Nelson's LBJ Mastermind book

[Jack White]

As stated below by Jim, I see little to find fault with. This does not
rule out that others (as Jack Ruby put it) "IN THE BACKGROUND, WHO
HAD THE MOST TO GAIN" were not in the cabal.

I suggest that Jim Marrs was one of the earliest to grasp the correct
idea when I first met him in the 1970s. Very early he fingered the
key members of the cabal as LBJ, JEH, Dulles, the Joint Chiefs, the SS,
and "backgrounders" like Rockefeller, Nixon, et al. As Jim often put it,
the cabal was NOT an organized group, but "A CONCERT OF INTERESTS"...
people of a like mind with a single objective for varied reasons. No order
to kill was issued, but a simple agreement was reached...JFK had to be
removed from the presidency. It was not a MURDER CONTRACT, but
a simple agreement of persons protecting their own turf. Jim still holds
his CONCERT OF INTERESTS belief, and I agree with him.

Jack

As a professional philosopher, I certainly have nothing against abstractions as concepts that are removed from specific instances of their embodiment, such as the meanings of probability, truth, justice, and knowledge. When "truth" is defined as correspondence with reality (where a sentence is true when what it asserts to be the case is the case, for example), that does not tell us which sentences are true. In the search for truth, we use correspondence as its definition and coherence as our criterion, where the extent to which the available relevant evidence "hangs together" tends to be the measure of support for alternative hypotheses and theories, which can be made more precise using likelihoods and probabilities. In relation to the events of 22 November 1963, our interest is in power and who was in the position to exercise it with regard to the assassination and the cover-up.

Power (in political context) is a disposition or capacity to be able to control people and their actions, which may include access to resources that are denied to others. When one individual or group has more power than another, that implies they have a greater capacity or ability to control those resources (physical, financial, whatever) than does the other. But power does not exist in a vacuum. Power only exists insofar as some individual or group can control others and their actions and thereby affect the course of events. Corporations are nice examples, insofar as they represent legal powers to control individuals and assets under the authority of their directors and CEOs. In relation to the assassination, the question becomes, Which individual or group have more power to control the course of events?

Lyndon Johnson had spent his entire life controlling other persons and exercising power. He had a political genius for sizing up the strengths and weaknesses of men, especially those who had anything to do with politics in relation to making decisions and allocating resources. By virtue of an intricate network of relationships that LBJ had developed over the course of his career, he had established connections with an enormous range of individuals and groups, including the Directors of the FBI and of the CIA, the Joint Chiefs, the Speaker of the House, and virtually every other powerful figure whose resources might make a difference to conducting the removal of his predecessor by the use of violence. He even devoted time to cultivating relations with members of the Secret Service.

Because of his network of associations and collaborations, Lyndon was uniquely placed to encourage resentment of JFK and to promote political opposition to his actions and policies. He had always aspired to be president of all the people and had demonstrated the capacity for overcoming obstacles that stood in his way from the earliest stages of his development. He was perceptive, cunning, relentless, and brutal, but he could also be loving, caring, generous and charitable, which was why his close friend, John Connally, observed, when asked to describe him, that that would take every adjective in the dictionary (because he had so many strengths, both for good and for evil). By virtue of his position as Vice President, he was the one and only person who could control the apparatus of the government in relation to the pursuit of those who were responsible for the death of JFK.

And since they included Lyndon himself, others who wanted JFK out were willing to collaborate with him in the undertaking on the understanding that NO ONE would pay any price for the assassination. That was the key. The CIA, the Chiefs, and the assets and ops they controlled were willing to proceed with that understanding. And local leaders, including the Mayor, whose brother JFK had removed from the CIA, were more than eager to contribute their part. In order to have been the pivotal player, Lyndon did not have to control very detail of a complex operation. He had to be the one who would be in the position to make sure that no one paid any price for taking out JFK. He even sent his chief administrative assistant, Cliff Carter, to Dallas to make sure that all the arrangements were in place for the assassination. A "hands on" kind of guy, LBJ was going to make sure that this event was a success, since nothing would have been worse for the conspirators than a wounded but not mortally wounded target.

And once it had been done, he was very active in covering it up. We know Lyndon was profoundly involved from those who knew him best, including Madeleine, Billy Sol, and others who were not quite as close, such as Barr McClellan and E. Howard Hunt. We know that JFK had antagonized the most politically powerful individuals and groups in the country, from the CIA to the Chiefs to the Mafia, the Texas oil men and the bankers and financiers behind the scene, as James Douglass has explained. Their resentment and distrust led them to support the coup, where Lyndon was the person who played the crucial role that enabled it to proceed by guaranteeing that no one would play a price for their involvement. Phil Nelson has laid it out in such a thorough, meticulous, detailed and coherent fashion that I find it difficult to understand why anyone would contest Lyndon's role as the pivotal player.

After all, ask yourself, who else had the kinds of connections that Lyndon possessed in relation to the CIA, the Chiefs, and the Texas oil men? Who was closer to J. Edgar and could more effortlessly collaborate with him to cover it up? Who else could induce his probable successor in office, Richard Nixon, to become involved, where the culmination of their planning was the ratification meeting at the home of Clint Murchison the night before? Hoover, Nixon, McCloy, Murchison, and others present represented the major interests who were responsible for bringing this about. How can anyone doubt that, when Jack Ruby observed this would not have happened had anyone else been Vice President, he was speaking the truth? Those who want to appreciate the model that was implemented in this historic event should return to Noel Twyman, who sketched the elements of a perfect conspiracy, which is precisely what we had in this case. And the pivotal player--the political mastermind, if you will--was Lyndon Baines Johnson.

The coherence of the evidence that Nelson brings together, when combined with the background that Noel has provided, creates an intricate and interrelated network of individuals and groups who shared a common interest in removing JFK from office. The CIA wanted to retain its power, the Chiefs wanted to aggressively confront the expansion of international, Godless communism, the Mafia wanted Bobby off their backs and to reclaim their resorts and casinos in Havana, the Texas oil men wanted to preserve their oil depletion allowance, the bankers wanted to keep the FED, J. Edgar wanted to remain as Director of the FBI and Lyndon to become President. As Ruby observed, they all had very tangible, material motives for taking the course of action they pursued, where the evidence coheres to make the case for Lyndon as the pivotal player who promoted the assassination, insured its success, and covered it up. No one else was in that position or could have overseen it with greater competence than LBJ.

Well, I have addressed Bobby's death in "RFK: Outing the CIA at the Ambassador",
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/...6464.shtml This appears to have been
a case of "tying up loose ends", where the agency wanted to make sure that he
would not be in the position to reopen the investigation into his brother's death.

As for Martin, that seems to me to have been a more localized matter, where his
location at the Lorraine Motel and even his room number, 306, was broadcast over
local radio and television. His death, I suspect, was largely a result of racism,
though I would not be surprised if J. Edgar, among others, had had a hand in it.

I am not an expert on MLK, but my point is rather simple. When you claim that
"The same powers that killed JFK killed MLK and RFK and are still in power as we
speak", what you are saying cannot be literally true. Most of those who were in
on JFK and RFK, for example, are among the dear departed. They are dead.

If they are dead, then they are not "still in power". My point was not to deny the
continuity of institutional interests, but rather to observe that abstractions do not
have the kind of explanatory power that you, among others, tend to ascribe to
them. It is specific individuals who make specific decisions and take specific actions.

There is no need to feel offended. My concern is that there is a tendency on the
"Deep Politics Forum" to treat entities like "the national security state" as though
appealing to it could explain specific events on specific occasions. It has a place
in inviting our attention to enduring interests but cannot explain specific events.

This post is almost too absurd to even respond to. JIm I did not say PEOPLE I said powers. Power passes from one group of people to a different, but connected group after the former passes on. For example here in Austin the law firm of Ed Clark once held enourmous power. That power still exists. It WAS passed on. But I will not name the people it passed to.
Of course I mean "real people". I cannot believe I am even having to say this. And once again you ignored my question: who killed MLK and RFK?

Dawn

Jim: I am not going to discuss this further as I simply do not have the time to argue with someone who is not geting my point either on purpose or....???

I am not offended. If you do not understand that power passes from one group of people to the next then I cannot make it more plain. It was people who assassinated all three- the most powerful people in the world. That is why they got away with it. They are those who want more war, so anyone who threatens this is elimated. Be it John Kennedy or John Lennon. That is just one example of what the power brokers want. Drug dealing is another. The puppets in office, including LBJ go along or are killed. This is what JFK learned. And gave his life for. I realize your area of expertize is the Z film, which I consider a side issue, but you have read books like JFK and The Unspeakable, or ealier books like The Last Investigation right? Nothing in either of those books suggests LBJ is behind the killing of JKF. And those are just the first two books that came to mind.

All the principlas who assisted in Barr McCLellan's book are/ were good friends of mine, including Barr. However that does not make LBJ THE prime mover. It makes him involved.

MLK's killing is hardly "local". My God. Just read ony book on the subject.

RFK was going to delve into the murder of his bother as well as end the war in Viet Nam- a war JFK had already ended- and was killed by the same forces that killed his brother. I don't know if the same triggermeen were used. Or if the exact same people who masterminded JFK, but if not, the people to whom the power passed. Not necessarily relatives, but politically connected.
Dawn