04-09-2011, 10:33 AM
I am reading Donald Gibson, Battling Wall Street: The Kennedy Presidency. I have recently finished reading George Michael Evica, A Certain Arrogance with introduction by Charles Robert Drago.
When I find a line such as:
They would be on the ground with the operators to let them know the Op was real and there was equal risk.
I supply a link to the Prouty letter to Krulak regarding the Lansdale in Dealey hypothesis.
In the discussion of Morales I find him to be possessed of the precise combination of proven efficiency and ruthlessness required to perform the mechanics.
I do not think in terms of prime mover; that's a concept I haven't seen since studying various proofs of God in college religion coursework.
I cite again the best summation of useful conceptualizing I've encountered:
I am led to believe -- but don't quite yet know -- that all of these factors, plus what I term the perceived (by the Sponsors) inherent power of JFK to initiate major and lasting paradigm shifts in how business is done and how control is maintained not just in the U.S. but around the world, produced the critical mass necessary to force the Sponsors to act.
From Arrogance I see Dulles as serving clients. From Battling I see Kennedy as against the grain in the Big Game, the exploitation of resources of the Third World in the neocolonialism of the major financial players.
Hence the need for a series of CIA-enabled regime changes.
What is the JFK assassination if not that: a regime change, a coup d'etat. Who does one use.
As for the severing of the assassination and the coverup. I've never found that.
A seamless masterpiece, the culmination of the life's work of the best in the field.
In service to the largest possible interests, for Kennedy threatened those.
The preparation of Oswald through manipulation of his file and his public role playing enables all the braying jackasses for the last half century to refer to the "communist" who killed Kennedy.
The motivation for that coverup is the same as for the RFK hit, but not separate from the need for the unspeakable practices and unnatural acts of the continuing securty state.
Karzai is assassinated, having been defended by Posner, having been charged with being a CIA tool and a druglord. A laughable redundancy protected by a plagiarizing poof, but there is no humor.
There can be no slip of the mask, as Charles notes, due to indiscretions. Morales' to Rocky, Rosselli to Anderson, all must observe the contract. Caesar's wife.
Now, Cesar is another matter and Michael Calder is working on that one.
Buckley spoke of the Jeweler's Eye. When he was Firing Lines at Mark Lane, it was more Alex Jones with electric voice gun, Lane the Communist.
Our friend the former Army intelligence specialist referring to Lane as a "Communist" and Kennedy as "very dangerous."
Well, he was.
And Dave Morales said, "We took care of that"--and Allen Dulles, "little Kennedy."
Nice, nice, very nice
so many tough guys in the same device.
When I find a line such as:
They would be on the ground with the operators to let them know the Op was real and there was equal risk.
I supply a link to the Prouty letter to Krulak regarding the Lansdale in Dealey hypothesis.
In the discussion of Morales I find him to be possessed of the precise combination of proven efficiency and ruthlessness required to perform the mechanics.
I do not think in terms of prime mover; that's a concept I haven't seen since studying various proofs of God in college religion coursework.
I cite again the best summation of useful conceptualizing I've encountered:
I am led to believe -- but don't quite yet know -- that all of these factors, plus what I term the perceived (by the Sponsors) inherent power of JFK to initiate major and lasting paradigm shifts in how business is done and how control is maintained not just in the U.S. but around the world, produced the critical mass necessary to force the Sponsors to act.
From Arrogance I see Dulles as serving clients. From Battling I see Kennedy as against the grain in the Big Game, the exploitation of resources of the Third World in the neocolonialism of the major financial players.
Hence the need for a series of CIA-enabled regime changes.
What is the JFK assassination if not that: a regime change, a coup d'etat. Who does one use.
As for the severing of the assassination and the coverup. I've never found that.
A seamless masterpiece, the culmination of the life's work of the best in the field.
In service to the largest possible interests, for Kennedy threatened those.
The preparation of Oswald through manipulation of his file and his public role playing enables all the braying jackasses for the last half century to refer to the "communist" who killed Kennedy.
The motivation for that coverup is the same as for the RFK hit, but not separate from the need for the unspeakable practices and unnatural acts of the continuing securty state.
Karzai is assassinated, having been defended by Posner, having been charged with being a CIA tool and a druglord. A laughable redundancy protected by a plagiarizing poof, but there is no humor.
There can be no slip of the mask, as Charles notes, due to indiscretions. Morales' to Rocky, Rosselli to Anderson, all must observe the contract. Caesar's wife.
Now, Cesar is another matter and Michael Calder is working on that one.
Buckley spoke of the Jeweler's Eye. When he was Firing Lines at Mark Lane, it was more Alex Jones with electric voice gun, Lane the Communist.
Our friend the former Army intelligence specialist referring to Lane as a "Communist" and Kennedy as "very dangerous."
Well, he was.
And Dave Morales said, "We took care of that"--and Allen Dulles, "little Kennedy."
Nice, nice, very nice
so many tough guys in the same device.