JFK-the good half of the dialectic

Be the 1st to vote.
John F. Kennedy

Cover of John F. Kennedy

John’s post got me thinking about what the purpose of the benevolent president character/actor was.  I’m sure he was from and a creation of the elite, and he was no doubt one half of a manufactured Hegalian dialectic. He portrayed everything good, and his foil was LBJ (interesting how they use initials to identify the two), who represented everything harsh and dark. This contrast helps shape the outcome and corresponding public opinion on that outcome, ie. the synthesis.

Understanding that actors in a Hollywool movie aren’t killed should help doubters with the concept that JFK was not killed, just his character.

50 years later, people are still arguing about a movie with endless plot twists.

I would love to know if the script writers for these are well known to the public. Could JFK, the reality movie, have been written by Kubrick or another famous director?

My oh my, how things have changed in America. No American president since President Kennedy would dare say any of the truthful things about the First Amendment and the role of the press and media in maintaining a free, independent, and healthy Republic. President Kennedy’s wise words here echo those of our Founding Fathers, who fully understood the importance of a free press and the role it plays in ensuring human freedom and preventing tyranny.


Enhanced by Zemanta
No tags for this post.

9 thoughts on “JFK-the good half of the dialectic

  1. lux

    “John’s post got me thinking about what the purpose of the JFK benevolant president character/actor was.”

    My view is that the purpose was simply to create maximum public shock when he was “assassinated.”

    I was a teenager in 1963 and well remember this “benevolent president” character. It wasn’t just JFK though. It was Jackie too and the whole “Kennedy clan” as they were called. The press also used the term Camelot to describe the JFK presidency and all its entourage. It was a huge romanticized fairy tale and the public swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

  2. ArmunnRigh

    And what tells you it was “the Kubrick’s” of the world who directed the movies atributed to their name? I’m not saying they didn’t, but can we trust otherwise? Famous names become character brands to which behaviors, ideas and works can be attributed at will according to the motion of the stage play. We use names like Kubrick to identify works or a style, but we can never truly know who made them. Just a thought.

    In any case, I have thought about the JFK story and came up with my own answer, see if it makes sense to you:

    Why develop a character so honest and good only to kill him afterwards? Well, where can we find a similar story? That’s right, the story of Jesus F’king Khrist, of course. At a time when the USA had a very rooted christian mind, a man emerged from within and chose the path of honesty, preaching honorable conduct and showing intolerance towards skulduggery.
    Just like in the “other story”, this man too was publicly killed, providing therefore a martyr that symbolized the messiah character so ingrained in the public mind of the time.
    It was therefore a stage re-enactment of the Jesus myth, providing a more modern, present and closer symbolic character where the people could focus their admiration and veneration. In the meantime, the other side of the script was ready to be slowly revealed, introduced gradually into the public mind – a tale of how the “oppositioner‘s” forces conspired behind the scenes (that is, in the “realm of darkness”, “hell”, of which it was sovereign) to kill the holy man, the long awaited saviour, in plain daylight (in the “realm of light”, the world of god, its nemesis). The more “revelations” about who conspired to kill and/or actually killed JFK, the more the story itself is solidified. Also, and perhaps even more importantly, it introduced into people’s minds the terrible idea that nobody, not even the “holy man” himself, was safe under the sun in his own land. How much of this fear was explored and exploited four decades later with 9/11?

    This is actually the subconscious reason why it is so hard for many people to even entertain the idea that the JFK assassination (and life, for all that matters) is just a fictional story presented on stage – the stories are linked, so to debunk JFK is to debunk JC “himself”, subconsciously.

    1. ab Post author

      Powerful comparison, Armunn. As for Kubrick, he’s the only guy I could think of off the cuff. Blue Moon is clearly closer, I’ll have to watch those movies now!

    2. smj

      a true messiah would also have to be resurrected. you know, born again, like our first evangelical president, jimmy carter.

      now if only the two bore a passing resemblance to each other, you could be on to something.

        1. smj

          nope, bobby’s sideshow. just another episode in the longest made for tv family drama in psyop history. it’s gruesome stuff. its rated GG– governmental guidance.

  3. Blue Moon

    Kubrick was already situated in Britain and would never come back- My primary suspect is a Hollywood A-list director named John Frankenheimer- His credits include Seven Days in May (1964), a film about a military coup attempt in the USA which JFK himself encouraged to get made and authorized shooting the opening scene in front of the White House- Prior to that film he directed the Manchurian Candidate(’62) about a presidential assassination attempt, a film overseen and starring JFK best buddy Frank Sinatra- And to top it off, in ’66 he made Seconds, a film about a man who willingly gives up his old identity and appearance for a completely new one, the whole process run by a secret organization that specializes in creating whole new lives and backgrounds for people who just want out- He’s my best guess- Hope we are still on for this Saturday, Ab-

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.