The JFK Plot: A Structural Model

[John Kowalski]

John,

Let's feel free to continue this exchange.

I daresay that alleged Sponsors of the assassination have been "identifed" in scores -- if not hundreds -- of books.

Few authors have bothered to propose viable structures for the conspiracy, however, and even fewer have taken the time to understand and define the natures and roles of the institutions and individuals they would indict as sponsors.

A prime example: "The CIA did it!" is as, naive, simple-minded, and even nonsensical a statement as any ever made about the events of 11/22/63.

Charlie

Charles:

Are you suggesting a broad coalition, whose problems could be solved by a common solution, the asassination of JFK, or do you see the US Establishment as a cohesive entity, which isssues edicts from its council chambers?

John

John,

"US Establishment" is a fictive construct in terms of the world-historic events at Dealey Plaza.

The "establishment" in this case is global.

No "council chambers." What we struggle to identify and quantify is far more subtle and encompassing than any novelistic/Hollywood "star chamber" narrative device.

Charles:

I am surprised, this is the first time that I had read anything that suggested that the plot was not solely a US controlled operation.

Khrushchev's downfall related to this in anyway?

Do you believe that intelligence agencies, organized crime, the drug trade being controlled or directed in some way by the sponsors?

Do you have a metaphor to describe this organization?

John

[Charles Drago]

John,

The answers to cui bono in this case lead us far beyond U.S. shores. And the removal of Khrushchev from power is, in my relatively informed opinion, not accidental in its timing vis a vis the far bloodier removal of Kennedy.

To begin the process of exploring this hypothesis, we must reject the notion of a monolithic Soviet power structure -- again, a fictive construct central to the Cold War propaganda that itself was a key component in the operations to maintain anti-Soviet fears and tensions among Western populations.

Rival factions and philosophies within ostensibly cohesive political/philosophical structures were present in both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. during the period we study. They were alive and well in "Castro's" Cuba, too. As they are today.

Although it's a dangerous journey, I suggest that you make your way throught Joseph J. Trento's The Secret History of the CIA. If you can avoid stepping on disinformation mines, you will find clues that in time will lead you into the belly of the beast. Dick Russell's superb The Man Who Knew Too Much cannot be fully appreciated until its evidence to support my contentions is contemplated. And of course A Certain Arrogance, by George Michael Evica, directly and powerfully addresses this issue (for the latter, wait until the TrineDay edition is released sometime this summer).

And you could do worse than watch The Package -- arguably the most revealing and well-informed fictional reimagining of the JFK assassination, and a most profound dramatization of the non-national (as opposed to international) forces behind the events of 11/22/63.

You ask if I "believe that intelligence agencies, organized crime, the drug trade [were] controlled or directed in some way by the sponsors".

If you meant to add "during the formulation, execution, and cover-up of the assassination," my answer is "yes."

Then again, it would be "yes" even if you didn't.

As for metaphors: They abound in our areas of study, from puppet masters to octopuses. Take your pick.

Hope this helps.

[Vasilios Vazakas]

Right church, wrong pew.

As in pew the object or as in Pew the man?

[Charles Drago]

Right church, wrong pew.

As in pew the object or as in Pew the man?

This is a very long thread. Please direct me to the post from which you quote me.

[Vasilios Vazakas]

I do apologize, it was a long time since you said it, here is the page

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...odel/page2

[Phil Dragoo]

John Kowalski at #61 asks:


Khrushchev's downfall related to this in anyway?



I've just read the Trineday edition of George Michael Evica, A Certain Arrogance. The actions of the Dulles brothers seem always to benefit clients other than the Constitution and those elected under its structure.


From James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable, and now as I read Donald Gibson, Battling Wall Street: The Kennedy Presidency, it's clear how against-the-grain was the life's work of John Kennedy.


It was only a matter of time until that stone was taken from the shoe.


His secret correspondence with Nikita S. Khrushchev was known by CIA and KGB. Certainly the work of Angleton, Phillips, Helms (as Charles named) was impressive to that Khrushchev who responded to Leonid Brezhnev's October 1964 Surprise with, I am old and I will go.


With Kennedy, we can't be leaving Vietnam with its access to the Golden Triangle and its gold mine for Brown & Root, Bell Helicopter, et cetera. It wasn't how things were doneLodge and Lansdale showed how the cow ate the cabbage. The Brothers Dulles had it down. They served their clients well.


With the Soviet Union there was a need for an external enemy to drive the impetus to totalitarian obedience, and the arms industry. Khrushchev's liberal ideas of less guns more butter wasn't going to preserve the glorious motherland.


In a similar fashion the objections of Zhao Ziyang to the massacre of 2,000 students in Tiananmen Square won him fifteen years of house arrest courtesy of Li Peng and Deng Xiaoping. Strike Hard, not the glasnost and perestroika of Gorbachev.


To protect the game, the house will enforce the rules. The house wins, though the people are led to believe they may win. They are called whales. If they expose the house, they are harpooned.


In 1984 O'Brien tells Winston Smith ideology no longer figures. Power it is and nothing else. Just as in Hasty's Paranoid Shift.


And yet paranoid is not apt.


"a psychosis characterized by systematic delusions of persecution"


The media is complicit in the crimes of the power structure and obedient in its dictate to humiliate and ridicule those exposing the nature of said power structure.


"Conspiracy" hissed George Herbert Walker Bush.


Posner had defended Karzai of charges he was a CIA puppet and a drug lord. When the latter got too hot he was assassinated. General Petreus is rotated into Langley, as Panetta is moved to the Pentagon (Gates having served in both venues for Bush and Obamaseemingly disparate).


Gates and Brzezinski wrote the 2004 CFR paper Iran: Time for a New Approach.


This feeds into Brzezinski's later counseling against destabilizing Iran.


The Center of Gravity is not the presidency. There was an aberration with the 35th president which had to be corrected.

[Vasilios Vazakas]

Speaking of Sponsors, False Sponsors and Facilitators, in which of these categories would you place the following 3 individuals?
1. Percival Brundage
2. Frederick Henry Osborne
3. J. Howard Pew

[Vasilios Vazakas]

Since noone seems to have an opinion regarding the above question, i'll make a guess.

1. Percival Brundage - Facilitator
2. Frederick Henry Osborne - Facilitator
3. J. Howard Pew - Sponsor

[Charles Drago]

The Pew-Sunoco/Rockefeller nexus is indeed interesting. And your classification of Pew as a Sponsor gets to the core of our shared dilemma.

The support by Pew and his family of radical Republican/conservative agendas present either as commitments to the anti-communist world crusade OR as commitments to continuation of the Cold War deception.

Or both, depending upon which members of the Pew family we're talking about.

I would submit that by definition, Cold War true believers could not rise above the Facilitator level. Do you follow this logic?

[Vasilios Vazakas]

I follow your logic. Military people are the Cold warriors that are always manipulated by the elite.
H.L.Hunt was the same. CIA officers along with military officres thought that by killing Kennedy they'll have their way with Cuba. But the International elite has to be in good terms with the military and their warmongering, to achieve their goals. It's a balance of power.

In a previous thread titled "the JFK assasination grand chess board"
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...HESS+BOARD

i wrote about Pew and his relationship with the Rockefellers. You did not comment then so i don't know if you agree with my analysis.