True sponsors:Texan extremists & Military Industrial compex vs eastern establishment

[Brian Fegley]

oops, guess I just repeated your point about the Bush family Magda.

[Stan Wilbourne]

Is there a single name that emerges from '63 (and beyond) that could've had the power and the motive to accomplish the JFK assassination?

LBJ?

Come on.

H.L. Hunt.

To control the whole MSM? C'mon.

Clint Murchinson?

Ditto.

David Rockefeller.

Cue the chirping crickets.

Is there a reason Rockefeller would want President Kennedy dead?

Two men, the same age, struggling for the direction the country was going to be headed. Bobby waiting in the wings. The Rockefeller dynasty muted.

"Hello, Allen. Meet me in my office on Monday. We have to talk."

[Charles Drago]

Thank you Magda for the warm welcome....I would also point that when making the argument that the plot was based in the South, since the assassination was committed in the South, keep in mind that the original plot to kill Kennedy was in Chicago

This is dangerously naive, unfocused, and under-informed.

Define "based" in terms of the JFK assassination conspiracy.

The "original plot" is a meaningless construct as herein offered.

The Chicago "plot" was more than likely a charade -- a support structure for the Dallas event.

As far as HL Hunt and the Murchisons and other wealthy oilmen, who some researchers point to, their wealth and influence could not compare to that of the Rockefellers and other prominent northeastern families like those of the Boston Brahmins. I mean the Rockefellers were so powerful that through their think tanks and non-profits they were able to dominate presidential administrations with their proteges. I mean the Kennedy administration was packed with members of the Council on Foreign Relations, the ultra sercretive Bilderberg group, and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. And this trend continues today. This would indicate that the center of action was based in the Northeast.

You are attempting to lend credence to one of the many false choices put forward in support of the ongoing coverup.

Read Evica as referenced above.

Expand your understanding of deep political realities.

In the meantime, please share with us the JFK conspiracy model upon which your conclusions are based -- and please be as detailed as possible.

For surely you will agree that absent such a model, yours or any other attempts to understand the how/who/why of JFK's assassination are by definition doomed to failure.

Thank you.

[Charles Drago]

David Rockefeller.

Cue the chirping crickets.

Hey Stan,

Still too narrow, but close, I'd say.

[Vasilios Vazakas]

I think the Global Power Corporation is like a huge multinational corporation where different factions with varying interests are represented in its board. I would say that the eastern establishment are the biggest share holders and they change CEOs according to their needs and goals. The Texans and the military industrial complex are some of these factions. They used the Texans in the same way the used the Neocons for the Iraq war. When the Neocons ceased to be useful they were dumped like Wolfowitz at the World Bank.
People like Bush and Cheney are useful as CEOs to appear in public and absorb all the anger and rage of the public so the true masters behind them are left unscratched and then they satisfy the public by bringing new policies and new faces.
They test new approaches and policies to achieve their goals and maintain power and once they do they drop them for something new. They constantly reinvent themselves like a chameleon that adapts to its surroundings. You can call them Shapeshifters.
So i don't see the Texan oil or the military industrial complex a different power structure from the eastern esablishment that tried to cease power from them, but they are the individual fingers of the same invisible hand. In other words they were part of the facilitators but not the true sponsors.

[Dawn Meredith]

Hello Charles.
I think this book is out of print. if my memory serves me right, Donald Gibson discusses Carl Oglesby's theory and disagrees with him, he insists on blaming the eastern establishment. I think Dr. Evica was thinking on the same line as Gibson.
I don't have Gibson's book in front of me so i'll need to check it out. However it will be extremely interesting to hear your view on this matter.

On the contrary, Vasilios: Professor Evica understood that the highest rank of JFK assassination Facilitators was comprised of -- his words -- "a treasonous cabal of hard-line American and Soviet intelligence agents whose masters were above Cold War differences." [See A Certain Arrogance for more.]

This transcends intra-national and international political and economic rivalries, I'm afraid.

That being noted, I highly recommend Ogelsby's book -- which, if memory serves, is available somewhere on-line -- for the extraordinary insight it provides into what Jack White so neatly and accurately describes as the "bad guy v. bad guy" paradigm.

Which is to say

Charles, The book is not online. John Simkin scanned the first few chapters several years ago but then stopped. Carl would love the book to be online.
Alas...
Dawn

[Charles Drago]

A few chapters at:

http://edencho.blogspot.com/2011/01/yank...y-war.html

Thanks to Ed Encho for posting the material, and to Jan Klimkowski for reminding us where to look for it.

[Albert Doyle]

So i don't see the Texan oil or the military industrial complex a different power structure from the eastern esablishment that tried to cease power from them, but they are the individual fingers of the same invisible hand. In other words they were part of the facilitators but not the true sponsors.

Seems to me once you reach a certain critical mass direct names and actions aren't really needed. Once it was understood amongst either body that it was in the interest of each group that Kennedy was no longer in power all it would take would be a cell of intel wolves to act on the understanding their action would be tolerated and protected by the formal legal system. In this case all it would take would be notice that we have new sponsors and everything was taken care of now. The system was so completely masked that the real sponsors could push other sponsors in as the activators even though they were reacting to an impetus that was once or even twice removed. A very tricky chess board. Sort of like an Agatha Christie novel where many people were guilty and had an equal motive. Death In Dallas.

[Brian Fegley]

This is dangerously naive, unfocused, and under-informed.

Define "based" in terms of the JFK assassination conspiracy.

The "original plot" is a meaningless construct as herein offered.

The Chicago "plot" was more than likely a charade -- a support structure for the Dallas event."

From what I have read in Edwin Blacks article in the Chicago Independent and JFK and the Unspeakable, the attempt in Chicago does not appear to have been a charade. You had four Cubans with high powered rifles and perhaps an even better patsy then Oswald because Vallee appears to have had pyschological problems and was a John Birch Society member who had been quite critical of Kennedy

As far as being "naive" and "under-informed" I was stately my belief that I don't believe that since the assassination happened in Texas, that the plot was hatched or masterminded in Texas as some researchers believe. (Bar McClellan, Madeliene Brown, etc.)

"You are attempting to lend credence to one of the many false choices put forward in support of the ongoing coverup.

Read Evica as referenced above.

Expand your understanding of deep political realities.

In the meantime, please share with us the JFK conspiracy model upon which your conclusions are based -- and please be as detailed as possible.

For surely you will agree that absent such a model, yours or any other attempts to understand the how/who/why of JFK's assassination are by definition doomed to failure."

Well, that's a tough question to give a definitive answer to, but based on what I have read, I feel there is strong evidence to suggest that Kennedy was killed in large part, because he clashed with Morgan and Rockefeller interests on nearly every domestic and foreign policy issue of importance. For the following reasons: 1. Kennedy would not send combat troops to Vietnam and was looking to disengage entirely by 1965 , 2. Kennedy would not support the colonization of third world countries in places like the Congo and Indonesia and of particular irritation was Kennedy's development program in Latin America, the Alliance for Progress (I believe this area of JFK's foreign policy and the opposition to it is overlooked), 3. Kennedy was looking to end the Cold War instead of winning it, 4. he issued interest free money through the Treasury, 5. His efforts to close foreign tax loopholes and tax havens. 6. His efforts to normalize relations with Cuba. I believe that the actions of Kennedy, specifically his efforts to end the Cold War, could have cost multi-national corporations and banking interests trillions of dollars. I'd say that is a pretty powerful motivation to murder someone, wouldn't you? Especially, when we are talking about a group of people who had participated in other coup d'etats, when a lot less money and power was at stake.

Those would seem to be the most important reasons, although their may be others, as to why it was deemed necessary to assassinate Kennedy. As for who specifically, well certainly you have the CIA at a very high level involved (I am convinced Dulles and Lansdale were involved), along with their assets in the military, anti-Castro Cubans, and perhaps the mafia. Who specifically ordered the hit? That is really tough to say. To give a name or series of names, well there isnt proof, lots of circumstantial evidence but not proof. But Dulles and McCloy on the WC would be the best argument for the involvement of Morgan and Rockefeller interests.

Was the conspiracy international in nature? Quite possibly. It wasn't just Wall Street that was unhappy with JFK, I am sure there are others who found another four years of Kennedy intolerable. (the Fletcher Prouty character, Man X in JFK hinted at the idea that the conspiracy may have been international in nature.) And when you look at other coups like the overthrow of Mossadegh or Lumumba, I find it likely that the conspirators involved could have been European as well. In the case of Mossadegh, it points to involvement from the forerunner of British Petroleum, Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and British intelligence (MI-6), and in the case of Lumumba the Belgians who wanted the mineral concessions.

A conspiracy that is international in nature, is also possible because if you believe that a group of global elites exert tremendous power and have the ability to manipulate world events through multi-national corporations and banking interests or the Bilderberg group, or some other means, its doubtful that something on the magnitude of overthrowing a democratically elected government in the world's most powerful nation would occur without their participation and at the very least their consent. And naturally the elites, would not only exist in America but in Europe as well, and naturally their would be other families that would have wealth surpassing even the Rockefellers.

This is not a complete answer and may be disappointing, but I don't claim to know all the answers. I am still learning. I hope this adds to the discussion. And I feel that this discussion is quite relevant in today's world when we are witnesses to perhaps the greatest financial heist and concentration of wealth and power ever.

[Charles Drago]

The Chicago "plot" was more than likely a charade -- a support structure for the Dallas event."

From what I have read in Edwin Blacks article in the Chicago Independent and JFK and the Unspeakable, the attempt in Chicago does not appear to have been a charade. You had four Cubans with high powered rifles and perhaps an even better patsy then Oswald because Vallee appears to have had pyschological problems and was a John Birch Society member who had been quite critical of Kennedy.

The problem here is mine.

I have neither the time nor the constitution to go over old ground. I wish I had the gifts of my mentor, but I don't.

I say with respect that you need to hone your deep political analysis skillset. The argument for Chicago-as-charade has been made powerfully -- and, admittedly, by me -- elsewhere on this blog. I urge you to read the "charade" argument before you reach conclusions.

I pray that my mind remains open. I pray that yours opens.