I am dismayed, Jefferson, that this kind of JFK disinformation is allowed to appear on JFK Facts. 1) It has long been dis-proven that JFK won Illinois through fraud; statistical analysis has shown this is a complete fiction. 2) JFK and RFK did NOT want Castro killed - the Inspector General Report ISSUED BY THE CIA makes clear that the plots against Fidel were done without JFK knowledge. 3) And once again the article implies that JFK had ties with the mob. Then why would RFK go after them so aggressively? It amazes me that the myth of mob/JFK connection continues to go unchallenged, and it is always couched in terms that imply a tension between what RFK was doing, prosecution-wise, and JFK's connections (and fake girlfriend, Exner, who also was a phony). Think about this - if the mob was so close to JFK, he would have stopped RFK from pursuing the mob. JFK and RFK were as close as political twins; RFK would NOT have done this in violation of his brother's wishes. Not to mention the $500,000 that was supposedly passed to JFK through Exner, at a time when Joe Kennedy's personal worth was $500 million. This is all just irresponsible.
I don’t think a relationship with the mob, especially the historical one that goes back to Joseph Kennedy, is mutually exclusive of RFK going after them later. Gore Vidal said that a mobster once asked the elder Kennedy why RFK was going after the mob after it had given his son all this money to run for office. Joseph Kennedy, according to Vidal, said, “Well my boys are dragon killers. They gotta have dragons to kill.”
Perhaps it’s hearsay but listen to this interview with Vidal from 1996 (it’s beyond just JFK but very interesting), especially the part about the history of the Kennedy family and the mob and then the election and the anecdote about the conversation. I’d be interested to hear what you think: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ka78nFO5cM0BzLkywc-1FL5NEOuOUb0u
I’d also like to know how it is known that the mob did NOT give JFK money to run for office. Sketchy claim on its face.
you do realize that that's a classic Trumper argument? "Well, maybe it didn't happen, but it's interesting to think about." WTF? This is classic authoritarian double-speak. It didn't happen, there's no proof that it happened, and it is not interesting to consider.
Unless you can actually cite any shred of relevant, cogent evidence showing they did so, it's just one more inane smear. For the next weeks expect more garbage to surface in that vein - next it will have RFK murdering Marilyn Monroe.
I might as well claim the mob gave money to YOU, since you require no evidence it happened, and ask "Well, how do we know they did NOT do that?"
Some of us have been studying this (bogus smears against JFK and nonsense about the JFK assassination) since the 1960s and 1970s, it's not exactly a new and challenging line of inquiry at this point.
Oh wait, I just looked at clips you have endorsed - complete with the bit about "terrorism" being a term of subjective ideological abuse, with no objective correlates. So of course you are ripe to be duped by flimsy evidence and hearsay. I suppose your theory encompasses the idea Hamas is morally equivalent to Israel as well, and seeks to show that the terror massacre on October 7, 2023 was somehow "provoked" by the Israelis, too?
See also: "One man's terrorist ia another man's freedom fighter," an example of epistemological nihilism. I mean hey, if I claim the local Nazis are "freedom fighters," that's the end of it, right? It's total subjectivity all the time, after all.
Let’s review. There are two claims on the table: the “dragon killer” conversation between Joe Kennedy and Frank Costello, and the partial funding of the West Virginia (I thought it was Illinois) JFK campaign by the mob. You might say that a third, broader claim of the Kennedy family’s connections to the mob, beginning with JFK’s grandfather, is also hovering.
What is my evidence that these claims might be facts? Gore Vidal, yes, a credible source on matters of history and the interpretation of power in America, who has long defended himself successfully against spurious attacks on his public claims. Just to clarify, Vidal said that Joe Kennedy is “alleged” to have made the dragon-killer comment.
An appeal to authority perhaps, but Vidal also knew JFK personally, as he said, “pretty well”, and lived and moved within the ruling circles of the U.S. I am ready to accept that he is wrong or misinformed (as I am with anyone else). I do not always agree with him. I certainly do not agree with his general theory of the assassination that he voices in the interview I posted. But in my view what he says on these topics has prima facie validity. That’s not sufficient, but it's enough to put the claims in play.
Your assurance that you’re an expert doesn’t impress me to the contrary. I asked you what you thought. If you were genuinely interested in advancing the conversation and educating people who know less than you, then you would not just chuck a source at the wall, most of which is at best marginally relevant, but in any case does not specifically address any of the claims at hand except one of them incidentally (not that the read was uninformative, DiEugenio is a jewel).
As for your gratuitous ad hominem that has nothing to do with the issue at hand, terrorism is indeed, first and foremost, a political epithet wielded by the powerful against the powerless to delegitimize their fighting back against oppression.
That doesn’t mean that it is not also real political violence, or that the violence of the oppressed cannot also be criminal. It does, however, entail that the political violence of the oppressed is not morally equivalent to that of the oppressor and that the oppressor escapes the “terrorist” epithet, and all the usual political consequences that follow from it, because it has more control over how the label is deployed and more raw power to escape its effects.
James Files and Chauncey Holt might be examples of that fuzzy line between "gangsters", rogue government elements and simply, the other corrupt folks. You can play with terms, but the bad guys did bad things, and they tended to know each other back then...
Good to know of one more book I don’t need to bother reading! This needs to sit collecting dust next to Posner’s puke & Bugliosi’s barf, filed under Don’t Waste Your Time!
Why does everyone keep saying Illinois won him the election? He would have won without it and could have even won without another small state or two.
yes; and this has also been proven statistically.
Not only that, the wards most influenced by The Outfit didn't vote in larger numbers for JFK.
https://www.kennedysandking.com/news-items/fraud-in-the-1960-illinois-vote-count-giving-victory-to-jfk-is-a-myth
There is a false dichotomy in the question of CIA involvement “OR” Mafia involvement.
No need to choose when anti-Castro forces, CIA assets, AND Mafia were colluding to overthrow Castro for years prior.
For me, when mobbed-up Jack Ruby killed LHO, the question of mafia involvement was almost assuredly demonstrated.
Indeed. But this Substack is purportedly anti theory, yet this article is theory.
I am dismayed, Jefferson, that this kind of JFK disinformation is allowed to appear on JFK Facts. 1) It has long been dis-proven that JFK won Illinois through fraud; statistical analysis has shown this is a complete fiction. 2) JFK and RFK did NOT want Castro killed - the Inspector General Report ISSUED BY THE CIA makes clear that the plots against Fidel were done without JFK knowledge. 3) And once again the article implies that JFK had ties with the mob. Then why would RFK go after them so aggressively? It amazes me that the myth of mob/JFK connection continues to go unchallenged, and it is always couched in terms that imply a tension between what RFK was doing, prosecution-wise, and JFK's connections (and fake girlfriend, Exner, who also was a phony). Think about this - if the mob was so close to JFK, he would have stopped RFK from pursuing the mob. JFK and RFK were as close as political twins; RFK would NOT have done this in violation of his brother's wishes. Not to mention the $500,000 that was supposedly passed to JFK through Exner, at a time when Joe Kennedy's personal worth was $500 million. This is all just irresponsible.
I don’t think a relationship with the mob, especially the historical one that goes back to Joseph Kennedy, is mutually exclusive of RFK going after them later. Gore Vidal said that a mobster once asked the elder Kennedy why RFK was going after the mob after it had given his son all this money to run for office. Joseph Kennedy, according to Vidal, said, “Well my boys are dragon killers. They gotta have dragons to kill.”
Hearsay from Gore Vidal is irrelevant, and "the mob" gave him no "money to run for office."
Perhaps it’s hearsay but listen to this interview with Vidal from 1996 (it’s beyond just JFK but very interesting), especially the part about the history of the Kennedy family and the mob and then the election and the anecdote about the conversation. I’d be interested to hear what you think: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ka78nFO5cM0BzLkywc-1FL5NEOuOUb0u
I’d also like to know how it is known that the mob did NOT give JFK money to run for office. Sketchy claim on its face.
you do realize that that's a classic Trumper argument? "Well, maybe it didn't happen, but it's interesting to think about." WTF? This is classic authoritarian double-speak. It didn't happen, there's no proof that it happened, and it is not interesting to consider.
Unless you can actually cite any shred of relevant, cogent evidence showing they did so, it's just one more inane smear. For the next weeks expect more garbage to surface in that vein - next it will have RFK murdering Marilyn Monroe.
I might as well claim the mob gave money to YOU, since you require no evidence it happened, and ask "Well, how do we know they did NOT do that?"
No, I don't have time for a line of historical myth that's been repeatedly debunked, try this:
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-posthumous-assassination-of-john-f-kennedy
Some of us have been studying this (bogus smears against JFK and nonsense about the JFK assassination) since the 1960s and 1970s, it's not exactly a new and challenging line of inquiry at this point.
Oh wait, I just looked at clips you have endorsed - complete with the bit about "terrorism" being a term of subjective ideological abuse, with no objective correlates. So of course you are ripe to be duped by flimsy evidence and hearsay. I suppose your theory encompasses the idea Hamas is morally equivalent to Israel as well, and seeks to show that the terror massacre on October 7, 2023 was somehow "provoked" by the Israelis, too?
See also: "One man's terrorist ia another man's freedom fighter," an example of epistemological nihilism. I mean hey, if I claim the local Nazis are "freedom fighters," that's the end of it, right? It's total subjectivity all the time, after all.
thank you! Vidal hated the Kennedy's. There is No One who can document this conversation.
Let’s review. There are two claims on the table: the “dragon killer” conversation between Joe Kennedy and Frank Costello, and the partial funding of the West Virginia (I thought it was Illinois) JFK campaign by the mob. You might say that a third, broader claim of the Kennedy family’s connections to the mob, beginning with JFK’s grandfather, is also hovering.
What is my evidence that these claims might be facts? Gore Vidal, yes, a credible source on matters of history and the interpretation of power in America, who has long defended himself successfully against spurious attacks on his public claims. Just to clarify, Vidal said that Joe Kennedy is “alleged” to have made the dragon-killer comment.
An appeal to authority perhaps, but Vidal also knew JFK personally, as he said, “pretty well”, and lived and moved within the ruling circles of the U.S. I am ready to accept that he is wrong or misinformed (as I am with anyone else). I do not always agree with him. I certainly do not agree with his general theory of the assassination that he voices in the interview I posted. But in my view what he says on these topics has prima facie validity. That’s not sufficient, but it's enough to put the claims in play.
Your assurance that you’re an expert doesn’t impress me to the contrary. I asked you what you thought. If you were genuinely interested in advancing the conversation and educating people who know less than you, then you would not just chuck a source at the wall, most of which is at best marginally relevant, but in any case does not specifically address any of the claims at hand except one of them incidentally (not that the read was uninformative, DiEugenio is a jewel).
Anyone else who wants to educate a layman on this issue of JFK and the mob by refuting Vidal’s claims, which are here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/120qOS8g-Mh-m04kYC0EzNYDyUYosgZbJm4CYUC51vIk/edit (search “Kennedy and the mob”), please do.
As for your gratuitous ad hominem that has nothing to do with the issue at hand, terrorism is indeed, first and foremost, a political epithet wielded by the powerful against the powerless to delegitimize their fighting back against oppression.
That doesn’t mean that it is not also real political violence, or that the violence of the oppressed cannot also be criminal. It does, however, entail that the political violence of the oppressed is not morally equivalent to that of the oppressor and that the oppressor escapes the “terrorist” epithet, and all the usual political consequences that follow from it, because it has more control over how the label is deployed and more raw power to escape its effects.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/08/heres-a-voter-fraud-myth-richard-daley-stole-illinois-for-john-kennedy-in-the-1960-election/
James Files and Chauncey Holt might be examples of that fuzzy line between "gangsters", rogue government elements and simply, the other corrupt folks. You can play with terms, but the bad guys did bad things, and they tended to know each other back then...
So are you recommending this book? Especially, the last paragraph leaves me confused as to why anyone would want to read it.
Good to know of one more book I don’t need to bother reading! This needs to sit collecting dust next to Posner’s puke & Bugliosi’s barf, filed under Don’t Waste Your Time!
This sound like a book CIA might endorse.