JFK and Julius Caesar (The Same Kind of Assassination)

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Having just watched "The Guilty Men" Documentary once again I am drawn to the stark parallels between the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and Julius Caesar.

Here is the documentary for anyone who has not seen it:



and here a description of the assassination of Julius Caesar:

Assassination of Julius Caesar.

In the first line of the Wikipedia Article it reads;



The assassination of Julius Caesar was the result of a conspiracy by many Roman senators who called themselves Liberators


Obviously it is still impossible to know the details of what really happened, but it is my bet that The Texas Power Brokers alongside J. Edgar Hoover and others were all in it together and held the dagger so to speak. JFK was treading all over them in various ways and this was their remedy. See the documentary for reasons they had to get JFK "out of the way"; they are manifold. Like Julius Caesar he was becoming a power unto himself and was out to re-organise the gangster culture in The Senate, The C.I.A and The Military Industrial Complex. He was making too many waves and too many powerful people had too much to lose if JFK was to achieve his plans for another term of office.

There is no way there could have been such a tight cover up unless there were many power brokers involved. I wonder how they explained Julius Caesar's assassination at the time it happened? I bet there was a cover up for many years there. too.

I think one day the truth will come to be known just as we now know what happened to Julius Caesar. These two assassinations have many similarities; one early on in The Roman Empire and the other early on in the U.S "Empire".

That satisfies me as to why. Whoever pulled the trigger would have only been a henchman. Many men gave the order. It was a classical conspiracy, just as was the "conspiracy" to assassinate Julius Caesar.



.




posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Revolution9
 


The US didn't have and doesn't have an "Empire"
2nd



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by alldaylong
reply to post by Revolution9
 


The US didn't have and doesn't have an "Empire"
2nd



Lol! Yes it odes and you know it. THe influence of the U.S stretches far and wide across this globe. The U.S deals just about everywhere in a covert sense. That is why I used the quotation marks for the "Empire" word. C'mon, get real!

Look how many wars the U.S forces have been involved in! The CIA is even able to just pick people up on the streets in Europe and take them anywhere they choose to be interrogated. Think RENDITION!



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by alldaylong
reply to post by Revolution9
 


The US didn't have and doesn't have an "Empire"
2nd

Looks like an empire and smells like an empire to me.

An imperial political structure is established and maintained in two ways: (i) as a territorial empire of direct conquest and control with force (direct, physical action to compel the emperor's goals), and (ii) as a coercive, hegemonic empire of indirect conquest and control with power (the perception that the emperor can physically enforce his desired goals).
Wiki



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Revolution9
 

Hopefully the truth will come out eventually on this. I believe you are exactly right about who was behind this. Someday the history books will paint an entirely different picture of the US than is currently believed today.



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Revolution9
 


An Empire is a group of countries governed by a single Monarch. The US has never had that.
However it does have political influence (as do many other countries around the world) You are confusing your definition.



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bassago

Originally posted by alldaylong
reply to post by Revolution9
 


The US didn't have and doesn't have an "Empire"
2nd

Looks like an empire and smells like an empire to me.

An imperial political structure is established and maintained in two ways: (i) as a territorial empire of direct conquest and control with force (direct, physical action to compel the emperor's goals), and (ii) as a coercive, hegemonic empire of indirect conquest and control with power (the perception that the emperor can physically enforce his desired goals).
Wiki


I think that is an apt description. I am not saying it in a bad way. The U.S just holds that place right now as many States in the past have done, including Britain and Rome. Before that it was The Greeks. Always been that way in the world.

JFK had very singular ideas and wished to make big changes in the U.S including taking the dollar back from The Federal Reserve. He had worried too many people in a similar way to Julius Caesar.

Like King Solomon said;

"There is nothing new under the Sun".

History repeats itself. The Kennedys had them all very worried because they had idealistic goals. They were thinking on a different level to the "Usual Suspects". Politics has always been like this. It is the way of the world I guess. Idealism is not tolerated.

There was no way they were going to stand for him getting a 2nd term in office with the plans that he had. His brother had the same fate because he had the same ideas and was going to run for President and I am sure he would have been elected.

Look at the amount of assassinations that happened during that time; John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King. Look at all the deaths of people around those guys at the time. That documentary hits on the kind of assassination culture that was endemic at that time.

I am certain that many Powerful Men made the decision to assassinate him. It was a classical conspiracy.



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by alldaylong
reply to post by Revolution9
 


An Empire is a group of countries governed by a single Monarch. The US has never had that.
However it does have political influence (as do many other countries around the world) You are confusing your definition.


I was deliberately doing that. I was being tongue and cheek about it. The U.S has a huge political, financial and military influence in the world. They have no monarch. Though there are some established almost "royal" families in the U.S (no names mentioned). Unfortunately there are no male Kennedys left to join that group. They have all lost their lives one way or another.

Anyway, back to the parallels of Julius Caesar and JFK (which is what this thread is about, hint hint).

edit on 14-8-2013 by Revolution9 because: punctuation.



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Bassago
 


If the OP is comparing The Roman Empire to America he is using the word "Empire" in the complete wrong context. The Roman Empire is no way the same as America. He should have compared The Soviet Empire to America. That would make more sense.



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by alldaylong
reply to post by Bassago
 


If the OP is comparing The Roman Empire to America he is using the word "Empire" in the complete wrong context. The Roman Empire is no way the same as America. He should have compared The Soviet Empire to America. That would make more sense.



Yes, whatever! The thread is about JFK and the fact that I believe a whole host of powerful men were involved in the decision making process to have him assassinated. It is the real world. Things like that do go on. I am using history to provide a parallel here. What do you think about that? That is what the thread is about. We can make a thread about whether or not the U.S can be defined as having an Empire in the world if you like, but not here. I was being tongue and cheek about it. Just because there is no monarch doesn't mean that it can't achieve the same kind of exercise of power and influence in the world.



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Revolution9
 

Back on topic OP. The parallels are certainly there in some ways. I've always believed it was the CIA instigating this for Kennedy's threat to break them up, supported by a few senators aligned with the MIC.



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Revolution9

Originally posted by alldaylong
reply to post by Bassago
 


If the OP is comparing The Roman Empire to America he is using the word "Empire" in the complete wrong context. The Roman Empire is no way the same as America. He should have compared The Soviet Empire to America. That would make more sense.



Yes, whatever! The thread is about JFK and the fact that I believe a whole host of powerful men were involved in the decision making process to have him assassinated. It is the real world. Things like that do go on. I am using history to provide a parallel here. What do you think about that? That is what the thread is about. We can make a thread about whether or not the U.S can be defined as having an Empire in the world if you like, but not here. I was being tongue and cheek about it. Just because there is no monarch doesn't mean that it can't achieve the same kind of exercise of power and influence in the world.



Let me take you by your hand and guide you. This should be your comparison and not Cesar. His name was Leon Trotsky:-

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by alldaylong

Originally posted by Revolution9

Originally posted by alldaylong
reply to post by Bassago
 


If the OP is comparing The Roman Empire to America he is using the word "Empire" in the complete wrong context. The Roman Empire is no way the same as America. He should have compared The Soviet Empire to America. That would make more sense.



Yes, whatever! The thread is about JFK and the fact that I believe a whole host of powerful men were involved in the decision making process to have him assassinated. It is the real world. Things like that do go on. I am using history to provide a parallel here. What do you think about that? That is what the thread is about. We can make a thread about whether or not the U.S can be defined as having an Empire in the world if you like, but not here. I was being tongue and cheek about it. Just because there is no monarch doesn't mean that it can't achieve the same kind of exercise of power and influence in the world.



Let me take you by your hand and guide you. This should be your comparison and not Cesar. His name was Leon Trotsky:-

en.wikipedia.org...


Yes, that too! Out on his own in an idealistic wilderness. Brave man I say. They always end up like that; on a mortuary slab.

It happens even to the little guy. I made waves too much and ended up in a kind of limbo and exile. Sure there are many people here writing on ATS who have had a similar fate.

I really like those guys who have a vision. The world is stuck in the snake pit with the vipers and no-one gets out alive, especially if they dare to have vision.

I honestly do believe that there were may be as many Assassins involved in the untimely death of JFK as were involved in the demise of Julius Caesar,

I dread to think what other secrets lie buried in history! Dog eat dog and so it goes!



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bassago
reply to post by Revolution9
 

Back on topic OP. The parallels are certainly there in some ways. I've always believed it was the CIA instigating this for Kennedy's threat to break them up, supported by a few senators aligned with the MIC.






Kennedy was quoted as telling an official within his administration: "I want to splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds."[


CIA Keenedy Assassination Conspiracy Theory



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 08:23 PM
link   
I didn't know George H. Bush was around back in Caesar's day


Seriously
edit on 14-8-2013 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
2

log in

join