John Fitzgerald Kennedy is Trayvon Benjamin Martin.
I’ve read plenty lately about the 50th Anniversary of the martyrdom and assassination of JFK. It all started with that ridiculous article in the NYT, which merely sought to counter the facts with a narrative spin blaming the real enemy, the right. Sailer covered it and he’s been on a roll, and of course the nonsense has been discussed plenty elsewhere.
Besides noticing that, since we know from Sunstein that liberals and progressives hate Communists so much, it’s notable that they don’t just identify the politics of the actual culprit [notice the ‘Pas d’ennemis à gauche!’ missing from the English version?], I don’t really have much to add except Derb said something interesting that seems obviously right once you hear it, but never boiled up to my awareness before:
Ask random adults you encounter, preferably under the age of fifty, what were the politics of Kennedy’s murderer? Not one in ten of them will know he was a communist. The commonest answer you’ll get will probably be “right-wing nut,” “white supremacist,” or some similar phrase from the left-liberal prompt book. This is what’s meant by “controlling the discourse.”
I remember learning about Kennedy’s assassination in last portion of my first American history class, and, yes, it’s amazing that there was never any discussion of Oswald at all; who he was, what he believed, why he did it, etc. Nothing about the assassin, just the assassinated. I learned a lot more about John Wilkes Booth; I can assure you.
All the talk was instead about Kennedy, inevitably naming his as ‘the civil rights President.’ The calculated lapses and silences were clearly meant to inspire a kind of ‘connect the dots the way I know you will’ conclusion as to the dark forces that must have been the real cause, completely opposite of the actual dark forces, naturally.
And that is in fact the way a lot of my fellows connected the dots – it must have been the same sort of fellow who shot MLK, an event often covered in the same class period. Some people, including yours truly, were interested in various conspiracy theories, and when they actually learned about Oswald on their own time, they were uniformly surprised. Huh, maybe it wasn’t the Texas branch of the KKK after all.
Now, a single ludicrous article in the NYT is one thing, but multiple expressions on the same absurd theme in the age of Wikipedia is a bit disturbing, and it reminds me of what happened with the George Zimmerman / Trayvon Martin fiasco. In Kennedy’s case, they write out the Communist and replace him with the Texas Right Wing. Dallas pulled the trigger, after all.
In Martin’s case they write the actual victimized, Hispanic Zimmerman and 17 year-old apprentice-thug Martin and replace them with the White Racist Assassin Zimmerman and 12-year old innocent baby running for his life from a modern lynching.
Are there any limits whatsoever to the holders-of-the-megaphone’s ability to rewrite easily found facts into false martyrdom scripts in real time? Is it not astounding that those born nearly 30 years after the event would repeat those same agitprop themes in the nation’s more prestigious newspaper without being deterred whatsoever by the immediate, predictable, and obvious contradiction in tens of thousands of minor outlets? And where is the characteristic knee-jerk mocking and derisory snark from all the other mainstream outlets of the ‘highly competitive, corporate media’, looking for any opportunity to wound the reputation of their main rival, as opposed to the quick frenzy to get in line?
It starts to make you wonder about all the other martyrdoms in History. But I’m certain we’ve got plenty of false martyrs to come. We don’t even have to wait for a conveniently-exploitable death scenario to occur; just keep sending it back to re-write until the audience screams.