Why Was JFK MurdERED? by Donna Coe

[Stan Wilbourne]

What if:

John Kennedy was elected to be slaughtered? What if the whole story was written and executed just as it been planned, and that John Kennedy was just another piece on the chess board?

"The youngest president ever elected..."

"The closest race in presidential history..."

"The Bay of Pigs."

"The Cuban Missile Crisis."

The assassination.

All on a story board. Does that kind of power exist in the world? And, what would be the purpose of the "story" of John Kennedy?

I recently was reading some stuff on the Zodiac Killer murders that started in 1969. What struck me was "What if this was an operation: planned, performed and with a purpose." Killing people in public. Terrorizing the population with letters and taunts. Wearing a uniform to kill and even giving himself a moniker. The killing wasn't enough. The terror was the goal. At least part of it.

When I read the Zodiac wore a military issued shoe for his killing at Lake Berryessa, I began to wonder if this was indeed an "operation." The prototype for killers that would be unleashed on society in the years ahead, mainly through the portholes of our consciousness. Shock. And submission. It goes well beyond the business model.

I've read Adele Edisen's story, and I've wondered: How did Rivera know Jackie Kennedy would lose her baby? It's one thing to murder the president over differences in philosophy, but there seems to be more going on here. A lot more.

(Read this interesting bit on the Kennedys dying in sidereal time: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....opic=17723)

I've wondered, too, over the years of thinking about this case, "Why was he allowed entry to such a position of power in the first place?"

If they wanted Nixon, couldn't they have had him? If just a few years later the president can be killed in broad daylight of an American city, and the power behind it knew, knew, knew, they would never be brought to justice, well, didn't they have the power to keep him from being elected in the first place? Were they that blind to who this man was and what he would attempt to do once elected? Or, was John Kennedy a piece on the chess board, being moved into position knowing what he would do, and then terminated with purpose?

There had to have been a complete psychological profile on file of John Kennedy. It was known what he would attempt to do. ACT I of the Kennedy presidency: The Bay of Pigs. Welcome, Mr. President, to your unfolding play.

And, why the slaughter? This elegant man, gunned down like a rabid dog in the street. They were so many other ways of being rid of him.

This case is not as simple as some of the most revered investigators have made it out to be, even at it's most perceived levels of complexity. Johnson. The mafia. Anti-Castro Cubans. CIA. Oswald. World-wide corporatocracy. My latest pasty, The Rockefellers. Even John Kennedy himself. Real people that exist in the world, but all pieces on a grand story board.

The ultimate goal: Control of human consciousness.

Take a look around at the world where you live. The American society has been bludgeoned into submission. That didn't "just happen." It's been an long scale "operation," lasting over several decades, at least. The murder of President Kennedy has been part of that operation. Why was he murdered? Because that was his role in the theatre of our consciousness. The slaughtered King. The end of hope. The promotion of a malleable parameter in the field of human consciousness. Control of it. Dictating the terms of its existence.

(Steps down from the stump. Folds paper. Ends speech...)

[Lauren Johnson]

Charles Drago makes the same case somewhere in the DPF archives with extensive discussion. I can't seem to find it.

[Stan Wilbourne]

Charles Drago makes the same case somewhere in the DPF archives with extensive discussion. I can't seem to find it.

I owe a great deal of how I currently feel about this case, how I see it, to Charles.

I miss his presence here. Certainly.

[Phil Dragoo]

Charles wrote:

It was Evica who first understood the assassination as a dramatic construct. We worked closely on this hypothesis, which I have come to accept without reservation.

http://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/arch.../t-39.html

A good riff is at https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...1#post9071

BEGIN RIFF

Douglass' JFKU as the "best account" of the event?

Not even close.

As the best argument for the sponsors' ultimate motive?

Absolutely.

I often think of my friend Professor Evica, but I miss him most intensely whenever discussions take place regarding John Kennedy's spiritual awakening.

George Michael and I spoke of this often over a 15-year period. We came to understand that the enlightened spirit savagely evicted from the human host on 11/22/63 could not be allowed to continue its in-body evolution if the forces of materialism were to prevail.

Sound like a Harry Potter plot?

At times JFKU falters in its deep political analyses (Douglass' Chicago plot conclusions, for example, are simplistic and wholly inconsistent with his deeper understanding regarding the overall structure of the assassination conspiracy).

Evica and Scott are significantly more insightful in their respective penetrations of the operational levels of the hit.

What makes JFKU a truly and uniquely important contribution to the canon is its powerful meditations on the ancient and ongoing battle between spiritual and material world views and the reasons why John Kennedy was destined to be slaughtered in that conflict.

I might add that, while the Cuban Missile Crisis is often and glibly cited as the catalyst for JFK's awakening, George Michael and I agreed that an equally significant event was the death of his and Mrs. Kennedy's third child, Patrick.

Observe how their love -- and, by extension, their marriage -- seemed to be renewed in the wake of that tragedy.

Why didn't sexual blackmail and threats of death deter John Kennedy?

By that too-long autumn of 1963, the only force that could stop him was death itself -- in the form of a base element of the earth driven into the very temple of his spirit

END RIFF

The image alluded to is presque vu, almost seen, a heroic figure raising hope of peace, only to be crushed, thus crushing the spirit of the people.

For now having to settle for the structural model thread, a very nice walk in the enchanted wood. https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...ural-Model

[Jim Hackett II]

Charles Drago makes the same case somewhere in the DPF archives with extensive discussion. I can't seem to find it.

I owe a great deal of how I currently feel about this case, how I see it, to Charles.

I miss his presence here. Certainly.

Me too.

[Stan Wilbourne]

The 60s. What an interesting decade. A re-definition of the conscious fabric of the country began. The assassinations, of course, playing a key part. The Vietnam War. Such shocking events as the Manson family killings and the introduction of the Zodiac Killer. And, many other things swinging into active movement.

I've no idea how our consciousness works, but at this stage of my life I am inclined to believe we are connected in ways we do not yet fully understand. We do not own our thinking and its patterns. It is shared upon arrival on this earth. It is one thing. Undivided. A stream where we are dipped and experience life here. To call it "mine" or "me" is not accurate. Are we in search of facts? Or, are we in search of truth?

What we see in the media, on a grand scale, is controlled, I think. It is done with great intent. And, the underlining message is this: You are weak. There is nothing you can do. You need authority. You are incapable. The world is an overpowering and scary place. You need help. Be frigthened.

Pounded over and over and over again. Movies. The "news." Books. TV. Magazines. In all these stories.

President Kennedy, it seems to me, is the archetype of the fallen King. The one who could have saved the world, if he had lived. So close. So faraway. And, with his death and promotion of his image as the fallen King, comes the arrival of despair and a deep sense of the hopeless.

We are fed shocking events to be absorbed into the fabric of our shared consciousness. When the field of consciousness is shocked, it becomes malleable. There for the taking. That consciousness is a never-ending stream, shared in the here and now, and passed on to the unborn. One thing. Indivisible.

We are told a story. We process the story as "reality." But, I have begun to wonder if the reality of the story has any truth.

So, I arrive back at the initial premise: Was President Kennedy elected to be murdered and play the role of the fallen King? A single step in an operation to control the parameters of consciousness?

And, what would happen if this consciousness awoke to the story it has been told? To see it as a story and nothing more? And if there was such an awareness: that the responsibility of that awakening belonged to each of us. Here. Now.

Change doesn't come from the outside, moving in. It is the other way around. We are responsible. All of us, for this. The story we are told tells us the opposite. It tells us we are not responsible at all. That there is nothing that can be done. That is one it's main purposes.

But, is it true?

[Peter Lemkin]

The 60s. What an interesting decade. A re-definition of the conscious fabric of the country began. The assassinations, of course, playing a key part. The Vietnam War. Such shocking events as the Manson family killings and the introduction of the Zodiac Killer. And, many other things swinging into active movement.

I've no idea how our consciousness works, but at this stage of my life I am inclined to believe we are connected in ways we do not yet fully understand. We do not own our thinking and its patterns. It is shared upon arrival on this earth. It is one thing. Undivided. A stream where we are dipped and experience life here. To call it "mine" or "me" is not accurate. Are we in search of facts? Or, are we in search of truth?

What we see in the media, on a grand scale, is controlled, I think. It is done with great intent. And, the underlining message is this: You are weak. There is nothing you can do. You need authority. You are incapable. The world is an overpowering and scary place. You need help. Be frigthened.

Pounded over and over and over again. Movies. The "news." Books. TV. Magazines. In all these stories.

President Kennedy, it seems to me, is the archetype of the fallen King. The one who could have saved the world, if he had lived. So close. So faraway. And, with his death and promotion of his image as the fallen King, comes the arrival of despair and a deep sense of the hopeless.

We are fed shocking events to be absorbed into the fabric of our shared consciousness. When the field of consciousness is shocked, it becomes malleable. There for the taking. That consciousness is a never-ending stream, shared in the here and now, and passed on to the unborn. One thing. Indivisible.

We are told a story. We process the story as "reality." But, I have begun to wonder if the reality of the story has any truth.

So, I arrive back at the initial premise: Was President Kennedy elected to be murdered and play the role of the fallen King? A single step in an operation to control the parameters of consciousness?

And, what would happen if this consciousness awoke to the story it has been told? To see it as a story and nothing more? And if there was such an awareness: that the responsibility of that awakening belonged to each of us. Here. Now.

Change doesn't come from the outside, moving in. It is the other way around. We are responsible. All of us, for this. The story we are told tells us the opposite. It tells us we are not responsible at all. That there is nothing that can be done.

That is one it's main purposes.

[Exactly!]

But, is it true?*

Well said. *Answer: NO, A Quintilian times NO!, but it must be 'done' - not just talked about, debated, argued about, written up, reported, refuted, analyzed (and then analyzed with regression analysis). We are, at this point in 'history', sadly IMO, afforded very little more time for nice 'academic' discussions alone - we are sadly entering the point where one, to have an effect that actually results in change, has to do more than talk the talk; but to walk the walk............

(this is messaged out to all of us).

The UBERmessage is, and always throughout history has been: 'Look, little man/woman, you can't make it on your own, so we'll just have to protect you; and for that protection we rule and own you - you do as we say. The different systems have built different stage sets, used different make-up and disguises, but have always basically been about the same thing.

It has never been acceptable to those on who this was imposed. Now, it will soon not be viable, in the true sense of the term.

[Dawn Meredith]

Stan!! How delightful to see you back here. I always think of you on our shared birthday. You raise a lot of profound points. I cannot begin to adress them in full so I will choose the one. Was he made president just to be slaughtered? I do not think so. The powers that be had no way to know how he would act as president. His debates would indicate a Cold Warrior attitude, matched only by Tricky Dick himself. As a Senator he was not the progressive and promoter of peace that he would become as President. Personally I think that the powers that be believed he could be counted on to do thier bidding. "Like father, like son" I am sure many thought.
Douglass presents the change beautifully and DiEugenio has taken it back earlier. But did the sponsers know all this? I do not thhink so.
CD and Evica are correct in pointing to the shift he and Jackie took at the loss of Patrick. By then there simply was no turning back for JFK. He knew how vast were his enemies. He knew what he was was risking, but he forged ahead just the same. To our eternal loss. I do not think the Sponsers could have ever envisioned this.
I agree totally with you that we are all connected. If we did not know this before we certainly learned it during the 60's. In spite of how it turned out I am very proud to have been a part of the peace and love generation. It was a heady time and we thought we could actually change the world. As they killed our leaders. One after another. Our heroes. Those devoted to peace. A story as old as time.
And now here we are. In the void of hopelessness as 1984 looks like a picnic. How many more false flag terror ops will occur until people wake up? If ever. But we must continue the fight. If not what are we?

Dawn

[Adele Edisen]

Was President Kennedy elected to be assassunated?

Although I believe that the plot to assassinate John Kennedy was in the works (maybe) even before he was elected, it is difficult to reason that he was elected to be assassinated.
The two-term President Eisenhower and his Vice-President Nixon had not provided much progress for civil rights movements, women's rights, economic growth, education,
labor unions were underr attack (Taft-Hartley law), freedom of speech and thought was being curtailed, and efforts for international peace were struggles. American war veterans
were demonstrating for democratic changes for which they thought they had fought the war. The American electorate appeared to be ready for a change.

John Kennedy offered that change, and his presidency involved major changes in policies and in international relations. His policies on civil rights were opposed by many of the
Republicans and by the Democrats from the Southern States in Congress. The proposed legislation lingered on in committees without action by Representatives and Senators until
President Lyndon Johnson made it his priority to achieve passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Previous attempts in 1957 and in 1960 to pass such legislation had failed under
the Republican administration, the "party of Lincoln."

Because of the great popularity of President Franklin Roosevelt, who had been elected four times, the Republicans sought to limit presidential terms to two 4-year terms. People
still remembered Roosevelt's efforts for democracy and despite the Republican strategy of Nixon, a Dermocratic president was elected. The plotters who planned the assassination
were strongly opposed to civil rights for African-Americans, and Kennedy's policies toward business corporations (Dr. Donald Gibson's study of Kennedy's presidency was titled
BATTLING WALL STREET). The financial capitalists and the private banking system, falsely named the FEDERAL RESERVE, also were on the list of Kennedy's enemies. Kennedy's
strategy for world peace, especially his anti-nuclear prolifeation and other similar policies, leading toward friendlier relations with the USSR and Cuba, frightened his domestic enemies.
They believed Kennedy was a Socilaist/Communist out to destroy their wonderful capitalist system, as they had also thought of President Roosevelt doing the same. They could
not control Kennedy and they could not allow him to win a second term in office. They also wanted to perform the murder in a public and dramatic way to let every subsequent president
know that they had that power and could get away with it by intimidating and manipulating Lyndon Johnson. Johnson knew he would be allowed to live as long as he did their major
biddiong by giving them a highly profitable war in Vietnam.

As James Douglas shows in his book, JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE, elements of the intelligence services were involved. One month to the day after Kennedy's assassination,
former President Truman's letter published in the Washington Post newspaper, apologized to the American people for signing the National Security Act of 1947 which created the CIA.
It was a subtle message to the publis about who he suspected of the assassination. President Eisenhower had warned us of the Miliutary-Industrial Complex which would push for
war and profit and which would unite to oppose the young visionary president.

Adele

[Tracy Riddle]

Dave McGowan wrote in 2001 (published months before 9/11), referring to the Columbine shooting:

"The true goal is to further traumatize and brutalize the American people. This has in fact been a primary goal of the State for quite some time, dating back at least to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy on that fateful day in Dallas on November 22, 1963. The strategy is now (as it was then) to inflict bluntforce trauma on all of American society, and by doing so to destroy any remaining sense of community and instill in the people deep feelings of fear and distrust, of hopelessness and despair, of isolation and powerlessness. And the results have been, it should be stated, rather spectacular. With each school shooting, and each act of "domestic terrorism," the social fabric of the country is ripped further asunder. The social contracts that bound us together as a people with common goals, common dreams, and common aspirations have been shattered. We have been reduced to a nation of frightened and disempowered individuals, each existing in our own little sphere of isolation and fear. And at the same time, we have been desensitized to ever-rising levels of violence in society. This is true of both interpersonal violence as well as violence by the State, in the form of judicial executions, spiraling levels of police violence, and the increased militarization of foreign policy and of America's borders. We have become, in the words of the late George Orwell, a society in which "the prevailing mental condition [is] controlled insanity." And under these conditions, it becomes increasingly difficult for the American people to fight back against the supreme injustice of twenty-first century Western society. Which is, of course, precisely the point. For a fractured and disillusioned people, unable to find a common cause, do not represent a threat to the rapidly encroaching system of global fascism. And a population blinded by fear will ultimately turn to "Big Brother" to protect them from nonexistent and/or wholly manufactured threats."

I don't agree that was the reason for the JFK assassination, but I can accept that many events since then are explained that way.