What year did Clown World begin?

submitted by bug-in-recovery from (self.debatealtright)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 9 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 3 fun -  (12 children)

Cronkite was basically the most trusted man in america at the time and people were scared and gearing up for a protest movement on the heels of the warren commission findings. CBS backed the findings and the rest is history. No further investigation needed goys.

In the mid-1960s, amid growing skepticism about the Warren Commission’s lone-gunman findings on John F. Kennedy’s assassination, there was a struggle inside CBS News about whether to allow the critics a fair public hearing at the then-dominant news network. Some CBS producers pushed for a debate between believers and doubters and one even submitted a proposal to put the Warren Report “on trial,” according to internal CBS documents.

But CBS executives, who were staunch supporters of the Warren findings and had personal ties to some commission members, spiked those plans and instead insisted on presenting a defense of the lone-gunman theory while dismissing doubts as baseless conspiracy theories, the documents show.

Though it may be hard to remember – amid today’s proliferation of cable channels and Internet sites – CBS, along with NBC and ABC, wielded powerful control over what the American people got to see, hear and take seriously in the 1960s. By slapping down any criticism of the Warren Commission, CBS executives effectively prevented the case surrounding the 1963 assassination of President Kennedy from ever receiving the full airing that it deserved.

Beyond that historical significance, the internal documents – compiled by onetime CBS News assistant producer Roger Feinman – show how a major mainstream news organization green-lights one approach to presenting sensitive national security news while blocking another. The documents also shed light on how senior news executives, who have bought into one interpretation of the facts, are highly resistant to revisit the evidence.

CBS News jumped onboard the blue-ribbon Warren Commission’s findings as soon as they were released on Sept. 27, 1964, just over 10 months after President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas, on Nov. 22, 1963. In a special report, CBS and its anchor Walter Cronkite preempted regular programming and, with the assistance of reporter Dan Rather, devoted two commercial-free hours to endorsing the main tenets of that report.

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/04/22/how-cbs-news-aided-the-jfk-cover-up/

[–]Salos10000 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

So if he was like 'Oh the President's death is a bit dodgy' the world would be alright?

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

The truth might have had a fighting chance.

[–]Salos10000 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Nah the American normie would have overlooked it. That imo was one of the big reasons our people never got our shit together the complacency and massive increase in quality of life after WW2. That combined with the Social climate and Cold War made our people passive.

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Nah the American normie would have overlooked it.

Not at that time. Remember this is the 'start' of clown world.

[–]Salos10000 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Why was Hart Cellar allowed to pass despite most American's opposing increased immigration?

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Hart Cellar is actually a red hearing. HC largely closed not opened Americas borders.

Check out this article. This is something the alt right needs to rejigger it's talking points on.

https://www.unz.com/runz/immigration-building-a-wall-and-hispanic-crime/

[–]Salos10000 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

This article cites barely any sources. Even wikipedia admits 1965 is what opened the flood gates to nonwhite immigration.

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Did you even read the article?

Prior to the 1920s, America allowed unlimited immigration from Europe and Latin America. Then the 1924 Immigration Act sharply restricted European immigration, but retained an “open borders” policy toward Latin America and the rest of the Western Hemisphere, largely because Southwestern business interests desired an unrestricted supply of Mexican labor. This only changed with the 1965 Act, which for the first time imposed strict quotas upon immigration from Latin America and the Caribbean even as it loosened restrictions upon European and Asian immigration. Prior to 1965, any Latin American who paid a small fee at the border, generally in the range of $18, could legally immigrate to America with almost no waiting period. Immigration had remained low merely because Mexico and most of Latin America had traditionally been under-populated.

The huge rise in Latin American immigration after 1965 was due to the enormous population growth in that region and came in spite of the 1965 Act rather because of it.

If Congress had never passed the 1965 Act, illegal immigration would never have become an issue because legal immigration from Latin America would have remained entirely unlimited. I suspect that the influx of legal Hispanics might have reached 5 million per year by the 1990s, and perhaps the entire impoverished population of Haiti would have relocated to our shores. Immigration over the last fifty years has increased our non-white population by some 60 million, but without the sharp restrictions of the 1965 Act, the figure would surely have been 120 million or perhaps even 180 million. Such a scenario can hardly be viewed with favor by racially-focused immigration-restrictionists.

The bottom line is that the non white population in north america is diluted and declining because of low birth rates of whites and LEGAL immigration not illegal immigration and it would have been worse if HC hadn't been passed. Obviously illegal immigration is a problem but it's not the main problem. The alt right needs to stop repeating this. It makes us look silly and un-informed.

It would have been nice if Hart Cellar had never passed and we would have gotten a different bill with a total blockage of non white immigration but the oligarchs have never wanted that.

Even wikipedia admits 1965 is what opened the flood gates to nonwhite immigration.

It wouldn't be the first or last time that dog shit website was wrong.

[–]Salos10000 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

But the writer didn't provide any source or citation for what he wrote thus how can I believe it?

Hart Cellar is useful anyway as a pinpoint, we can explicitly show how the American people did not want it through polls and how the politicians lied to the American people claiming it would lead to only a few thousand cream of the crop immigrants moving in instead of the replacement it brought about. This can be sourced through Kennedy's quotes when promoting the bill. It can also be useful for the JQ and Jewish subversion as a Jewish congressman introduced the bill. I've never seen anyone on the alt right lose a discussion where it is brought up.

[–]Salos10000 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What does immigration polling have to do with JFK, the warren commission, and the start of clown world?