The Chicago Plot: A Hypothesis

[Charles Drago]

The facilitators are very clear to me as are the mechanics. But I would like some concrete examples of sponsors to better understand how you view them. My main question is why should it be assumed that they were in complete concert as the aims and outcomes of the assassination.

Thanks, Gordon.

I suspect you may be conflating Sponsor and Facilitator.

It is in the latter category where we find individuals and groups whose agendas often were, if not in direct conflict, then at least superficially irrelevant to each others' goals.

And as we know, some of those goals proved to be unattainable in the wake of the assassination.

So we are left to ponder: How were, for example, the most virulent anti-Castro Cubans who wittingly provided highly compartmentalized facilitation and unwittingly were patsied as (False) Sponsors, mollified when they realized that they would not be marching through a liberated Havana?

Given how some of them ended up, directly or indirectly, doing dirty work for American interests post-Dallas, we can speculate that their disappointment was mitigated by financial opportunity. I would make an informed guess that others were either blackmailed (on the strength of their False Sponsor status) into submission or ... dealt with.

Other Facilitators, such as powerful interests within the military-industrial complex and elements of Organized Crime, were paid off in the forms of prolonged conflict in Southeast Asia and protected new sources for the raw materials of narcotics respectively.

But I digress.


I'm afraid that you've lost me with the following passage:

I used Phillips as an example of a facilitator who was pursuing a direction that would seem to be at odds with a LN explanation that furthered the interests of some sponsors, e.g. the profits accrued from opposition to wars of liberation.

Would you kindly be more forthcoming in terms of Phillips's "direction" in this context?

I would like some concrete examples of sponsors ...

So would I.

The best I can do at this point in time in terms of identifying Sponsors is to quote from my Introduction to George Michael's A Certain Arrogance:

Haunting the pages of A Certain Arrogance in the company of the shades of John Fitzgerald Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald is a revelation so menacing in its assault on convention as to provoke a reflexive shielding of our eyes from its searing light. Yet the author cannot spare us the psychic pain that is the unavoidable side effect of his scholarship, insofar as such suffering remains the sine qua non for the eradication of our common malady and the return to robust good health.

Within the nucleus of the disease, Professor Evica has discovered "a treasonous cabal of hard-line American and Soviet intelligence agents whose masters were above Cold War differences." [emphasis added for this post]

In light of this revelation, we are left with no choice but to embrace a new paradigm of world power.

Professor Evica reveals the universally accepted vertical, East v. West Cold War confrontation to have been a sophistic construct, illusory in terms of its advertised raison d'etre, all too real in its bloody consequences, created by the powerful yet outnumbered manipulators of perception to protect what they recognized to be an all too fragile reality. The true division of power, he teaches us, then as now is drawn on a horizontal axis.

Envision the earth so bifurcated, with the line drawn not at the equator, but rather at the Arctic Circle. Above the line are the powerful few the "Haves." Below the line, in vastly superior numbers, are the powerless many the "Have-Nots."



That's as close as I can get: "masters [who] were above Cold War differences."

I hope this helps. Please, let's continue the dialogue.