Vancouver-bound author James Douglass on JFK and the Unspeakable

[Jan Klimkowski]

JFK and the Unspeakable fleshes out and names many of the facilitators of the plotpeople largely from the right wing, CIA-Cuban exile milieu but how do we wrap our heads around the actual sponsors?

I approach it as what in the peace and justice movement is called consensus. I don't think there had to be one grandmaster, say one of the Rockefellers or one of the other multi-trillionaires, I don't think that's the way it works. I think you have a process of propaganda, of ideology, of subverting one's own conscience that's going on on a very large scale, and certainly it is to the benefit of those at the very top of the pyramid, to put it mildly. But I think that process is so overwhelming, whether it be the Cold War, or the war on terror, which is the war of terror, it's so overwhelming that when someone comes along and says, I'm the president of the United States, and I'm going to turn toward peace,' then you've got a consensus decision. Intolerable. This guy goes. And I don't think it's a question of somebody having to mastermind a plot; Fletcher Prouty describes the process wherein Allen Dulles is putting people in all these key positions year after year after year, whether it's Secret Service or the White HouseMcGeorge Bundy for that matter is on record for having been working for the CIA when he was a dean at Harvardso this isn't very mysterious. When it comes time to stop all of this, they're all working together. It's a consensus decision. And for those at lower levels, it's just overwhelming. People ask, Why didn't Robert Kennedy do anything?' Robert Kennedy wasn't any dummy. He knew a few things about this system. He and John Kennedy were very well informed. I think even they would be overwhelmed by a total understanding of what was really going on, and they were extremely sophisticated people. So Robert Kennedy was of course biding his time. Until I become president of the United States, I can't do anything.' Well, I think that's an illusion. The best thing possible for him would have been to become Gandhi, but of course, he wasn't Gandhi, he didn't believe totally in "truth force", and if he had, the day after he would have said, The CIA killed the president.' And we would have had, as [Vincent] Salandria has analyzed, a major civil war on our hands. But it would have been better than the 50 years of millions of people being downed by this process.

Not to mention 50 years of illegitimate government.

To put it mildly. And fraud after fraud after fraud. But if you don't deal with the origin of thisnot the only origin but certainly a key one, which is the assassination of a peace-making president by his own national security state, done with impunityif that's not an origin of subsequent problems, I don't know what is.

Phil - excellent analysis. Personally, I would expand the key section of Douglass' interview as above. With the following qualification.

The description of the way in which the national security state consensus, created by patronage and sustained by peer pressure, overwhelms is very accurate. However, I don't agree that the CIA or the national security state are the actual Sponsors of the assination. Rather, in my judgement, once the Sponsors set events in train, the national security state consensus accepted the course of events and managed the cover-up.

Indeed, it still manages the cover-up, the suppression of truth and the casting out of truth seekers.