Carlist Catholics, ManCand, anti-Communism, Fascism and The Assassination of JFK

[Jan Klimkowski]

(snip)

There were a whole slew of Unitarians/Quakers/Presbyterians involved, too, and everyone
on this list were considered to be "religious freaks" of one form or another


Wickliffe Preston Draper, John Birch Society, Unitarians, anti-union, anti-Communist
Robert J. Welch, John Birch Society, Unitarian, anti-union, anti-Communist
George Michael Evica's Unitarians from The Albert Schweitzer College
Andrew Preston's fellow Unitarians like Wickliffe Preston Draper, Andrew owned Boston Fruit Company which became United Fruit
Michael and Ruth Paine perhaps as Quakers/Unitarians
John Foster Dulles and Allen Dulles, sons of a Presbyterian Minister, and heavily involved with United Fruit
John M. Cabot president of United Fruit and the Forbes family, Unitarians/Presbyterians?

And apparently they all hated JFK because he just wasn\'t anti-Communist ENOUGH for their liking

And apparently they all hated JFK because he just wasn\'t Catholic ENOUGH for their liking

And apparently they all hated JFK because he just wasn\'t pro-Fascist ENOUGH for their liking

They would all have agreed with the statements of GLK Smith....

"The Kennedy brothers are nothing but whore-mongering, whisky-swigging, fake Catholics who are trying
to take away this country from all the God-fearing, Bible-reading White American Christians like you and me
and give it back on a silver platter to all the Spics, the Jews and the Nigg-rows."

Case Closed.

I'm afraid it really isn't "case closed".

There are so many motivations stated here as to include almost the entire ideological far right of America, the United Fruit company mob, and numerous elite families.

Many of them doubtless hated the Kennedys. Some of them may have been involved in JFK's assassination. Others certainly were involved in the cover-up after the assassination.

There is some important material here, but it doesn't close the case.

I'm also having difficulty deciphering what is your own research material and what is quoted from others. Some of the material appears to have an explicit LaRouchian agenda. Whilst the LaRouchies sometimes turn up important material, their all consuming cult agenda means that their interpretation of that material must always be carefully considered by researchers.

Please can you specify what material in your original post is of LaRouchian origin.

Also, as Charles states, name calling against posters is against the rules of engagement of DPF. I do not believe that Don Jeffries is a member here at DPF, but please stick to attacking arguments and drop the namecalling.

All,

Please note that the forum rules are being amended to include the following:


"Firstly, all members, including DPF moderators and founders, should receive identical treatment from the DPF moderators, and abide by the agreed rules of engagement.

Secondly, our fundamental objective is for DPF to be an arena where research can be seriously discussed, and thoroughly refuted if appropriate, without name-calling or member abuse. It is acceptable to be robust and even dismissive of the arguments of other members, if analysis and evidence are provided. It is acceptable to state that a particular argument serves the agenda of the powerful, again if analysis and evidence are provided. However, since DPF is primarily intended as an arena where serious informed research can be developed and debated, it is not acceptable to describe another member as, for instance, an agent provocateur."

http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/...d.php?t=58