My new book, "Into the Nightmare"

[Joseph McBride]

A new interview on my book INTO THE NIGHTMARE by Ray Kelly of Masslive.com and the Springfield (MA) Republican:

http://www.masslive.com/entertainment/in...cart_river

Joseph,

This interview closes with the following comment made by you:

"The beneficiaries were Johnson and the military-industrial complex that owned him and which he helped enrich with the Vietnam War. Through my extensive research, I shed new light on the murderous political context of the case, including the hatred against Kennedy by Texas right-wing extremists, and I demonstrate that Officer Tippit was one of the key ground-level functionaries in that high-level plot."

With all due respect -- and a great deal indeed is due -- I find that your conclusions expressed above reveal A) the absence in your work of a viable conspiracy model upon which research of the complexity and significance you proffer must be stretched if it is to assume a form conducive to the formulation of deep political insight, and B) a fatally narrow identification of the "beneficiaries" of the assassination.

May I humbly suggest that you think about the following as presented most recently (post 169) at:

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...#post71393


In order to save inordinate amounts of time and angst, we should agree on some basic definitions. When I use the terms Sponsors, False Sponsors, Facilitators, and Mechanics, I do so within the context of what has come to be known as the Evica-Drago Model for the JFK conspiracy:

SPONSORS -- Those with the authority and motive to sanction the assassination and the connections to engage facilitating agents and systems. Among them in my opinion: the most powerful supra-national entities who were -- and are -- above Cold War and Clash of Civilization cosmetic differences.

FALSE SPONSORS -- Selected primarily from involved high-level FACILITATORS and otherwise uninvolved entities who logically might have come under suspicion. Among them in my opinion: LBJ, the CIA, the Mob, anti-Castro Cubans, Big Business, Big Oil, Castro, Khrushchev, etc.

FACILITATORS -- From the "princes" who directly and/or through buffers routinely interacted with and carried out the agendas of the SPONSORS and who created the plot in all its complexities, through high-level members of facilitating organizations, to mid- to low-level functionaries who performed the heavy lifting. Among them in my opinion: LBJ, James Angleton, Edward Lansdale, David Atlee Phillips, David Sanchez Morales, Lucien Conein, Gerald Patrick Hemming, "William Bishop" and other CIA officers and agents, Santos Trafficante, Johnny Rosselli, Jimmy Hoffa, certain Secret Service, FBI and military intelligence officers and agents, individuals intimately linked to Big Business and Big Oil, certain Dallas elected officials and members of the DPD, certain members of the print and broadcast media, certain heads of state, etc. etc. etc.

MECHANICS -- The gunmen and support personnel on-site who carried out the attack and escape-evade procedures. Among them in my opinion: possibly a team from Pakse Base, former Wermacht/SS sniper(s), etc. Think the most skilled hunters of humans on the planet.


Within this model, LBJ is appropriately placed within the "False Sponsors" and "Facilitators" groupings.

Tippit, as I believe you realize, is justly considered to be a low level "Facilitator."

You have every right to focus on the model the full and considerable force of your critical faculties and to ask after the identities of the "Sponsors" as I perceive them.

In re the latter: The best I can do at this point in time 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."

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."


I hope that you will find the time to respond.

Best,

Charles

Charles,

I appreciate that you and I may have different views on the
backers and beneficiaries of the assassination, and I glean
some possibly salient points about multinationalism from your post (though
I am not entirely clear about your argument). But I think
our discussion of this important issue would be best served
if you'd read the whole book I wrote rather than just an interview I gave about it, since I go into considerable
detail on what I regard as the connections among the parties involved and
the deep politics behind the case. That brief interview quote is accurate, but
there is a wealth of supporting detail in my thoroughly researched 675-page book.
I take care to be as specific as possible about my factual statements and theories.
You may feel differently after reading INTO THE NIGHTMARE and might characterize
it differently after so doing.

Joe

[Charles Drago]

You may feel differently after reading INTO THE NIGHTMARE and might characterize
it differently after so doing.

Joe

I very well might. But I doubt it.

My mind remains open to your work.

Not much left to read. So far, I'm comfortable with my position as stated above.

While I'm finishing up your book, there's no reason why you can't share with us your own conspiracy model.

If you don't have one, then please share with us why you believe that you don't need one.

Back to you soon.

Charles

[Joseph McBride]

You may feel differently after reading INTO THE NIGHTMARE and might characterize
it differently after so doing.

Joe

I very well might. But I doubt it.

My mind remains open to your work.

Not much left to read. So far, I'm comfortable with my position as stated above.

While I'm finishing up your book, there's no reason why you can't share with us your own conspiracy model.

If you don't have one, then please share with us why you believe that you don't need one.

Back to you soon.

Charles

Charles, you'll find in reading my book that I do provide,
in detail, what you call a "conspiracy model" or theory. My book details my belief that the assassination was a military coup, benefiting
Johnson, to enrich the military-industrial complex by
widening the war in Vietnam and to give freer rein
to the military men and rightwing oil men who opposed Kennedy. They thought he was a traitorous dove
for trying to achieve detente with the USSR and Cuba and for resisting widening the Vietnam War.
I agree with Peter Dale Scott on the phase one/phase two
theory of the assassination; I recommend his works on deep politics. Johnson did not want a war in Cuba
or with the USSR, but he was owned and operated for decades by
Brown & Root (which merged with Halliburton). You may disagree,
but that's OK with me. Different researchers see things differently. I am
not sure what your "model" is from your general theoretical description of such plots.

If you want a considerable amount
of detail on that "model," my book provides it (better than a short summary could) while also concentrating
in even greater detail on the Tippit murder, a largely neglected
and critical aspect of the events in Dallas. I write at length about how Tippit moved
in the rightwing milieu that also included Ruby and various rightwing extremists and how the Dallas
Police Department was deeply involved with forces hostile to Kennedy.

[Charles Drago]

Thank you, Joseph. As I continue to read, I find a great deal to admire about not only your research, but also your passion for the man and your acute sense of loss -- both of which we share on very deep levels.

This does not mean, however, that we agree on all aspects of the case.

Charles, you'll find in reading my book that I do provide, in detail, what you call a "conspiracy model" or theory. My book details my belief that the assassination was a military coup, benefiting Johnson, to enrich the military-industrial complex by widening the war in Vietnam and to give freer rein to the military men and right wing oil men who opposed Kennedy.

Fair enough. But not quite clear enough -- at least for me.

Who, in your opinion, had the authority to order/authorize the coup?

They thought he was a traitorous dove for trying to achieve detente with the USSR and Cuba and for resisting widening the Vietnam War. I agree with Peter Dale Scott on the phase one/phase two theory of the assassination; I recommend his works on deep politics. Johnson did not want a war in Cuba or with the USSR, but he was owned and operated for decades by Brown & Root (which merged with Halliburton).

Help me to understand your position: Is it correct to say that you've concluded that Brown & Root coerced LBJ to ... what? ... use the power of the vice-presidency to authorize and order the operation? In your scenario, would the powers-that-be at Brown & Root plus certain military officers and oil barons properly be cast as the assassination's Sponsors, and would LBJ be their primary Facilitator?

I agree with Peter Dale Scott on the phase one/phase two theory of the assassination; I recommend his works on deep politics.

So do I. And I'll pass along your recommendation, insofar as I have read just about every word written by Professor Scott on this case (among others).

Johnson did not want a war in Cuba or with the USSR, but ...

That's a big "but" you've got there.

You stipulate, as do I, that the right wing military wanted war in Southeast Asia. The industrialist profiteers wanted that war. They helped eliminate THE major road block to that war. They controlled the eminently controllable successor to the road block.

However, unlike LBJ, many/most also wanted to take out Cuba and the USSR.

BUT they didn't.

Why?

After all, and as you suggest, "They thought[JFK] was a traitorous dove for trying to achieve detente with the USSR and Cuba ... " Yet eventually detente came to pass.

Who had the power to control the very forces that in my opinion you incorrectly place at the top of the JFK assassination food chain?

I am not sure what your "model" is from your general theoretical description of such plots.

First, I'd suggest that the distinction you would draw between "model" and "theoretical description" is one without a difference.

Second, I encourage you re-read carefully the Evica-Drago model as I describe it above. We name names -- at least in three of its four categories/levels -- and assign roles. And if indeed we have been less than direct and informative in doing so, I cordially invite you to post detailed questions and/or criticisms, to which I'll gladly respond.

[T]he Tippit murder [is] a largely neglected and critical aspect of the events in Dallas.

I and many others have agreed with this assessment for decades.

I write at length about how Tippit moved in the rightwing milieu that also included Ruby and various rightwing extremists and how the Dallas Police Department was deeply involved with forces hostile to Kennedy.

You are indeed to be commended for bringing invaluable new detail to the Tippit research which, decades ago, established his and the DPD's involvement with "rightwing [sic] forces hostile to Kennedy."

We are in full agreement that Tippit and some of his DPD colleagues are accurately and best placed within the lower Facilitator ranks.

[Phil Dragoo]

Our late friend shared his 1998 letter to Robert Caro regarding the visit to William H. Gassett, vice president and economist of Eaton & Howard, Inc. located at 24 Federal St., Boston by Eliot Janeway, economist and self-described "close friend of LBJ of long standing."

The twenty-to-thirty minute speech was a whispered warning of the dangerous man called John F. Kennedy, which our friend tells Caro, "I have always referred to as a hiss."

Larger today as Eaton & Vance, the firm was then one hundred men with offices in San Francisco and New York.

Our friend surmises Janeway on a circuit of the Boston--and New York--houses; he made it clear to me on more than one occasion what he found most galling about LBJ was "Brown & Root stopping by every week for a billion-dollar check."

I have always thought, in light of Charles and George Michael Evica, not to mention Prouty and Scott, that there is no coincidence in Khrushchev's replacement by Brezhnev, that (as in The Package--see Charles' thread[s]) indeed the Cold War was a business model created in the era of Yalta, just as Conjuring Hitler reveals Montagu Norman, 1922-1944 director of the Bank of England having, with the London clubs and allied assistance, created the business cycle's World War, and kept the World Island divided and the Sea Powers supreme.

LBJ refused the Chiefs' request to bomb Hanoi and mine Haiphong November 1965 http://extendedremarks.blogspot.com/2006...t-war.html and got out of the way for Nixon, March 1968--a year that saw MLK and RFK "got out of the way" just as Helms would "get Nixon out of the way" in 1972-1974.

LBJ has been a false sponsor intoxicating Craig I. Zirbel, Barr McClellan, Philip Nelson, Roger Stone and others.

His role as a Facilitator cannot account for the rest of the machinations of the cabal outside that dark November day at the midpoint of The Century of the Fed.

I look forward to Nightmare exposing Tippit's role in the intelligence operations while ranking Johnson a Facilitator, not a Sponsor.

[Joseph McBride]

Thank you, Joseph. As I continue to read, I find a great deal to admire about not only your research, but also your passion for the man and your acute sense of loss -- both of which we share on very deep levels.

This does not mean, however, that we agree on all aspects of the case.

Charles, you'll find in reading my book that I do provide, in detail, what you call a "conspiracy model" or theory. My book details my belief that the assassination was a military coup, benefiting Johnson, to enrich the military-industrial complex by widening the war in Vietnam and to give freer rein to the military men and right wing oil men who opposed Kennedy.

Fair enough. But not quite clear enough -- at least for me.

Who, in your opinion, had the authority to order/authorize the coup?

They thought he was a traitorous dove for trying to achieve detente with the USSR and Cuba and for resisting widening the Vietnam War. I agree with Peter Dale Scott on the phase one/phase two theory of the assassination; I recommend his works on deep politics. Johnson did not want a war in Cuba or with the USSR, but he was owned and operated for decades by Brown & Root (which merged with Halliburton).

Help me to understand your position: Is it correct to say that you've concluded that Brown & Root coerced LBJ to ... what? ... use the power of the vice-presidency to authorize and order the operation? In your scenario, would the powers-that-be at Brown & Root plus certain military officers and oil barons properly be cast as the assassination's Sponsors, and would LBJ be their primary Facilitator?

I agree with Peter Dale Scott on the phase one/phase two theory of the assassination; I recommend his works on deep politics.

So do I. And I'll pass along your recommendation, insofar as I have read just about every word written by Professor Scott on this case (among others).




That's a big "but" you've got there.

You stipulate, as do I, that the right wing military wanted war in Southeast Asia. The industrialist profiteers wanted that war. They helped eliminate THE major road block to that war. They controlled the eminently controllable successor to the road block.

However, unlike LBJ, many/most also wanted to take out Cuba and the USSR.

BUT they didn't.

Why?

After all, and as you suggest, "They thought[JFK] was a traitorous dove for trying to achieve detente with the USSR and Cuba ... " Yet eventually detente came to pass.

Who had the power to control the very forces that in my opinion you incorrectly place at the top of the JFK assassination food chain?

I am not sure what your "model" is from your general theoretical description of such plots.

First, I'd suggest that the distinction you would draw between "model" and "theoretical description" is one without a difference.

Second, I encourage you re-read carefully the Evica-Drago model as I describe it above. We name names -- at least in three of its four categories/levels -- and assign roles. And if indeed we have been less than direct and informative in doing so, I cordially invite you to post detailed questions and/or criticisms, to which I'll gladly respond.

[T]he Tippit murder [is] a largely neglected and critical aspect of the events in Dallas.

I and many others have agreed with this assessment for decades.

I write at length about how Tippit moved in the rightwing milieu that also included Ruby and various rightwing extremists and how the Dallas Police Department was deeply involved with forces hostile to Kennedy.

You are indeed to be commended for bringing invaluable new detail to the Tippit research which, decades ago, established his and the DPD's involvement with "rightwing [sic] forces hostile to Kennedy."

We are in full agreement that Tippit and some of his DPD colleagues are accurately and best placed within the lower Facilitator ranks.

Charles,

Thanks for your good words on my Tippit research and my other research
in INTO THE NIGHTMARE.

In my previous replies to you, I tried to lay out a summary of my analysis of the underpinnings
and extent of the conspiracy. We can agree to disagree on some of it. Since I wrote
a long book, it would be reductive to try to address all these issues in
a nutshell, so I'd rather people try to follow what I think is a logical progression
in my book, which I think would be more beneficial. In the first part of the book, I discuss my own evolution to
understanding the case and becoming an assassination researcher
and then I launch into an even longer, microscopic analysis of the
Tippit case, which needed to be done.

Along the way I delve into other issues
and most of the big issues, including the involvement of LBJ and his fellow conspirators, providing
whatever I can in the way of fresh research and insights. I don't claim to know (since nobody does, and further
research needs to be done) exactly how all the planning was done and all the orders were given, etc. I have some ideas about this, and, for example, I try to pinpoint
how the motorcade route was chosen, a critical part of the conspiracy that reached to high levels; the parts
about Kenneth O'Donnell, whom I consider to have been disloyal to Kennedy, may surprise readers. E. Howard
Hunt and his son Saint John Hunt have made claims about the chain of command in the plot that need further research.
And by studying how the coverup works we can see how the plot worked (as we learned in Watergate as well).

Let's hope we all continue the study of the remaining issues in the assassination and make more discoveries. I've contributed what I could with my
own independent research.

[Magda Hassan]

Fortunately there are many roads that lead to Rome and more than one way of exploring the murder of JFK. Some of them are more scenic. Some are more interesting. Some take the long route and some are more direct. Some lead to dead ends and are boring. But in the end it all adds to the rich variety of life and stimulates the mind. I have ordered your book today and I am looking forward to learning more about the under-researched Tippet. I will look forward to reading Charles' book one day too. If he decides to write one. Which I hope he does. Joseph, were the members of the Tippet family available to interview? Did they ever express their views on the events of that day?

[Joseph McBride]

Fortunately there are many roads that lead to Rome and more than one way of exploring the murder of JFK. Some of them are more scenic. Some are more interesting. Some take the long route and some are more direct. Some lead to dead ends and are boring. But in the end it all adds to the rich variety of life and stimulates the mind. I have ordered your book today and I am looking forward to learning more about the under-researched Tippet. I will look forward to reading Charles' book one day too. If he decides to write one. Which I hope he does. Joseph, were the members of the Tippet family available to interview? Did they ever express their views on the events of that day?

So true, Magda. We need all kinds of studies of every facet of this complex case.

Edgar Lee Tippit, J. D. Tippit's father, gave me one of my best and most revealing interviews for several hours. The elder Mr. Tippit,
who was a lively ninety at the time, told me he had never been interviewed before. His second wife,
Mary Lee Daniels Tippit, participated in the interview sporadically but
mostly deferred to her husband. I wrote Marie Tippit, the officer's widow, to request
an interview, but she did not respond. Mrs. Tippit does give interviews on rare occasions, and in those scattered interviews that I tracked down, she has offered various
views on topics related to her husband and his death, so I was able to include her point of view
and analyze her statements. She was not called to testify by either the Warren Commission
or the HSCA, a significant omission in both of those major investigations. The FBI
and the HSCA did interview her.

[Joseph McBride]

http://www.examiner.com/article/an-inter...are-part-1


Part one of my interview with assassination expert and ace reporter Joe Green.

[Joseph McBride]

And a column today with a somewhat differing perspective on the book and assassination research by Doug Moe of
my old paper, The Wisconsin State Journal, Madison:

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/c...d59bf.html