So...what really happened?

I've listened to Michael Parenti talk about the odd connections and facts about the JFK assassination:
I've looked into the various theories around who killed Kennedy and its really fucking complicated. On the plus-side you have credible culprits admitting to having a role in the assassination from big-time Latin American CIA Operative E. Howard Hunt, to Southern mob-boss Carlos Marcello and to even mafia hitman James Files confessing to having killed Kennedy. The last confession is probably the least reputable while the first two are rock solid imo.

But pinpointing the "why?" of the Kennedy assassination is pretty difficult: was it that he was perceived as being too soft on communism? Or he was an embarrassment? Was it because he ended the oil-depletion allowance that made the Texas oil-barons into billionaires? Cuban missile crisis? Or was it because he allegedly wanted to stop the Israeli nuke program?

I haven't found any evidence that Kennedy wasn't reactionary and imperialist to the core as many boomers want to believe but there is evidence that he ran up against vested interests. On the other hand, the conspiracy theorists tend to ignore the ways that he aided vested interests and loyally served capitalism…

As for the "right-wing coup" thesis or the "Kennedy wanted to stop Vietnam" that even some left-wing scholars like Peter Dale Scott believe in, I just don't find it all that credible. Kennedy was the true father of the Vietnam war, he was a go-slow candidate on civil rights, and he was the most conservative post-WWII president on the economic front elected up to that point. If it was a right-wing coup, how did the plotters benefit from getting the arguably the most left-leaning president in post-war history in office? Yeah, I know Johnson was an imperialist pos but it doesn't make much sense unless perhaps there was some other factor at work.

Sometimes I often think that Occam's razor is the best approach here…which would mean that Oswald assassinating JFK as the lone shooter is the explanation that makes the sense. According to science done by mainstream authors there is good evidence for a shot from the back–but I'm not a ballistic expert, so I can't say either way.

With all the odd details surrounding the case, and the alleged shooter, you almost have to believe that there was a conspiracy to make the American public believe there was a conspiracy that was carried out by planting false evidence. A good example would be the murder of David Ferrie and his boyfriend on the same day in two separate locations.

Honestly, I guess really only boomers have a reason to care about this stuff but I'm curious about how JFK's assassination may have effected the trajectory of the Cold War and American history. If factions in the ruling class carry out silent coups, even in bourgeois democratic states, it would be interesting to analyze what factors cause them to do this and what the effects of these actions (especially if they go unpunished) might be.

Other urls found in this thread:

Honestly, the obsession over JFK has always puzzled me. I get that the circumstances are odd, but if you want some real shady shit, look into how MLK died.

No doubt, but the question of who killed the leader of the most powerful imperialist country in the world during a time of global crisis is not one without huge import.

In case, anyone lurking is interested in the King killing:

you are right to think this and noam chomsky once mentioned in a talk that he read a state memo in which such a strategy was suggested, although chomsky couldn't be sure on whether it was actually enacted or not

as for "what really happened," the most reliable and well evidenced explanation is that lee oswald alone killed kennedy, for his own reasons, and there was no grand conspiracy or greater "purpose" behind it. the conspiracism surrounding the subject is a nauseating blind alley, and the belief in it likely manipulated by powerful parties in order to serve their interests. it is a shame that so many apparently intelligent people fall for it and continue to eulogise and beatify kennedy and perpetuate the camelot myth

/ourguy/ happened

Is this…OC?

Lenin is love, lenin is life on youtube

Was he?
Is this in reference to the Great Society program?


Khrushchev trusted him enough that he was going to call for cooperation on the space program. Couldn't have that.


not our guy, oswald is a blatant cointelpro agent.


If you could find where Chomsky talks about that memo I would appreciate it. It seems that the KGB, MI5, and French Intelligence has doubters inside that never believed the official story. The latter even went so far as to write a book called “Goodbye America” authored by one of their agents under a fake name. Of course this could be explained by the now forgotten clashes that America and France got into in the 60s

In terms of permanent policy measures the Great Society went further than the New Deal, Ronald Reagan said he was fine with the New Deal it was the Great Society. LBJ pushed through Civil Rights legislation that through some weird alchemy Kennedy got the credit for. He also passed the 1965 immigration act that opened the US up to immigration on a scale not seen since before the early 20s and did away with discrimination on the basis of race in the realm of immigration.

Again, that’s not to say he wasn’t an imperialist but that in terms of domestic policy, at least, he was to the Left of both his predecessors and successors.

commies killed JFK

Why would Khrushchev kill his closest partner in the West? He literally cried when he heard the news lmao

jk i just posted that for (You)s
i think it was Israelis or LBJ
LBJ protestant garbage

What did they mean by this?

And people here discourage people to assassinate American presidents smdh

why doesn't leftypol want pumped up kicks. Not FBI, don't call me FBI, I don't give a fuck. Saying "NO DON'T ASSASSINATE THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT!" at this point is fucking retarded

just do it. Be a hero. You'll die for sure but who cares.

At least do what the other guy did last year at the baseball game who just rapid fired into them. The only problem was he didn't kill anyone.

Stop discouraging the murder of American politicians, yes you'll go to jail for doing it, yes you'll go to prison, yes it's propaganda of the deed.

but the future is fucking hopeless anyways because these fuckers don't give a solid shit about changing anything related to the climate or our future and most of us are fucked, so just god damn do it.

Be the Lee Harvey Oswald you know you fantasize about being. You have literally nothing to lose, you're dead anyways.

Sell me on why you think it was the Israelis.
i think this is it but i remember it being in a lecture. maybe just misremembering it

TL;DR - United Fruit Company wanted war with Cuba, Kennedy refused a military conflict after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, so the Dulles bros (both of whom had strong connections to UFC) had him taken out.

Who cares honestly? He was a huge porky fascist lover anyways.

That was a pretty weak display on Chomsky's part. A good example of a government inventing disinfo conspiracy theories would be the US government's purposeful spread of fake UFO conspiracies and disinformation as Adam Curtis points out. You could also tie that in with hyper-normalization of the sort that the political advisors around Putin pioneered.

But even that is, well, a conspiracy in itself. The CIA popularized the term conspiracy theory to discredit Warren Commission critics as we now know from accidentally declassified documents.

I don't rule out that JFK truth could be disinfo and the official story could be largely correct but from my perspective the legacy media always takes the Warren Commission as inerrant truth. Why? That is strange when other government commissions came to different conclusions such as the House Committee on Assassinations concluding that there were multiple shooters and a conspiracy to kill Kennedy. Sometimes, sometimes the legacy media have permitted themselves to think the Russians had a hand in it but that is it.

As for Chomsky's insinuation that these things don't matter–that's false. The history wars over who burned the Reichstag is still ongoing it was the Nazis btw because the implications of what happened matter. The crime of 9/11 wasn't equivalent to the invasion of Iraq but whether the US government or its allies had a hand in that crime does matter.

Whether American elite carried out a domestic assassination of their own president actually matters. He was a pos but removing him with rifle bullets is proof of an elite crime against democracy. Whether the elite of a Western bourgeois democratic country murdered their own president has big import. If it were proven beyond the shadow of a doubt it would force even bourgeois academics to rethink many of their ideas of democracy, state, as well as accepted history.

This is the kind of thing that is only supposed to happen in the Third World and in communist countries according to bourgeois ideologues.

Many of those who have confessed to the assassination or were alleged to have been part of Kennedy's ZR RIFLE program, so was the president assassinated by the very same forces he unleashed against the Third World? It would be a great irony if he was but if it he was its political dynamite anyway you look at it.

actually the media have been complicit in spreading the belief in conspiracies, and i presume many people within media are believers themselves, given that polls show that a majority of the population is. as for warren, every other reputable investigation since it has reached the same conclusions. there simply is no good evidence for any of the conspiracists' claims. but there is a lot of evidence against them. evidence is what matters
they have more than a hand in many crimes all over the world but conspiracists and the public don't give a shit. how does the government having a hand in killing its president matter more than the government killing the president of chile or carrying out decades of aggression and terrorism against cuba? the entire government is a 'conspiracy,' it's all criminal
bru, cointelpro and its crimes against democracy was revealed in the '70s and no one gave a shit, especially newsmedia (who suppressed it). the fbi was planning and executing literal murders and other major crimes against citizens, and nobody cared. "political dynamite" indeed

The people believe this in spite of what the media says about it. I can't believe that you're so divorced from reality that you think that the legacy media promotes JFK conspiracism. As Michael Parenti notes, the Washington Post gave a reviewer a 2000 word review space (average was 600) to slam Oliver Stone's JFK six months before it was even released. Next you're going to tell me that the MSM often publishes articles proclaiming 9/11 an Inside Job–people who are critical of official explanations only make it into the MSM to be made a mockery of.

Really, I haven't heard unreality like this about media coverage since I once heard a "Syrian peace activist" claim that the US media didn't care about the Syrian Revolution and were blind to Assad's crimes, I mean seriously? They never shut up about how le ebil Assad put down a noble uprising xD

Most people don't know about these things and more than a few "conspiracists" actually do care about these things. It's not like you can't pay attention to more than one thing. I suppose you also think its a very normal thing that witnesses to the assassination have a morality rate twenty times the national average–many coming to violent ends before they were called to testify.

Don't confuse your own ignorance with everyone else's. You could still believe in the official account while believing the Warren Commission is terribly flawed–and many do.

Not really. Multiple US government investigations have come to different conclusions than the Warren Commission. The Warren Commission had by far the smallest amount of evidence available in comparison to the other commissions.

Yeah, its just not the same, we can pretend that it is, but it matters more to normies than some dead radicals from almost 60 years ago.

It's like saying Weimar police killed communists therefore the burning of Reichstag has little bearing on debates about bourgeois democracy. While the former maybe technically true it is obvious that if the event that resulted in the establishment bloodiest dictatorship in history was done by the Nazis themselves than that actually does change things. The dominant interpretation of Western history is that Hitler was tragic accident not that he was brought to power by the elite or that his crew of rabid fascists seized power with a false-flag.

The Warren commission had the least amount of evidence available of the multiple government commissions chaired and was the most rushed. I suppose you also think…

*meant as a corrective for

you're misunderstanding me. i'm not saying that they explicitly say "there is a conspiracy," i'm saying that they continue to ask "is there a conspiracy?" they keep that fire burning because they know it's a popular story that sells. it's also a popular subject of entertainment media, which americans are hugely influenced by. at this point it's sort of irrelevant as the meme has taken on a life of its own and is self-reinforcing/perpetuating
michael parenti is a conspiracist who peddles known falsehoods like the claim that oswald studied at the defense language institute and was some sort of spook because he had a security clearance during his time in the marines in japan. parenti is simply not a reputable voice on the subject
so knowledge that the government was for decades covertly murdering and terrorising its own citizens elicits silence, but knowledge that someone in the government killed its own president will suddenly make society do a 180?
and that's the problem. that they put more import on the death of a murderous criminal degenerate scumbag like kennedy than on the murder and torture of innocent activists and fellow citizens just shows how broken their moral compass is. the cointelpro revelations is what should have had them marching in the streets and calling for government heads to roll, and it's what all these jfk and 9/11 truthers should really be so obsessively and meticulously investigating and trying to bring to the public's attention. who killed jfk? who cares
i never said otherwise. my point is that the fundamental conclusions of warren still haven't been reliably refuted, and all the claims made by conspiracy theorists still haven't been proved. it's really simple: if there was a secret government conspiracy and oswald was a secret agent or whatever; prove it. none of the claims made by conspiracists over the past decades has held up to scrutiny. all this time and energy and hundreds of books and what's come of it? zilch
how? europe was still destroyed. the holocaust still happened. a few different sentences in a history book doesn't change anything
coming from someone who apparently believes in popular fantasies and silly urban legends, that's rich. i haven't insulted you but if you prefer to be uncivil then i won't bother to have this discussion

Actually…a fair bit has come out of it. JFK researchers are largely the ones who have pushed for the release and declassification of millions of documents, chairing of new investigatory commissions, and have even forced modifications to the official story that weren't present at the start.

For instance, it is now a known fact that Jack Ruby was a mafia man but this wasn't officially acknowledged until the late 70s. The constant presence of wealthy right-wing Russian emigre and CIA asset George de Mohrenschildt in Oswald's life in Dallas is now admitted even in mainstream accounts. I shouldn't have to mention the fact that "communist" Lee Harvey Oswald was friends with a right-wing anti-communist who knew both H.W. Bush and Jackie Kennedy is somewhat suspicious but for the coincidence theorists who believe in the official account the obvious does has to be pointed out.

He was in Japan working as a radar operator where the U-2 planes that were used to conduct espionage flights over the Soviet Union were stationed. Its pretty strange that in the 50s at the height of the Cold War, a 20-21 year old Oswald taught himself Russian, played Russian language records in the baracks and proclaimed his belief in communism to anyone who would listen. I wouldn't exactly say that the Marines was a bastion of freethinking in the 1950s.

>Why was no action taken against him? Why, when this came to the attention of his Marine superiors, was action not initiated? This man was a man with a security clearance; this man was a man who had access to highly sophisticated materials; and he is now showing an interest in Marxism. (The Hidden History of JFK Assasination Lamar Waldron)

After defecting to the USSR, Oswald quickly renounced his citizenship, but after only 17 months he departed from the USSR with a new Russian wife in toe; but she wasn't just anyone, her uncle was a colonel in the MVD–the Russian Ministry of the Interior. This wasn't just any bureaucratic. Soviet body but as Stratfor describes it:

After, renouncing his citizenship he is quickly readmitted to the US and immigration laws of the Cold War US (aka, that Soviet party/government members and relatives could not emigrate) were bent to make way for Marina. The CIA adamantly maintains that Oswald was never debriefed but that seems improbable to say the least.

Then, Lee Harvey Oswald, the only marine to ever defect from the Soviet Union, arrives in Dallas and works for a graphic design company in Dallas called Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall that did classified work for the US government. It has been maintained that Oswald never had access to classified materials there, which maybe true, but the fact that he worked there at all is extremely suspicious.

Then Oswald, allegedly a committed communist/revolutionary, never had any comrades that government investigators could ever find. He joined the fair-play for Cuba committee by mail and was the only member of the New Orleans chapter that he started. During that time, while failing to attract any members, he succeeds quite well at attracting media attention some of which you can watch on YT today.

Recent documents show that before shooting JFK, Oswald called a KGB department in Moscow that handled assassinations:

If Oswald wasn't a secret agent of some type he did a very good job as posing as one, to say the least.

I don't think I could lay out all the evidence for such a plot in one post. But, incriminating evidence does exist from the confessions of Marcello, E. Howard Hunt and James Files to recent revelations that a British newspaper was tipped off by an anonymous source which drew the attention of MI5, the CIA also intercepted tapes of someone impersonating Lee Harvey Oswald but these tapes were erased, to the prediction of white supremacist Joseph A. Milteer to an FBI informant that Kennedy would be assassinated from an office building with a high-powered rifle from an office-building:

Are we moralists or materialists? Any Marxist worth his salt knows that capitalism distorts the moral values of a given society to those that match the priorities of, well, capital. It is advisable to take advantage of this where possible, to exploit the contradictions inherent in our society rather then to act as preachers despising all mankind for its wicked ways. We must also ask when it comes to the study of history, are we materialists or are idealists willing to believe bourgeois government accounts when it conflicts with facts and logic.

The communists of Germany and the Comintern never accepted the Nazi lies about the Reichstag. And neither did the Chinese communists accept the Japanese lies about the false-flag Manchurian incident.

Yeah, this is how I know you're a Chomsky-bot, its not as if 9/11 and the JFK assassination are the same thing. Whether the US government killed 3,000 of its own citizens or not, civilians largely, a good portion of whom were working class, actually does matter. You would have us think that people should get riled up about the murder of a handful of radicals by COINTELPRO but take an approach of cool indifference to whether 3,000 civilians were murdered in the US by their own government? That strains credibility.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there are any COINTELPRO that explicitly say, "hey we murder people lmao" I think the evidence is good that Hampton and others were murdered and so on, but its not like they exactly wrote it down on paper: "Hey, we're taking this nigger out tmrw lol" but it is interesting that Chomsky-bots can never be convinced of the idea of a conspiracy in either JFK or 9/11 unless some government document can be produced in LBJ/GWB's own hand-writing with blood and semen samples from every member of that administration (plus the JCoS and head of the CIA) spewed all over it.

I've yet to see official documents about the MOVE bombing that indicate the massacre was planned in advance and yet every piece of evidence points in that direction. Sorta highlights the weaknesses of Chomsky's research approach and/or the blindness of Chomsky on these issues.

Believe it or not, intent actually does matter, it changes historical context dramatically. The fact that we now know the Gulf of Tonkin was a hoax perpetuated by the US government changes our understanding of that war dramatically. Historians are still debating about when the Holocaust became official policy for good reason. It's only in 1942 that we get our first evidence laid out explicitly in government documents at the Wannasee conference that the intended aim of the Nazi government was exterminatory genocide. Historians still debate when the Nazis undertook to carry out a genocide against the Jews because it does matter.

Thanks to historian Rolff-Dieter Müller's excellent work we now know that Hitler was planning an invasion of the Soviet Union since 1933. This changes our understanding of WWII dramatically, now instead of Barbarossa being a last-ditch effort born out of Soviet appeasement or the failure to form a lasting "partnership" between the Soviet government and the Nazis in the Hitler-Stalin pact, it is now proven even by bourgeois historians that the Soviets were right–the Nazis planned to destroy socialism in the East from the start. The Nazis never intended to divide the world between the Nazi Empire and the USSR as many reactionary and liberal historians have claimed but were intent on war with the USSR from the start.

I'll make a final point here, Paul Craig Roberts has truly said that Wars are hard to oppose if you accept the reason for them. So, if you uncritically allow the right-wing and liberal capitalist establishment to control the narrative of events without challenge its going to be harder to undermine that narrative even in the wider sense.

yes! kill all fascists fellow Christian!

Because half of LBJ's shit was actively pushed through on "We have to do this for JACK" despite JFK not having given a single shit about it.

Kennedy wanted to destroy the CIA so the CIA killed him.

The E howard Hunt confession chills me when i hear it. Given the evidence that he was there that day and his involvement with watergate I don't doubt he had some involvement either with the shooting or the subsequent investigation.
Also Oswald had a strange connection to George Demornshield a known Cia asset and acquitance to George H w Bush.

this is just insufferable

It's just a fact that after the bay of pigs JFK had serious issues with the CIA

it's a fact that the cia is the terrorism wing of the u.s. government. it is not a separate entity. the idea that the head of the u.s. government would want to destroy one of the major arms of the u.s. government is just absurd. did he want to get rid of the military too?

this is just more of this "kennedy was a good guy put down by evil forces" bullshit. it's pathetic

Not the guy your replying to but the way I understand it is that he wanted to divide the CIA into two parts: one part that would serve as an action-task force and the other part that would serve as an actual intelligence service. They were concerned about bad intel because the CIA wanted to play as cowboys and gangsters on the cheap rather than do their jobs when it comes to the actual job of intelligence analysis. The CIA knew this compartmentalization of their agency would shrink their ability to leverage power autonomously and didn't want that. MI5, Mossad, the KGB, and even French intelligence were all as formidable as the CIA in terms of intel, if not more so, but got the job done a lot better for less money and less effort.

Hell, JFK wasn't even alone in not trusting the CIA, Truman and Ike also mistrusted the CIA, the former even expressed regrets about creating it. The US hadn't even had the CIA for that long when JFK came into office.

People hear that certain presidents wanted to abolish or reform the CIA and think the US is going to do without spies. In fact, before the CIA or the OSS, the US never had an official spy agency but they did have spies working for the government internationally particularly in Naval Intelligence, Army Intelligence, the FBI, diplomatic staff and "concerned" American businessmen abroad, industrial spies, and so on.

The CIA wasn't even an actual spy agency as much as it was a good old boys club, it was Wall Street financiers who pushed for its creation and laid its groundwork. They fucked Kennedy hard in the Bay of Pigs.

They had led him to believe that there would be uprisings against the Castro regime and that they wouldn't have to commit boots on the ground. In fact, the CIA knew that the invasion attempt would fail from the get-go if it wasn't coupled with open American air and troop support. I don't even know of a single historian who disputes this point although some draw attention that things weren't as simple as good Kennedy vs. bad CIA and so on.

all of that is irrelevant. bay of pigs was kennedy's idea. starting a terrorist war against cuba was kennedy's idea. he was a violent anticommunist who nearly started a nuclear war over cuba. why are act like kennedy was some sort of conscientious and hesitant guy who cruelly had the wool pulled over his eyes by some unscrupulous actors? he probably would have just nuked havana if he could have gotten away with it. he was a lunatic

Those plans were in place since Eisenhower so it shows how little you actually know about history…

You think I'm defending Kennedy? There's nothing like that in my post; its just reality that the bourgeoisie fights among itself and sometimes that can take a violent turn. Yes, he was a violent anti-communist but whether or not you want to believe it there were even crazier anti-coms in the US government than Kennedy.


Just lol 😂

embarrassing. not that anyone should expect different from conspiracy brainlets

The real JFK conspiracy was that the alphabet soup killed him in a very obviously suspicious but also confusing and ambiguous way so that people would waste resources trying to figure it out instead of focusing on real problems in society. Pretty much anything involving the US president is primarily political theater.

The MLK assassination is less interesting from a conspiracy theory standpoint since it's obvious why the FBI would want him dead. The motivation for killing the president of the US (who was a huge war hawk and firmly served liberal interests) is less clear, hence the speculation.

The FBI fucked up. They dismissed Oswald as a threat, then spent the next fifty years covering up that mistake.

Just because the Kennedys treated the agency with kid gloves doesn't mean that there weren't tensions and it doesn't mean that company men perceived Kennedy's treatment of the agency in the same manner that members of the Kennedy administration and people selected by the administration saw it.

The biggest tension within the agency, aside from Kennedy's failure to support the Bay of Pigs to their liking, was tension between the supporters of the Dulles brothers plan for Indonesia and Kennedy's own conflicting plan that largely continued the status quo there:

As for Chomsky, I would say that his Zionist affiliations are not to irrelevant to his gate-keeping on both JFK and 9/11, as both events have the fingerprints of Mossad on them.

Just fuck off Morrissey

Okay, while its wrong to blame everything on Israel and the Jews, the facts are that they can and do have a significant impact on US and world events.
Israel is perhaps the world's foremost expert on both assassinations and false-flag terrorism:

Mossad knew 9/11 was going to happen, even US officials admitted that Israeli spy networks are so extensive that they had to know 9/11 would happen. Then you have the issue of the dancing Israelis as well:

I don't believe that Mossad could've done either event without US government complicity by certain factions but the Israeli tie to both is a fascinating and unexplained aspect of things.

In this picture, Oswald is holding copies of The Militant (SWP, Trotskyist) and The Daily Worker (CPUSA, nominally ML, took the side of Khrushchev in the Sino/Albanian-Soviet split) not sure why few on the Left have questioned why committed communist Lee Harvey Oswald had his picture taken with two party papers that had diametrically opposed lines.

You're right it was a joke. Because the post you made was also a joke. I don't need to argue with you.

The answer is that Oswald was a commie hipster.

Ok, there's no need to keep replying and disrupting this thread. Everyone knows you have Chomsky's cock in your mouth but have you haven't made any points besides that.

If you believe the official story he sacrificed A LOT for his beliefs. Hardly the kind of person you could equate with being some sort of Starbucks leftist. The truest thing you could say while sticking to the official narrative is that Oswald was a committed believe but wasn't too bright…but a lack of intelligence isn't supported by his Autism Level tests in the military and his time as a radar operator.

I'm not the same user I just remember that picture you always post and remember oh yeah here comes the contrarian moron

this is called ad hominem. you're a brainlet and there's no point in going in circles with you. have fun with your conspiracies; i guess they're less boring than facts

That is the impression you want people to get but the lack of substance in your posts beyond moral outrage and reposting bits of Chomsky betrays you. There's no point in arguing with anyone whose foreclosed debate anyways. I hope you do something more productive with your time, I'm not going to reply to you again.

But I will be happy to talk it over with anyone else who is interested in this issue from whatever perspective either for or against the official narrative.


Despite his socialist leanings, Oswald enlisted in the Marines and in 1957 was stationed in Atsugi, Japan. While there, he earned the nickname “Osvaldovich.” As his fellow Marine, Owen Dejanovich, explained to FRONTLINE:

please, for the love of fuck:

Still haven’t seen any rebuttal to Parenti’s point that just as the ruling class couldn’t maintain itself through brute alone it is also true that ruling classes also can’t maintain themselves without indulging in illicit actions, in illegal violence, in otherwords, conspiracies.

Half the shit that Chomsky has spent has career writing about are “conspiracies” of the United States government against rest of the world. The fact that Chomskyites stutter “m-muh documentation!” doesn’t change this at all.

COINTELPRO and the reality of police infiltration of leftist groups are also “conspiracies”. Just because you think there’s more evidence to them doesn’t change the fact that the US government engaged in a conspiracy to stop change. To the normie public, who are trained to regard any critical view as “conspiratorial” by the bourgeois media, the kind of stuff that Chomsky says isn’t much different from Alex Jones.

Many have neither the time nor inclination to look into the evidence behind his research. In fact, a normie might suspect that Chomsky like any other “conspiracy theorist” selects evidence to fit his narrative—and they would be right but not in the way they might think.