Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[Mark Stapleton]

It's a bit rich, unless you know who the sponsors were, to claim it's a 'knowingly false, cover-up-enhancing charge'.

You only need a bunch of like minded and well connected people who liked Israel a lot more than they liked Kennedy.

They don't all need to be Israelis. I can think of a few off the top of my head: Ben-Gurion, Lansky, Angleton, LBJ, Ruby. Of course, there's many more.

Again you avoid a direct response. So what's new? I'm begging you, Mark: read carefully and for meaning.

Please share with us, in detail, your own JFK conspiracy model. When you do, please provide a thorough description of the pre-requisites for Sponsorship.

I don't have a JFK conspiracy model, Charles. I don't even know what it is, except for the familiar terms used here to describe its' components, like sponsor, facilitator and mechanic.

As you can see, I'm not well equipped to answer your question about the pre-requisites for sponsorship.

I'll have to repeat Conspiracy Model 101 won't I.

No, you probably won't.

In order to repeat a course, one must first have taken it.

I admit I know little about the conspiracy model you speak of.

Perhaps you could educate me. In brief of course.

[Greg Burnham]

Zionism needs to be seen in a similar light.
It (zionism?) is not Nationalism, philosophy, ideology or religion. It is a conspiracy, first and foremost, perpetrated by a cadre of ruthless individuals who do not even
themselves live in the region.

Greg,

Usually you offer an explanation for your conclusions... and very effectively...

when you write that Zionism is a conspiracy first and foremost... in the vein of None Dare and the power elite's creation/support of Communism as an economic and political state to counterbalance capitalism and democracy...
you are not differentiating the two...

All I can conclude is that your statement presupposed that this cabal initiated/assisted in creating Israel and Zionsim to add yet another balance/counterbalance situation in an area and in a time that needed it.
Giving the USA the opportunity to chose their side while the USSR let it be known that any action on one side of the coin will be met with an equal and opposite reaction.

In THAT light... I believe I understand your comment... and can now spend some time pondering THOSE implications....

please correct me if I am putting meaning into your words that is off base... I respect your opinion quite a bit, yet I don't always GET where you're going

Cheers
DJ

You are getting the gist of it. I think it is important to note that whenever 2 (or more) diametrically opposed radically extreme religioius ideologies are forced to co-exist
within a close proximity to each other the political equivalent of a static charge is present. Since both sides are amped up with mutually exclusive "charges" it is rather
naive to imagine that the powers who "engineered" the circumstances forcing the oppositely charged sides together were unaware of the future ramifications of their actions.
Indeed, they counted on it. Just like rubbing your shoes on the carpet, as soon as you get close enough to a surface to discharge the energy "snap" and there it is. If you want
to do it again, rub again and repeat as often as you like. Of course, the longer you wait to discharge the more powerful it will be when it does occur. If the discharge occurs
closer enough to a flammable liquid or flammable gas a "regional" fire is not only possible, but likely. I would prefer to not get overly allegorical, but it might already be too late.

(My above use of the word naive is not directed at you, David, but in general.)

[Charles Drago]

Again you avoid a direct response. So what's new? I'm begging you, Mark: read carefully and for meaning.

Please share with us, in detail, your own JFK conspiracy model. When you do, please provide a thorough description of the pre-requisites for Sponsorship.

I don't have a JFK conspiracy model, Charles. I don't even know what it is, except for the familiar terms used here to describe its' components, like sponsor, facilitator and mechanic.

As you can see, I'm not well equipped to answer your question about the pre-requisites for sponsorship.

I'll have to repeat Conspiracy Model 101 won't I.

No, you probably won't.

In order to repeat a course, one must first have taken it.

I admit I know little about the conspiracy model you speak of.

Perhaps you could educate me. In brief of course.

See http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/...ural-Model

[Phil Dragoo]

Charles references George Michael Evica and his model at the link above:

The JFK Plot: A Structural Model

Absent a working hypothesis for the structure of the JFK murder plot, one cannot hope to answer the "who" and "why" questions we endlessly and futilely pose.

George Michael Evica and I constructed the following model:

1. Sponsors -- This, the smallest of the three major components, is comprised of the powers behind the thrones. Their determination of the necessiity of JFK's removal alone could have set the plot in motion.

2. Facilitators -- This middle level breaks into three sub-divisions:

2A. All but wholly informed and invested "princes" who were the cut-outs trusted by the Facilitators. At this level we find the grand drama's principal creator(s).

2B. The problem-solvers who did the prime Facilitators' and "princes'" bidding -- or dirty work -- and who were not implicated as false sponsors. Their heirs are active to this day.

2C. The false sponsors (Johnson, Hoover, Harriman, LCN, anti-Castro Cubans, the Soviets, Fidel, Texas oilmen, the CIA [and other governmental agencies], members of the JCS, etc.) who may have facilitated aspects of the plot but who later were controlled in their diverse disappointments by threat of incrimination and/or promises -- delivered or not -- of substantial rewards.

3. Mechanics -- The teams in Dealey Plaza, the E&E facilitators, and the post-hit hitters.

I found David's allusion to the Soviet Union's strategic rebranding (rather than actual organic dissolution) to go to the heart of deep political thought, that the stated is often (not never nor always) a plausibly deniable cover.

I enjoyed, too, David's quick sketch of Israel formation under the 1890 coined term Zionism as a homecoming of all of the faith, all of all spectrum of the faith.

The perennial demonization of Zionism dovetails with the insistence of the Grand Mufti which Heinrich Himmler found irresistible, that the final solution was genocide. Hence the use of the phrase by Piper is not accidental nor innocent.

That Piper's placing of Israel as the soul sponsor of the assassination of JFK remains only a matter of the opinion of a minority is significant given the Niagara of words ostensibly in its support.

The restatement of the Evica-Drago model is useful in that, while each and every has a favorite agent or Shakespearean scene-filler, the sponsor has a position of such power as to be for all intents and purposes, omniscient and omnipotent.

Add that the sponsor is virtually immortal, occupying a position as archetype rather than mortal--the mortals replaced as so many sedan-chair bearers.

Russell's portrait of LBJ upon being informed of RFK's murder is that of a madman in a sea of toilet paper, not unlike LBJ on AF 1, crying on the stainless throne.

So many terra cotta warriors.

All the weaknesses of LBJ in Zirbel's laundry list are not reasons the lout was running the show, but ways the show's angels ran the ambitious and unscrupulous subject of Doris' oral excess.

The Mob was such an attractive figure to Blakey because he could close doors with it. The demise of Hoffa, Giancana, Rosselli, Nicolletti (the last on the same day as George de Mohrenschildt) show us they controlled nothing.

Why is Joannides' CIA dossier sealed a half century after the lone gunman with no conspiracy presented no national security argument.

Because Joannides as a CIA officer among a few with common though compartmentalized mission was near to a key facilitator level.

Dulles-Ford-McCloy-Hoover created the Warren-Potemkin Commission.

Blakey-as-CIA's-Rhymes-With-Bitch reinforced this.

ARRB didn't talk to the surviving Parkland physicians, and let Los Tres Cabrones play Mickey the Dope vis-a-vis the EOP-or-Whatever-Wound.

Who had power to manipulate JFK on a route through a valley of death with compromised security, a patsy-in-place, an ongoing suppression of witnesses and evidence, total media complicity, archival sanitation, and cooperation of all subsequent presidents.

The composer has the facility with instrumentation and scoring of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven.

And any gaffes or gaps are filled with Gimmick ex Machina: Magic Bullet, Ambassador Pantry Ricochets, center fuel tank short circuit, fire-weakened steel, for every farce a new Force.

From phlogiston to epicycle Sunstein's medicine show has a testimony unrecognizable to the deponent to explain shots from John's front came from the Depository while shots to Bobby's back came from Sirhan

It's the taqiya of the Castle--we lie. We are the final solution.

[Mark Stapleton]

Nothing is going to be 'proved'. How much has been 'proven' in last 49 years?

This is, to my knowledge, the second time you have attempted to serve the core interest of the cover-up by claiming -- falsely -- that we know nothing about what happened to JFK and that all we really have are theories.

In other words, uncertainty is all we possess and all we can hope for.

Knowingly or not, you are providing yeoman service to the Sponsors of JFK's murder.

You've previously spouted that we don't have "authenticated" proof of what happened to JFK. Now you ask rhetorically "how much has been 'proven' in the last 49 years".

In doing so, you simply reveal your own ignorance and attempt to ascribe it to others.

To date not one person has been proven to have knowingly participated in JFK's murder. That's what I'm saying.

What is your standard of proof for establishing, for example, complicity in the cover-up -- and thus by definition, participation in the conspiracy to murder JFK -- by the Bethesda prosectors?

Complicity in the coverup doesn't equate to knowing participation in JFK's murder, Charles.

You couldn't seriously accuse someone like Posner of participating in his murder.

The murderers are the main game here. The elusive sponsors who are never named in your model.

[Mark Stapleton]

You do understand that NO ONE in the rgion had nukes yet...
Israel wanted nukes at any cost - even to potentially alienate their greatest supporter...

David, why do you keep restating material that has already been posted here as if it's news? Anyone following this thread already knows this. You do this all the time.

Albert has already carved you up and shows no sign of letting up. Cherry picking passages from Cohen to buttress your bizarre conclusions won't really help your case. Read the whole book, you can read it online I think.

I have grave fears for your credibility.

[Mark Stapleton]

Charles references George Michael Evica and his model at the link above:

The JFK Plot: A Structural Model

Absent a working hypothesis for the structure of the JFK murder plot, one cannot hope to answer the "who" and "why" questions we endlessly and futilely pose.

George Michael Evica and I constructed the following model:

1. Sponsors -- This, the smallest of the three major components, is comprised of the powers behind the thrones. Their determination of the necessiity of JFK's removal alone could have set the plot in motion.

2. Facilitators -- This middle level breaks into three sub-divisions:

2A. All but wholly informed and invested "princes" who were the cut-outs trusted by the Facilitators. At this level we find the grand drama's principal creator(s).

2B. The problem-solvers who did the prime Facilitators' and "princes'" bidding -- or dirty work -- and who were not implicated as false sponsors. Their heirs are active to this day.

2C. The false sponsors (Johnson, Hoover, Harriman, LCN, anti-Castro Cubans, the Soviets, Fidel, Texas oilmen, the CIA [and other governmental agencies], members of the JCS, etc.) who may have facilitated aspects of the plot but who later were controlled in their diverse disappointments by threat of incrimination and/or promises -- delivered or not -- of substantial rewards.

3. Mechanics -- The teams in Dealey Plaza, the E&E facilitators, and the post-hit hitters.

I found David's allusion to the Soviet Union's strategic rebranding (rather than actual organic dissolution) to go to the heart of deep political thought, that the stated is often (not never nor always) a plausibly deniable cover.

I enjoyed, too, David's quick sketch of Israel formation under the 1890 coined term Zionism as a homecoming of all of the faith, all of all spectrum of the faith.

The perennial demonization of Zionism dovetails with the insistence of the Grand Mufti which Heinrich Himmler found irresistible, that the final solution was genocide. Hence the use of the phrase by Piper is not accidental nor innocent.

That Piper's placing of Israel as the soul sponsor of the assassination of JFK remains only a matter of the opinion of a minority is significant given the Niagara of words ostensibly in its support.

The restatement of the Evica-Drago model is useful in that, while each and every has a favorite agent or Shakespearean scene-filler, the sponsor has a position of such power as to be for all intents and purposes, omniscient and omnipotent.

Add that the sponsor is virtually immortal, occupying a position as archetype rather than mortal--the mortals replaced as so many sedan-chair bearers.

Russell's portrait of LBJ upon being informed of RFK's murder is that of a madman in a sea of toilet paper, not unlike LBJ on AF 1, crying on the stainless throne.

So many terra cotta warriors.

All the weaknesses of LBJ in Zirbel's laundry list are not reasons the lout was running the show, but ways the show's angels ran the ambitious and unscrupulous subject of Doris' oral excess.

The Mob was such an attractive figure to Blakey because he could close doors with it. The demise of Hoffa, Giancana, Rosselli, Nicolletti (the last on the same day as George de Mohrenschildt) show us they controlled nothing.

Why is Joannides' CIA dossier sealed a half century after the lone gunman with no conspiracy presented no national security argument.

Because Joannides as a CIA officer among a few with common though compartmentalized mission was near to a key facilitator level.

Dulles-Ford-McCloy-Hoover created the Warren-Potemkin Commission.

Blakey-as-CIA's-Rhymes-With-Bitch reinforced this.

ARRB didn't talk to the surviving Parkland physicians, and let Los Tres Cabrones play Mickey the Dope vis-a-vis the EOP-or-Whatever-Wound.

Who had power to manipulate JFK on a route through a valley of death with compromised security, a patsy-in-place, an ongoing suppression of witnesses and evidence, total media complicity, archival sanitation, and cooperation of all subsequent presidents.

The composer has the facility with instrumentation and scoring of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven.

And any gaffes or gaps are filled with Gimmick ex Machina: Magic Bullet, Ambassador Pantry Ricochets, center fuel tank short circuit, fire-weakened steel, for every farce a new Force.

From phlogiston to epicycle Sunstein's medicine show has a testimony unrecognizable to the deponent to explain shots from John's front came from the Depository while shots to Bobby's back came from Sirhan

It's the taqiya of the Castle--we lie. We are the final solution.

Pretentious stream of consciousness crap.

[Charles Drago]

Complicity in the coverup doesn't equate to knowing participation in JFK's murder, Charles.

You couldn't seriously accuse someone like Posner of participating in his murder.

The murderers are the main game here. The elusive sponsors who are never named in your model.

Acquaint yourself with the term "accessory after the fact," then get back to me. Take all the time you need.

I can, and I do. See above.

Your definition of "murderers" is vague and wholly uninformed. Your interpretation of the Evica-Drago model is devoid of understanding and insight.

[Charles Drago]

Charles references George Michael Evica and his model at the link above:

The JFK Plot: A Structural Model

Absent a working hypothesis for the structure of the JFK murder plot, one cannot hope to answer the "who" and "why" questions we endlessly and futilely pose.

George Michael Evica and I constructed the following model:

1. Sponsors -- This, the smallest of the three major components, is comprised of the powers behind the thrones. Their determination of the necessiity of JFK's removal alone could have set the plot in motion.

2. Facilitators -- This middle level breaks into three sub-divisions:

2A. All but wholly informed and invested "princes" who were the cut-outs trusted by the Facilitators. At this level we find the grand drama's principal creator(s).

2B. The problem-solvers who did the prime Facilitators' and "princes'" bidding -- or dirty work -- and who were not implicated as false sponsors. Their heirs are active to this day.

2C. The false sponsors (Johnson, Hoover, Harriman, LCN, anti-Castro Cubans, the Soviets, Fidel, Texas oilmen, the CIA [and other governmental agencies], members of the JCS, etc.) who may have facilitated aspects of the plot but who later were controlled in their diverse disappointments by threat of incrimination and/or promises -- delivered or not -- of substantial rewards.

3. Mechanics -- The teams in Dealey Plaza, the E&E facilitators, and the post-hit hitters.

I found David's allusion to the Soviet Union's strategic rebranding (rather than actual organic dissolution) to go to the heart of deep political thought, that the stated is often (not never nor always) a plausibly deniable cover.

I enjoyed, too, David's quick sketch of Israel formation under the 1890 coined term Zionism as a homecoming of all of the faith, all of all spectrum of the faith.

The perennial demonization of Zionism dovetails with the insistence of the Grand Mufti which Heinrich Himmler found irresistible, that the final solution was genocide. Hence the use of the phrase by Piper is not accidental nor innocent.

That Piper's placing of Israel as the soul sponsor of the assassination of JFK remains only a matter of the opinion of a minority is significant given the Niagara of words ostensibly in its support.

The restatement of the Evica-Drago model is useful in that, while each and every has a favorite agent or Shakespearean scene-filler, the sponsor has a position of such power as to be for all intents and purposes, omniscient and omnipotent.

Add that the sponsor is virtually immortal, occupying a position as archetype rather than mortal--the mortals replaced as so many sedan-chair bearers.

Russell's portrait of LBJ upon being informed of RFK's murder is that of a madman in a sea of toilet paper, not unlike LBJ on AF 1, crying on the stainless throne.

So many terra cotta warriors.

All the weaknesses of LBJ in Zirbel's laundry list are not reasons the lout was running the show, but ways the show's angels ran the ambitious and unscrupulous subject of Doris' oral excess.

The Mob was such an attractive figure to Blakey because he could close doors with it. The demise of Hoffa, Giancana, Rosselli, Nicolletti (the last on the same day as George de Mohrenschildt) show us they controlled nothing.

Why is Joannides' CIA dossier sealed a half century after the lone gunman with no conspiracy presented no national security argument.

Because Joannides as a CIA officer among a few with common though compartmentalized mission was near to a key facilitator level.

Dulles-Ford-McCloy-Hoover created the Warren-Potemkin Commission.

Blakey-as-CIA's-Rhymes-With-Bitch reinforced this.

ARRB didn't talk to the surviving Parkland physicians, and let Los Tres Cabrones play Mickey the Dope vis-a-vis the EOP-or-Whatever-Wound.

Who had power to manipulate JFK on a route through a valley of death with compromised security, a patsy-in-place, an ongoing suppression of witnesses and evidence, total media complicity, archival sanitation, and cooperation of all subsequent presidents.

The composer has the facility with instrumentation and scoring of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven.

And any gaffes or gaps are filled with Gimmick ex Machina: Magic Bullet, Ambassador Pantry Ricochets, center fuel tank short circuit, fire-weakened steel, for every farce a new Force.

From phlogiston to epicycle Sunstein's medicine show has a testimony unrecognizable to the deponent to explain shots from John's front came from the Depository while shots to Bobby's back came from Sirhan

It's the taqiya of the Castle--we lie. We are the final solution.

Pretentious stream of consciousness crap.

Mark, it is all too clear to us now that your credentials as a student of deep politics are non-existent. You do not display even a rudimentary understanding of the discipline. Your thinking is shallow. In terms of your focus, you're a one-trick pony with three bad legs.

Yet when compared to your understanding of poetics, your deep politics acumen makes us forget about Peter Dale Scott!

[Albert Doyle]

Zionism is simply the patriotic manifestation of the needs of an Israeli state and people.... just like we have patriots here now and in 1963 who felt that killing JFK was their PATRIOTIC DUTY,
and in most every one of the "CIA influences other coutry's policies/politics" campaigns...

DJ

I think a proper deep political analysis would show where those senses of "patriotism" merged. If anyone cares to notice, I think Piper did a good job of showing that. It was the manipulation of Ben-Gurion's nuclear needs and the firming of the Mediterranean underground/Swiss bank funding network that connected this new deep "patriotism" for the purpose of JFK's removal. The rest is irrelevant.

I think you can judge the credibility of people's input by observing their dedicated incuriosity. Like, for instance, their disinterest in seeking who those new backers were? Or who exactly told Echevarria about those backers? Or who told that person? The rest is irrelevant and is being used to coerce and intimidate, or brow-beat, persons with genuine interest off the topic in my opinion.


Mark, Charles is correct in applying the Deep Political model. Like those who argue for the existence of god, the Sponsors must exist because the imprint of their presence is obvious in all forms of the assassination. However, in my mind this doesn't preclude Israel being the main and final facilitator whose cooperation was the final straw that allowed the Sponsors to decide to go for the coup because they then had enough backing to pull it off. Zionism was a huge powerful purpose and cause empowered by the will and need of a persecuted people fresh from an unholy holocaust that threatened their existence. The Sponsors knew if they could somehow manipulate its supporters into thinking their cause was directly tied to Kennedy's removal they would have all the support they needed. Somewhere in that Ben-Gurion sweating session a quorum was reached where Israel's chips were in. Piper is actually a Deep Political hero because he had the bravery to expose the evidence behind this against the huge tide of political resentment it attracts. His achilles heel is the fact his anti-zionist tendency may have caused him to not dig further and see the Deep Political framework into which it fell in its entirety.


The deeply curious will pursue who and what Echevarria was referring to. Those who serve the political agenda enlisted to hide Israel's role, whether facilitator or what else, will engage in airy discussion of side issues and philosophy unrelated to the actual cog wheels of Israel's involvement. "We have 'new jew backers'...As soon as we get rid of Kennedy" - I think David is in denial of the dynamic that is clearly shown here. While David tries to mislead that those new backers were only interested in Cuba, Echevarria's statement is more than clear that the Cubans, as represented by Echevarria, were enlisted by those backers with the understanding that their weapons would come as soon as they got rid of Kennedy. So right there David's phony assertion is undone by Echevarria's statement. David, with the full endorsement of many, says something that's quickly refuted by the semantic structure of Echevarria's statement. Sorry, but the contingency that Kennedy would be killed first as a condition is something that obviously refutes David's evasive contention. That condition is a hard-toothed 'cog' that can't be ignored or philosophized around so easily - as well as its intended purpose.