@TheRealCurly5
Account based inAustralia
About this account
- Account based in
- Australia
- Connected via
- Australia App Store
Account-level information from X, not a live location or the device used for a specific post.
Journalist | Historian, Dedicated to truth & insight… Join the JFK Files group: https://nitter.cf/t.co/ydjZAFoH7U
Joined June 2025
- Tweets3.8K
- Following1.2K
- Followers2.4K
- Likes2.5K
Pinned Tweet
If you’ve been following my posts here, make sure to join my page on Facebook too…
I post more in-depth content on individuals, rare documents, and updates I don’t always share here..
Appreciate the support, let’s make this big!!
facebook.com/share/g/1V37Lzu…
Athan xanthis retweeted
Verbatim dialogue from the Warren Commission's private meeting on January 27, 1964 in reference to the investigation into the assassination of JFK, is proof that the Commission members themselves openly acknowledged that the FBI and CIA would lie about the accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald's connections to government intelligence agency’s. And the public never saw it. The Memo also acknowledges that the man who killed the accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald, which was Jack Ruby, was essentially an FBI informant. The FBI acknowledges Ruby was contacted nine times by Dallas agents in 1959 to be a potential criminal informant. Here are the claims which were quoting commission members Senator Richard Russel and ex CIA director Allen Dulles who was fired by JFK.
Senator Russell: "If Oswald never had assassinated the President, or at least been charged with assassinating the President, and had been in the employ of the FBI and somebody had gone to the FBI, they would have denied he was an Agent."
Dulles: "Oh, yes."
Russell: "They would be the first to deny it. Your Agents would have done exactly the same thing."
Dulles: "Exactly."
Dulles (continuing): "I would tell the President of the United States anything. Yes, I am under his control. He is my boss. I wouldn't necessarily tell anybody else, unless the President authorized me to do it."
Dulles: "What I am getting at, I think under any circumstances, I think Mr. Hoover would say certainly he didn't have anything to do with this fellow."
Verbatim dialogue from the Warren Commission's private meeting on January 27, 1964 in reference to the investigation into the assassination of JFK, is proof that the Commission members themselves openly acknowledged that the FBI and CIA would lie about the accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald's connections to government intelligence agency’s. And the public never saw it. The Memo also acknowledges that the man who killed the accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald, which was Jack Ruby, was essentially an FBI informant. The FBI acknowledges Ruby was contacted nine times by Dallas agents in 1959 to be a potential criminal informant. Here are the claims which were quoting commission members Senator Richard Russel and ex CIA director Allen Dulles who was fired by JFK.
Senator Russell: "If Oswald never had assassinated the President, or at least been charged with assassinating the President, and had been in the employ of the FBI and somebody had gone to the FBI, they would have denied he was an Agent."
Dulles: "Oh, yes."
Russell: "They would be the first to deny it. Your Agents would have done exactly the same thing."
Dulles: "Exactly."
Dulles (continuing): "I would tell the President of the United States anything. Yes, I am under his control. He is my boss. I wouldn't necessarily tell anybody else, unless the President authorized me to do it."
Dulles: "What I am getting at, I think under any circumstances, I think Mr. Hoover would say certainly he didn't have anything to do with this fellow."
Athan xanthis retweeted
“How could I have been so stupid as to let them proceed?”
-JFK’s words uttered in deep frustration after he had been lied to and deceived by the CIA about the failed bay of pigs invasion.
“How could I have been so stupid as to let them proceed?”
-JFK’s words uttered in deep frustration after he had been lied to and deceived by the CIA about the failed bay of pigs invasion.
Athan xanthis retweeted
Another example of JFK’s distrust of the CIA after the Bay of Pigs disaster. He told his Intel board, CIA covert ops "may not have been worth the risk, it had “detracted substantially" from their primary mission, and demanded a "total reassessment of U.S covert action policies”.
Another example of JFK’s distrust of the CIA after the Bay of Pigs disaster. He told his Intel board, CIA covert ops "may not have been worth the risk, it had “detracted substantially" from their primary mission, and demanded a "total reassessment of U.S covert action policies”.
Athan xanthis retweeted
The CIA's Counterintell branch rushing to neutralise yet again another over seas false phoney paper trail linking a foreign conspiracy to the assassination of JFK. Claiming that accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald, was in Morocco making Cuban propaganda films with local smugglers.
The CIA's Counterintell branch rushing to neutralise yet again another over seas false phoney paper trail linking a foreign conspiracy to the assassination of JFK. Claiming that accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald, was in Morocco making Cuban propaganda films with local smugglers.
Athan xanthis retweeted
The CIA admits in 1975 that files relating to its assassination program ZRRIFLE, were written by operatives who would "never commit to writing anything having to do with the subject of assassination". Which confirms the CIA's institutional capability for deniable assassinations.
The CIA admits in 1975 that files relating to its assassination program ZRRIFLE, were written by operatives who would "never commit to writing anything having to do with the subject of assassination". Which confirms the CIA's institutional capability for deniable assassinations.
Athan xanthis retweeted
Absolute Bombshell Statement from @SenRandPaul. He is being denied access to Senate Church Committee records from the 1970s.
Rand Paul:
“Senator Johnson, I completely concur with the call for a Church Committee, but I'll tell you how difficult it is. Church Committee was like 1975, 50 some odd years ago. I've been trying to get the classified version of the Church Committee for over two years, but I'm being blocked by the Intel Committee, including someone from our own party is blocking having me... They've shown me a room with 400 boxes and I can go look in all the boxes to see if I can find it. My staff's not allowed to go in the room, but they will not reveal to me something that's 50 years old that should be declassified for the public, much less for me.”
Senator Ron Johnson (01:10:55):
Maybe we should go together, it'd probably only takes us about four or five years to dig through all the boxes.
Athan xanthis retweeted
"Truly exploring" the Kennedy assassination requires looking at evidence documents, witness testimony, forensic analysis, declassified records. It requires engaging with the hard facts. Not writing an essay about the Grateful Dead and calling it a day 🤦🏻♂️.
Wrong. To truly explore the Kennedy assassination is to do shadow work on the twin peaks of Lyndon Johnson and John F. Kennedy. Both men had imperfect control over the state department, the CIA, and the national security establishment. The fact that Kennedy did occasionally exercise effective control helps explain why he was killed. The establishment wanted a "leader" more in line with their interests.
Lyndon Johnson was that "leader." Like the CIA and J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI, LBJ was facing an existential threat on 11/22/63. He was the decisive participant in the plot, Athan. If LBJ had wanted justice in the case, the CIA could not have had their way in Israel, Indonesia, or Vietnam.
Counterculture was born out of this dark consensus formed between the war machine and the American liberalism the Left used to think of as the domain of the Democratic Party. Lyndon Johnson was the midwife for the birth of the hippies, broadly, and the @GratefulDead, more specifically.
I recently gave a paper on this topic in New Mexico. I titled it, IT'S A LEGACY THING: THE KENNEDY CENTER HONORED THE GRATEFUL DEAD. WAS THE HONOR ABOUT MORE THAN LEGACY?
Here it is. CC: @FourDiedTrying @JonJongrateful
Part 1
Counterculture isn’t a synonym for the Democratic Party. Bob Weir, the recently deceased singer and rhythm guitarist for the Grateful Dead, treasured his “uneasy” friendship with his songwriting partner, John Perry Barlow, a man who just happened to be a Republican and the former campaign manager for that most notorious of Republicans (until recently), Dick Cheney. Something about Weir and Barlow’s alliance speaks to the transcendent legacy of American counterculture.
On July 11, 2003, Bob Weir hugged this writer. I was walking through the dusty gravel of the Red Rocks Shakedown Street in Morrison, Colorado, when I, along with two friends, found ourselves staring down a Jeep driven by a stranger, Bob Weir riding shotgun. I threw up both of my arms in surprise and exultation. Weir held up one hand like a crossing-guard. The driver stopped. Weir emerged, embraced the twentysomething manchild I used to be, and then walked down into the converging swarm of the lot to mingle with the Heads before the show. Embracing strangers is a legacy of the Grateful Dead and counterculture.
Counterculture and its echoes are part of the Dead legacy. Counterculture isn’t partisan. Counterculture isn’t red or blue. It’s the white lightning in between and it’s the full rainbow, and “that wasn’t even the half of it,” to quote Kesey paraphrasing Dickens. Counterculture both trusts “the other side” and is suspicious of the phrase. Counterculture, which, according to Theodore Roszak, author of The Making of a Counter Culture, came closest to respectable institutional expression in the 1972 campaign of George McGovern with its rebel leftovers from the 1968 youth-driven Kennedy campaign.
Counterculture learned from the Kennedy assassinations and the McGovern humiliation. Counterculture, with the Grateful Dead as the hallmark example of not-so-respectable institutional expression, approaches politics like a fox, with evasion, reluctance, hunger, and play; moves that don’t always compute. Counterculture isn’t cancel culture. Counterculture isn’t binary. Counterculture wobbles between the wave and the particle. Counterculture splinters and endures. Counterculture learns to duck. Counterculture sees life and death as one. Counterculture, with the Grateful Dead as its great American flagship, sails on, even after the Dead die.
We will survive, as they say.
Even though he’s gone.
On July 18, 2024, eighteen months before @BobWeir's death, the Kennedy Center announced it would honor the Grateful Dead on December 8, 2024, along with Francis Ford Coppola, Bonnie Raitt, Arturo Sandoval, and the Apollo Theater. Drummer Mickey Hart referred to the Kennedy Center honor as a “legacy thing.” But nothing is what it seems in Deadhead America or in Washington, D.C., seat of American power and site of the Kennedy Center, now (arguably) known as the Trump-Kennedy Center.
What did it mean to bring together the ethos of the Dead and Kennedy in 2024? What kind of wild card did the @JoeBiden administration play by honoring the heart of counterculture at a theater named after a young murdered Democrat (JFK) who worked with Republicans to investigate the most powerful and corrupt Democrat of the 20th century—Lyndon Baines Johnson, a man the progressive scholar Joachim Joesten compared to America’s Hitler and Mussolini? Jacques Ranciere, the French philosopher, provides us with a useful concept for lensing this trump card or this theater of politics: dissensus. Using Ranciere’s technique, this article will explore the legacy of the Kennedys and the Grateful Dead and, by doing so, explore three key questions about counterculture, broadly, and the Grateful Dead, more specifically:
1. What is the relationship between the Kennedy assassination and the Grateful Dead’s counterculture ethos?
2. How does dissensus, as a lens and technique, help a polarized America understand its artists?
3. What is the legacy of the Grateful Dead?
#JFK
"Truly exploring" the Kennedy assassination requires looking at evidence documents, witness testimony, forensic analysis, declassified records. It requires engaging with the hard facts. Not writing an essay about the Grateful Dead and calling it a day 🤦🏻♂️.
Wrong. To truly explore the Kennedy assassination is to do shadow work on the twin peaks of Lyndon Johnson and John F. Kennedy. Both men had imperfect control over the state department, the CIA, and the national security establishment. The fact that Kennedy did occasionally exercise effective control helps explain why he was killed. The establishment wanted a "leader" more in line with their interests.
Lyndon Johnson was that "leader." Like the CIA and J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI, LBJ was facing an existential threat on 11/22/63. He was the decisive participant in the plot, Athan. If LBJ had wanted justice in the case, the CIA could not have had their way in Israel, Indonesia, or Vietnam.
Counterculture was born out of this dark consensus formed between the war machine and the American liberalism the Left used to think of as the domain of the Democratic Party. Lyndon Johnson was the midwife for the birth of the hippies, broadly, and the @GratefulDead, more specifically.
I recently gave a paper on this topic in New Mexico. I titled it, IT'S A LEGACY THING: THE KENNEDY CENTER HONORED THE GRATEFUL DEAD. WAS THE HONOR ABOUT MORE THAN LEGACY?
Here it is. CC: @FourDiedTrying @JonJongrateful
Part 1
Counterculture isn’t a synonym for the Democratic Party. Bob Weir, the recently deceased singer and rhythm guitarist for the Grateful Dead, treasured his “uneasy” friendship with his songwriting partner, John Perry Barlow, a man who just happened to be a Republican and the former campaign manager for that most notorious of Republicans (until recently), Dick Cheney. Something about Weir and Barlow’s alliance speaks to the transcendent legacy of American counterculture.
On July 11, 2003, Bob Weir hugged this writer. I was walking through the dusty gravel of the Red Rocks Shakedown Street in Morrison, Colorado, when I, along with two friends, found ourselves staring down a Jeep driven by a stranger, Bob Weir riding shotgun. I threw up both of my arms in surprise and exultation. Weir held up one hand like a crossing-guard. The driver stopped. Weir emerged, embraced the twentysomething manchild I used to be, and then walked down into the converging swarm of the lot to mingle with the Heads before the show. Embracing strangers is a legacy of the Grateful Dead and counterculture.
Counterculture and its echoes are part of the Dead legacy. Counterculture isn’t partisan. Counterculture isn’t red or blue. It’s the white lightning in between and it’s the full rainbow, and “that wasn’t even the half of it,” to quote Kesey paraphrasing Dickens. Counterculture both trusts “the other side” and is suspicious of the phrase. Counterculture, which, according to Theodore Roszak, author of The Making of a Counter Culture, came closest to respectable institutional expression in the 1972 campaign of George McGovern with its rebel leftovers from the 1968 youth-driven Kennedy campaign.
Counterculture learned from the Kennedy assassinations and the McGovern humiliation. Counterculture, with the Grateful Dead as the hallmark example of not-so-respectable institutional expression, approaches politics like a fox, with evasion, reluctance, hunger, and play; moves that don’t always compute. Counterculture isn’t cancel culture. Counterculture isn’t binary. Counterculture wobbles between the wave and the particle. Counterculture splinters and endures. Counterculture learns to duck. Counterculture sees life and death as one. Counterculture, with the Grateful Dead as its great American flagship, sails on, even after the Dead die.
We will survive, as they say.
Even though he’s gone.
On July 18, 2024, eighteen months before @BobWeir's death, the Kennedy Center announced it would honor the Grateful Dead on December 8, 2024, along with Francis Ford Coppola, Bonnie Raitt, Arturo Sandoval, and the Apollo Theater. Drummer Mickey Hart referred to the Kennedy Center honor as a “legacy thing.” But nothing is what it seems in Deadhead America or in Washington, D.C., seat of American power and site of the Kennedy Center, now (arguably) known as the Trump-Kennedy Center.
What did it mean to bring together the ethos of the Dead and Kennedy in 2024? What kind of wild card did the @JoeBiden administration play by honoring the heart of counterculture at a theater named after a young murdered Democrat (JFK) who worked with Republicans to investigate the most powerful and corrupt Democrat of the 20th century—Lyndon Baines Johnson, a man the progressive scholar Joachim Joesten compared to America’s Hitler and Mussolini? Jacques Ranciere, the French philosopher, provides us with a useful concept for lensing this trump card or this theater of politics: dissensus. Using Ranciere’s technique, this article will explore the legacy of the Kennedys and the Grateful Dead and, by doing so, explore three key questions about counterculture, broadly, and the Grateful Dead, more specifically:
1. What is the relationship between the Kennedy assassination and the Grateful Dead’s counterculture ethos?
2. How does dissensus, as a lens and technique, help a polarized America understand its artists?
3. What is the legacy of the Grateful Dead?
#JFK
Athan xanthis retweeted
When individuals like Cory Hughes who gaslight people hard enough into believing their theory’s, not only do not create good faith discussion, they instead cause hatred and division. Real experts don't need to insult people who disagree. They let the evidence speak. And when the evidence is thin, they acknowledge it not double down. Anyone who claims to have "solved" the JFK case is either delusional or selling something. his followers treat him as a messiah who "solved" the case even though the evidence isn't in the book lol. The bottom line is exactly this, he provides no facts, just speculation. And anyone who questions him gets dismissed or insulted. That's not research.
When individuals like Cory Hughes who gaslight people hard enough into believing their theory’s, not only do not create good faith discussion, they instead cause hatred and division. Real experts don't need to insult people who disagree. They let the evidence speak. And when the evidence is thin, they acknowledge it not double down. Anyone who claims to have "solved" the JFK case is either delusional or selling something. his followers treat him as a messiah who "solved" the case even though the evidence isn't in the book lol. The bottom line is exactly this, he provides no facts, just speculation. And anyone who questions him gets dismissed or insulted. That's not research.
Athan xanthis retweeted
On November 25, 1963, just three days after JFK was killed, Gilberto Alvarado a Nicaraguan intelligence asset who was also (coincidentally) a CIA informant walked into the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City with an explosive claim. He stated that on September 18, he was inside the Cuban Embassy and personally watched a red-haired black man hand Lee Harvey Oswald $1,500 for expenses and a $5,500 advance (totaling $7,000) to assassinate JFK. When the Mexican secret police (DFS) interrogated Alvarado, he quickly recanted, admitting the story was a complete fabrication designed to trick the United States into invading Cuba and overthrowing Castro. While some investigators suspected Alvarado was dispatched by the right-wing Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua to manipulate U.S. foreign policy, the fact that he was already a vetted CIA informant means the Agency was caught running a source who tried to spark a global war using a completely fabricated Oswald timeline in Mexico City, where he met allegedly with “Soviet and Cuban intelligence officials”. Thus enforcing the idea that the original plot to kill JFK, was originally intended to be blamed on a foreign government. LBJ as we know used this as fear, warning Nuclear war could be confronted with the Soviets and decided to choose the lone nut route by using his newly fresh presidency to cover it up. Why cover up for the masterminds?
On November 25, 1963, just three days after JFK was killed, Gilberto Alvarado a Nicaraguan intelligence asset who was also (coincidentally) a CIA informant walked into the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City with an explosive claim. He stated that on September 18, he was inside the Cuban Embassy and personally watched a red-haired black man hand Lee Harvey Oswald $1,500 for expenses and a $5,500 advance (totaling $7,000) to assassinate JFK. When the Mexican secret police (DFS) interrogated Alvarado, he quickly recanted, admitting the story was a complete fabrication designed to trick the United States into invading Cuba and overthrowing Castro. While some investigators suspected Alvarado was dispatched by the right-wing Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua to manipulate U.S. foreign policy, the fact that he was already a vetted CIA informant means the Agency was caught running a source who tried to spark a global war using a completely fabricated Oswald timeline in Mexico City, where he met allegedly with “Soviet and Cuban intelligence officials”. Thus enforcing the idea that the original plot to kill JFK, was originally intended to be blamed on a foreign government. LBJ as we know used this as fear, warning Nuclear war could be confronted with the Soviets and decided to choose the lone nut route by using his newly fresh presidency to cover it up. Why cover up for the masterminds?
Athan xanthis retweeted
CIA memo dated March 6, 1963 eight months before JFK was killed is more proof of the agency's intensification of its assassination program. The CIA's Deputy Director Richard Helms signed a memo authorizing the Agency's assassination program, ZRRIFLE, to continue through December 31, 1963. The memo names a specific paid asset, QJWIN, whose job was to recruit assassins from European criminal networks. It demands the operation be handled 'strictly on an EYES ONLY basis.' Bill Harvey had been removed as head of Task Force W (the CIA's anti-Castro operation and assassination program), due to his outrageous actions during the height of JFK's peace negotiations to end the Cuban Missile Crisis in the fall of 1962, by deliberately running sabotage operations into Cuba. Yet this March 6, 1963 memo shows Helms authorizing Harvey to continue running the CIA's ZRRIFLE assassination program through December 31, 1963. And the ZRRIFLE project's principal asset, QJWIN, was still reporting to him. Why intensify this program and authorize Bill Harvey, who hated the Kennedys, who had been stripped of his position for his outrageous actions and disrespect to the Kennedy brothers, to be allowed to retain his position with even more authority and power 8 months before JFK's assassination?. Not to also mention Harvey was also banished to Rome in mid 1963?.
CIA memo dated March 6, 1963 eight months before JFK was killed is more proof of the agency's intensification of its assassination program. The CIA's Deputy Director Richard Helms signed a memo authorizing the Agency's assassination program, ZRRIFLE, to continue through December 31, 1963. The memo names a specific paid asset, QJWIN, whose job was to recruit assassins from European criminal networks. It demands the operation be handled 'strictly on an EYES ONLY basis.' Bill Harvey had been removed as head of Task Force W (the CIA's anti-Castro operation and assassination program), due to his outrageous actions during the height of JFK's peace negotiations to end the Cuban Missile Crisis in the fall of 1962, by deliberately running sabotage operations into Cuba. Yet this March 6, 1963 memo shows Helms authorizing Harvey to continue running the CIA's ZRRIFLE assassination program through December 31, 1963. And the ZRRIFLE project's principal asset, QJWIN, was still reporting to him. Why intensify this program and authorize Bill Harvey, who hated the Kennedys, who had been stripped of his position for his outrageous actions and disrespect to the Kennedy brothers, to be allowed to retain his position with even more authority and power 8 months before JFK's assassination?. Not to also mention Harvey was also banished to Rome in mid 1963?.
Athan xanthis retweeted
Even the CIA's own Deputy Director, Richard Helms, secretly admitted at the time in a February 1964 memo to the Warren Commission that the man in the Mexico City surveillance photos was not the accused assassin of JFK, (Lee Harvey Oswald). But the CIA had initially identified him as Oswald? then silently corrected the record while letting the Warren Commission publish the false identification. If the man in the photos wasn't Oswald, then why did the CIA initially identify the mystery man as Lee Harvey Oswald?, who was appearing at the embassy’s claiming to be Oswald, to get a visa to travel through Cuba (as a transit point) to reach the Soviet Union?. This is the focal point to look at when proving there was a conspiracy. It is a direct admission that the central piece of evidence that was initially used to link Oswald to a foreign conspiracy who would than allegedly go on to assassinate the president of the United States, was a complete and total absolute fabrication. A provocation for nuclear war. In the end LBJ and the Warren Commission decided to choose the lone nut route. Why decide to cover up for the real perpetrators?. Who wanted to blame the assassination of JFK on foreign countries to start a nuclear war with Russia and a full scale military invasion of Cuba?, because it certainly wasn’t LBJ’s idea.
