin?) as men/human beings/people. And that would mean that JFK worried that a "small nation" could start a nuclear war.

If so, then it would read:
The danger which troubled my husband was that war might be started not so much by a big nation/country as by a little one.

While big nations know the needs for self-control and restraint—small nations are sometimes moved more by fear and pride. If only in the future the big nations can continue to make the little ones sit down and talk, before they start to fight.

The cable note by Dobrynin, introducing the text of the letter reads (machine transl.):

N 8. Cipher telegram of the USSR Ambassador A.F. Dobrynin to the CPSU Central Committee 5 December 1963.

Top Secret
Copying is prohibited
Ex. N 2

Khrushchev, Gromyko

From Washington 05.XII.63.

Special N 2086-2088

Urgently

Met with Thompson today at his invitation. Thompson said that Jacqueline Kennedy, wife of the late President, asked him to pass her personal letter to Khrushchev through me.

Thompson remarked that she had given this letter to him through Bundy. No one else knows about her letter, although President Johnson is apparently informed of the fact of the letter's transmission (not of its contents). Rusk [Dean Rusk, the US secretary of state, I guess] is "not yet aware of the matter." Thompson also said that he was not personally familiar with the contents of the letter itself.

The envelope in one spot was slightly sealed. This letter is not typewritten, but written from beginning to end by the hand of Jacqueline Kennedy herself, which is usually considered here a manifestation of special respect for the addressee. She herself wrote the address on the envelope. The letter is written on small sheets of paper marked "White House".

Wondering if the sentence added to the final version by Bundy or others was the one about LJ:

I know that President Johnson will continue the policy in which my husband so deeply believed—a policy of control and restraint—and he will need your help.

Photo/scan of 2 pages of the Russian translation from CPSU's archives found in this tweet. Tried to locate the archives but cannot access the website, looks like it's not available in 'hostile' countries.
 

Attachments

  • Jackie to Khrushchev RU.jpg
    Jackie to Khrushchev RU.jpg
    378.8 KB · Views: 1
Back
Top Bottom