A Review of "JFKU" JFK and the Unspeakable

[Lauren Johnson]

A response I made to someone on the Amazon book review who said 'The Unspeakable' was flawed because it omitted LBJ:


I'm amazed at how many people are blind to the best aspect of this book. Douglass doesn't include the LBJ treachery because it would detract from the angelic pantheon he orchestrates within the Thomas Merton, Pope John XXIII, Khrushchev, and Kennedy circle of influence. You are looking at the better angels that controlled the assassination, as Douglass illustrates, and not seeing it. It is the outlining of this fight between good and evil, best embodied by these figures, that is the fingerprint that shows most clearly in the assassination. To miss this in order to gripe about lesser LBJ machinations is to publicly announce one doesn't have the first understanding of what the book, or the assassination itself, is about. The beauty of 'The Unspeakable' is that it captures the undeniable 'proof' for the assassination in this incorruptible realm where it can't be defeated by those who seek to deny it. Kennedy accessed this 'realm' in his power as president to influence the future of the human race. Since nuclear Armageddon was a serious prospect Kennedy was dealing at that level and seeking ultimate solutions equal to the threat. Kennedy went to the deepest spiritual dimensions of his Catholic faith to overcome the forces that were trying to commit nuclear war. It was at these crossroads that all those figures met and LBJ didn't make it to that level, which sort of shows in itself why he wasn't any "mastermind". Like others who have stood down the devil in history Kennedy paid for it with his life...

Knowing so little about the JFK assassination at the time, I was stunned by the mechanics. It took two more readings for me to allow all that to sink into the background.

A thought experiment: if Douglass was Russian and looked at the assassination through the Khrushchev perspective, how would the book been written? Douglass tells of K's use of the Noah's Ark story as a rhetorical device to persuade JFK? Could JFK have used some quote from Marx in a similar vein? Was K even more courageous than JFK? Between the two, who was the most heroic?

[Magda Hassan]

They both displayed courage. Certainly K got the better deal. JFK got a bullet and Nikita got to retire. I think things were less complicated on the Soviet side whose defence policy was always based on the very real possibility that the US would be psychotic enough to use nuclear weapons against them and who were constantly working to undermine them, subvert them, infiltrate them. There was never any intention to invade the US. Just US propaganda for their own citizens to be kept scared. The Soviets always knew they were in the cross-hairs and they knew there were different factions in government with varying degrees of sanity. I don't think JFK saw the degree to which others actually were in control and how little he really did control. Nor did he really know the pure unspeakablesness of what was around him. The Soviets did. Like a man lost in a forest unable to see for the trees though it did become more apparent as time went on. Time ran out for him before he was able to fundamentally deal with it.

[Phil Dragoo]

Douglass illuminating a manuscript during a particularly dark age, when the war for the poppies reaches its decadal milestone.


He presented as the cameraman with handheld spinning round the leader exposing intrigue on all sides.


Seven Days in May, Three Bay of Pigs and You're Out, too many obstructions to "how business gets done."


Last month Robert Gates explained to Patrick Leahy how the cow ate the cabbage, "All governments lie to each other, Senator; it's how business gets done," and we add from the lay congregation, "and to their people."


As Dulles pronounced, "that little Kennedy. . .thought he was a god," we see it was in fact Allen who for a half century playing the part of Lucifer, occasionally delegating Angleton to send bicycle messengers with singing telegrams, "this could all be yoursthe price: your soul."


Gates and Brzezinski in 2004 coauthored the CFR paper Iran: Time for a New Approach, advising negotiating with the oil-rich bogeyman Zbigniew and Jimmy installed to create a cardigan-fireside crisis, upping the price of one of the three major food groups.


Arms being primary in Vietnam, pushed through the day after the riderless horse was put away.


No doubt Nikita Sergeyevitch must, like Zhao Ziyang, have seen the writing on the wall, that now was no time for doves, but for hawks.


Our friend in a Boston financial house wrote a two-page letter to Robert Caro in 1998 describing a sudden visit the summer of 1963 by Eliot Janeway original Johnson-for-president sponsor and advisor to the 36[SUP]th[/SUP] president. In a rehearsed "hissing" warning inviting no response Janeway indicated what a dangerous man this Kennedy was.


In much the same way seen in Donald Gibson, Battling Wall Street. With Douglass, the military-intelligence danger. Gibson shows the financial aspect.


The replacement of the letter-writing detente-seeking Khrushchev by Leonid Brezhnev in resplendant uniform provides a view to the supranational coup sponsors alluded to by Charles, suggested in Evica's Arrogance, that the international trade in arms operates with an imperative to thrive.


Whenever business is slow a casus belli is never far away. Inconvenient foreign heads of state: regime change. A president overreaching his place: a coup.


Rosoboronexport seeing China orders decline, looks to Chavez and China is happy to aid Pakistan. U.S. remains in Afghanistan and steps up the Mexican game.


Three superstates contending for a neutral quadrilateral. A classic geostrategic game which must remain unspoken.


Yet won't as the hollow men of broadcast die or lose ratings, leaving the revelation of naked empire to citizens' forums where they kahn think about the unthinkable.

[Albert Doyle]

You are looking at the better angels that controlled the assassination, as Douglass illustrates, and not seeing it.

Albert, I truly like your Amazon comment -- with the exception of the sentence quoted above.

Who and what are you referencing?

I guess the good angels of Kennedy and Khrushchev, and those who influenced them, engaged in nuclear war-averting diplomacy, who tried for detente, and the fallen angels of war who stopped them.

[Charles Drago]

I don't mean to be a pain in the ass (I know, it's just my nature), but how did the "better angels" "control" their own removals from power?

[Albert Doyle]

I don't mean to be a pain in the ass (I know, it's just my nature), but how did the "better angels" "control" their own removals from power?

I guess by creating a moral 'edge' of good against the evil tide that moves the current and direction of politics. Sort of like the little difference in the greater stasis that causes galaxies to swirl just like a bath tub drain. As Douglass points out via Merton, once they took a stand for good by preventing nuclear holocaust they were "marked for assassination".

[Charles Drago]

The problem I'm having is with your language.

No need to respond.

[Albert Doyle]

I just had the very rare privilege of speaking to James Douglass over the telephone for 45 minutes in regard to some research I'm doing. Forgive the name-drop but I had to post it because it was a special opportunity for me considering Mr Douglass' importance in the JFK Assassination. Mr Douglass will be releasing his next book on the assassination of Gandhi in February.

[Ed Jewett]

I just had the very rare privilege of speaking to James Douglass over the telephone for 45 minutes in regard to some research I'm doing. Forgive the name-drop but I had to post it because it was a special opportunity for me considering Mr Douglass' importance in the JFK Assassination. Mr Douglass will be releasing his next book on the assassination of Gandhi in February.

Name-dropping is perfectly understandable under the circumstances, particularly if you expressed our collective gratitude to him.

[Albert Doyle]

I didn't mention Deep Politics but I did manage to get the right words, after a few grasps for words, to express that he managed to write a unique book that possessed the resonance of truth. When I said that I could hear Douglass happily respond in reaction as if I got it. I also managed to express that most readers probably don't register the significance of the diplomatic efforts of the Pope with his intervention between the US and Soviets and how he may have prevented a nuclear war. The Pope had a brilliant stroke of diplomatic genius when he worded his letter in such a way as to recognize the humanistic interests of both the Soviets and Americans. The effect of this was making each side respond to his peace efforts because otherwise they would have violated the Pope's description of themselves. The Pope worded the letter in such a way as to make each side want to one-up the other in their pursuit of this prescribed humanism. I also mentioned that Douglass offered something that got around the usual Lone Nutter interference by focusing on the greater political wavelength surrounding Kennedy and how the evidence for the Assassination was seen much more clearly from that perspective. Once he set the scene he then delivered some arcane evidence of CIA involvement, like the Oswald double and Wayne January witnessing, that finished-off any doubt.

I found Mr Douglass very patient and understanding and realized he knew I was a hack researcher but he offered me advice anyway, and sincerely and patiently tried to help me. He has an almost priestly demeanor.