John F. Kennedy Death Ruled Suicide

Many people know of the term "suicide by cop" wherein a criminal at the end of his rope sticks one last sickening thorn into the souls of the police officers apprehending him by threatening them all so much that they feel their only choice is to murder him.  Knowledge of this possibility causes the best police to quit before they are forced to murder someone who hasn't done anyone harm, but who violated too many stupid laws to have any chance of an enjoyable life once he (or she) is caught.

But John F. Kennedy's death has been verified as a "suicide by psychopathic elites."  Multiple wounds in his dead body with different angles of entry prompted recent researchers to examine the hypothesis that he knew what he was doing, and was no longer interested in trying to do (what he thought was) good in a world where psychopathic elites held sway over the minds of so many individuals.

This was before the Internet, you see, at the height of the thrall into which the masses could be put with radio signals.  Mr. Kennedy had turned 21 six months before H.G. Wells successfully demonstrated that people were idiots by broadcasting a radio show in which a news story about invading Martians was played.  Kennedy spent the next 21 years climbing through the jungle gym of political force, first through the navy, then some propaganda training with Hearst Newspapers, and then into the cesspool-surrounded-jacuzzi called Washington DC as a representative and then a senator, finally becoming president, where his southern gentility prompted him to free his people from the stranglehold of fiat currency by issuing silver notes.

But it all proved too hard when he figured out that they murdered his brother Joe for the same kind of care he felt toward his countrymen.  So he thwarted the disaster they'd planned for the Bay of Pigs, pushed forward his silver certificate agenda, and permitted a course change at the last minute through the heart of his nemesis' hometown, Dallas, Texas, knowing full well that the whole world would see the depravity of the psychos on full display while his head exploded.

Too bad that took another few decades because of the success of the Prussian model of "education" making people into stupid sheep.  This effort had been underway since the 1800s after Horace Mann discovered how the Prussians were destroying the imaginations of their children in order to make good soldiers and imported the model to our country.

Yes, this is very dark. I started writing it in 2016 and it's now 2025. I intend it to motivate you (and myself) to be more conscientious regarding our response to "people with power." Consider what that power is: the ability to motivate others to use coercion on behalf of some kind of ideal expressed in legislation. Can they motivate you that way? Probably. Does it make you feel honorable to do what some legislation demands that you do? I have recognized that for most people, the answers are yes, and that is something that needs to change if "people with power" tell us to do things we believe are wrong.  That's not a problem in you or me, or even in them.  The problem lies in the relationship. Did JFK acquiesce to this seemingly overpowering force when he accepted the route change, or did it slip by him? When enough of us stand courageously before wickedness despite its overpowering appearance, the kingdom of God is at hand.

There are Two Kinds of People Who Do Evil.

Neither kind is inherently evil.  Both suffer from the same sort of lack or introspection.  So do I, and so do you. Please be careful!  I don't want either of us to end up doing evil out of our failure to introspect.

First we have people who do evil despite being afraid of the damage that might come back to them because of it.  They are usually quite aware of that potential damage and put some effort into avoiding it. On its own, that extra effort they put out is clearly not discouraging enough to stop them. They are also missing something else, and I attribute that failure on their part to the lack of introspection. Our behavior affects other people, and anyone who introspects enough can see that quite easily.  Introspection makes us better people.

The lack of introspection here causes this first kind of evildoer to underappreciate the intensity of the feelings they will create in others and the many and long lasting effects of their evildoing on their own life. How often do you point out to someone who has hurt you that they hurt you?  How often do you simply avoid them in the future? How much possible value are you removing from their life by avoiding them? Your own value to them was not appreciated enough for them to see that their evildoing would take that away from them.

The worst of this first class of people includes the hardest of criminals. Criminality, however, has been tainted by foolish government policy that criminalizes behavior which hurts no one but the person doing it. Much of the "crime" committed these days doesn't even count as the kind of criminality I put in this class because it isn't really evil.  It's simply inconvenient for the authorities and they end up criminalizing it to protect themselves from that inconvenience.

I'm a great example of this.  An undercover officer was tasked with trading cryptocurrency with me and then calling me and conversationally mentioning that "one of my runners is swallowing more oxy than he's selling," which should have alerted me to the likelihood that she was a drug dealer. I didn't catch it. Her made up name was Gina. I took a plea to get out of it. The plea removed the "money laundering" charge she helped to manufacture, but left the "operating an unlicensed money transmitter business" charge. It has become a crime to buy and sell cryptocurrency, according to the prosecutor in my case. If you're curious how this protects some kind of convenience enjoyed by authorities, read Satoshi Nakamoto's whitepaper.

This brings me to the second kind of evildoer. They have no fear of the damage that might come back to them because of their evildoing. No one (not even I) has the courage to stand up to them and resist their evildoing because that would be illegal. I'm talking about people who work for an institution which you (probably - and I used to) support and honor and respect. It demands that you pay for things even if you don't want them, because not paying them would be illegal even though you don't want their product. What you pay them is called "taxes." They are not inherently evil either, but rather trapped by something much bigger and more insidious than the evil of a single person. That trap is dependence.

Too many people depend on someone else to keep them and their children safe, but it isn't a very dependable provider of such safety. These people depend on us and our tax payments for their paychecks. They depend on our obedience not to our own consciences, but to laws made up by the people who hire them. They depend on our acquiescence to the decisions they make about how we should live and what we can do. We, at least many of us, depend on them to threaten people into "good behavior", but they redefine what "good behavior" means.

Remember when I contrasted "obedience" to "our own consciences" and you got that little feeling that "it is good to obey the law"? Perhaps you started writing me off, and if so, thanks for reading this far.  I hope to bring you back.  I happen to have far more faith in your conscience than I do in the laws that authorities invent.  I see the foundation of this faith in my own experiences regarding obligations and expectations and school. Perhaps you remember a friend (maybe an ex-friend now) who did something mean and under your protest, defended their behavior with "It's not illegal!" I became fond of saying "I don't care if it's illegal, it's mean." Would you prefer your friends to always obey the law or to always be kind?

Those tasked with carrying out the enforcement of law have an especially difficult time distinguishing their evildoing from good behavior.  They get paid to enforce law regardless of how stupid they feel the law is. They get paid to ignore their own conscience in many cases, unfortunately. We are taught and expected to help them do those jobs, despite the job itself doing more harm than good.  Again, I'm a good example because I was supposed to be policing Gina by recognizing that saying "one of my runners is swallowing more oxy than he's selling" indicates that she is a bad person and so I shouldn't have bought her cryptocurrency.

Let me recap the roadblocks preventing government agents from staying out of the trap that makes them do evil. They are paid to enforce law, whether the law is good or bad. Schoolchildren are taught that their profession is more valuable and useful than other professions. We pay them to do what they do! We expect them to carry guns.  Let's be honest too, we like the idea that "criminals" (even if they are only selling cryptocurrency) suffer at the hands of these government agents. We harbor a spirit of vengeance, don't we?

I'm sorry for taking you down like that. Perhaps you are like me and you derive no pleasure from the suffering of others. I still pay my taxes because I can't figure out how to avoid it without incurring more suffering for myself and the people I love. This brings me to another point about how government agents are trapped. I already said it, that we harbor a spirit of vengeance, but how is that a trap? Let me explain a bit more.

You and I, I shall assume, are old enough to recognize vengeance as the cheap and dangerous tactic that a dog or other animal might use immediately upon perceiving an attacker. Another human being who is willing to attack, steal, kill, or otherwise disrespect you is probably suffering and would benefit from some help.  The lowest common denominator among those who become aware of the attacker or thief or murderer is that same desire for vengeance that the dog feels. Having a big thug around to execute it makes a lot of people feel safe, and that tends to justify the whole "government" industry. Again, I prefer to help my attackers heal rather than making them suffer as a warning not to do it again. I fear they will just go find another victim, and the cycle of violence persists.

The largest number of people willing to tolerate the demand for money ("taxes") made by "the biggest baddest gang" would be the ones who fall for that "lowest common denominator" tactic of dealing with "bad people" using vengeance. How can you choose not to serve the largest group, especially when you are the government?  Do you see how that... let me call it "immaturity" - lust for vengeance becomes a trap for the government?

There are groups that work to help "criminals" (whether they actually do harm or simply do things authorities don't like, though this second group doesn't need it nearly as much). They try to help heal such criminals from whatever it is that pushed them to be criminals. I would like to know of and promote such groups. Please let me know if you are aware of any.