A snapshot into the mind of Dr. Cyril Wecht

[Oscar Navarro]

Let me rephrase my observation. I haven't seen anybody from the right write a book and make the case publicly other than Roger Stone in the US. I believe that Charles de Gaulle was a conspiracist and he was more right of center than most of the modern European leaders and he was not what one would consider an anti democratic political figure. As to Jim Fetzer being a Holocaust denier does not automatically move a person's political stance to the right of center. There are plenty of Holocaust deniers who are left to far left of center. just to name a few there's old reliable Lewis Farrakhan, Linda Sarsour, Bobby Fischer and various Muslim leaders from across the globe. IMO, with the left now adopting a more pro-Palestinian and anti-Jewish/Zionist world view it's people from the left who are more prone to adopt pro Muslim attitudes and views while the opposite can be said to those from the right of the political spectrum.  As to Michael Griffith just because a person adopts a pro-Confederate position does not make that position anti-democratic. Racist, yes. But if you would read the Confederate Constitution and followed the history of the Confederacy and the formation of it's government it was centered more on the rights of the individual  states as having supremacy and against the controls that would be inherent in a federal government.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

My posts have nothing to do with this thread?

Gary, what are the first few sentences of the initial post of this thread?

I point out that pushing a government conspiracy appeals equally to the far right as it does to the far left.

Roger Stone is the only right winger who pushes the government conspiracy angle?

What about James Fetzer? He was a leading spokesman for the CT side for many years. I am certain there are many posters here who do, or at least who used to, think well of him. He?s a big believer in Large Secret Jewish conspiracies. He has also become a Holocaust denier. If he is not a far right CTer, who is?

Then there is Michael T. Griffith. He has been a popular ?Go-To? expert on discounting the neurological spasm explanation for JFK going backwards from the headshot, on the strength of his pulling the wool over a doctor?s eyes and not informing him of film showing what happens when a goat is shot through the brain. And getting a statement from that doctor that the neurological spasm theory seemed an unlikely explanation. Even doctors should withhold opinions until they have observed a real-life animal being shot through the brain. Well, our good Michael T. Griffith is also a fan on the Confederate States of American, as can be seen at his website below:

http://civilwar.miketgriffith.com/

with articles on ?The War of Northern Aggression? and ?The War for Southern Independence?. I think we can all agree that Michael T. Griffith is a far-right winger.

And these are just a couple from the top of my head. I?m sure with a little digging, others can be found.

The reasons why a U. S. Government Conspiracy appeals to both the far-left wingers and the far-right wingers are obvious. Neither are fans of democratic government. Anything that states that democratic government doesn?t work, like because it is subject to seizure and control by Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracies is a notion that both are going to support.

Just to add one figure: Jim Garrison. Garrison called himself a "conservative libertarian" which is clearly on the political right. But his description of the US as being secretly run by a cabal of militarists and businessmen who got together (somehow) to kill JFK is remarkably similar to the leftwing's  conspiracy view of the country assassination.

It's also interesting to note that one of the leading political commentators on the left - Noam Chosky - is a "lone assassin" believer.

The conspiracy advocates on the hard right and left have obvious differences but they seem to have the same sort of view of how the US is run. Or who "runs it." And both have this overly romantic view (in my opinion) of JFK; that he was a threat to the secret power brokers who really run the country. And it was for that, e.g. he was going to "end" the Vietnam war or break up the MIC, that he was killed.

Your comments and mine are directly related to the OP. This isn't hijacking a thread; it's returning it to the original post.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Let me rephrase my observation. I haven't seen anybody from the right write a book and make the case publicly other than Roger Stone in the US. I believe that Charles de Gaulle was a conspiracist and he was more right of center than most of the modern European leaders and he was not what one would consider an anti democratic political figure. As to Jim Fetzer being a Holocaust denier does not automatically move a person's political stance to the right of center. There are plenty of Holocaust deniers who are left to far left of center. just to name a few there's old reliable Lewis Farrakhan, Linda Sarsour, Bobby Fischer and various Muslim leaders from across the globe. IMO, with the left now adopting a more pro-Palestinian and anti-Jewish/Zionist world view it's people from the left who are more prone to adopt pro Muslim attitudes and views while the opposite can be said to those from the right of the political spectrum.  As to Michael Griffith just because a person adopts a pro-Confederate position does not make that position anti-democratic. Racist, yes. But if you would read the Confederate Constitution and followed the history of the Confederacy and the formation of it's government it was centered more on the rights of the individual  states as having supremacy and against the controls that would be inherent in a federal government.

As I noted above, Jim Garrison was on the political right. He called himself a "conservative libertarian".

Another figure is Lew Rockwell, a libertarian/rightwinger. His site runs many of the pieces written by Fetzer and he himself (the last I recall) was a proponent of Stone's views that LBJ killed JFK. He's kind of an obscure figure.

And remember that the Liberty Lobby, a far right wing organization, published a  piece claiming that E. Howard Hunt was one of the assassins (he was one of the "three tramps"). Hunt sued them for libel and Mark Lane, certainly no rightwinger, defended them.

We see popping up every now and then this very weird alliance between the far right and far left when it comes to the assassination. They disagree on nearly everything except, apparently, that JFK was killed by "the government", e.g., Hoover, LBJ, the CIA et al.