Nelson's LBJ Mastermind book

[Jim DiEugenio]

Here is a link to my discussion of Regicide and the pratfalls of disinformation. It also touches on how JFK's enemies have expanded his affair with Mary Meyer into utter nonsense:

http://www.ctka.net/djm.html

[Peter Presland]

May I comment on two important points being addressed here:
<Snip>

Thanks a bunch for that Jim. VERY impressive stuff if I may say so.

I know you will understand how my apparent defence of RM on the other thread was intended - ie nothing to do with the person and everything to do with the effects that even fully justified anger/exasperation - when clearly dominating a post - has on the less knowledgeable reader; and that's all.

Have you come across the series of articles in the Feb 2010 edition of 'American Behavioral Scientist' ? I commend them as scholarly attempts at development of what is now proposed as the SCAD's framework for studying Scott's 'Deep Politics' - even if from the somewhat specialised perspectives of behavioural scientists.

All six articles are posted here

[Jim DiEugenio]

I had not seen those. Thanks.

[David Sellers]

Do I think Nelson Rockefeller, along with Lyndon Johnson, was deeply involved in the JFK assassination? Damn straight I do. And one reason is the information below. The Rockefellers and the CFR wanted the Vietnam War; John Kennedy did not. The elite players who murdered John Kennedy were doing it for different reasons, both personal and ideological. LBJ's reason for participation was more out of fear of exposure, being politically and personally annihilated by the Kennedys - an event that was imminent in late November, 1963.

Rockefeller and the CIA had OTHER reasons - ideological and I am sure personal as well:

Nelson Rockefeller tells JFK to use TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS
against North Vietnam in 1961!

[James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable, pp. 321-322]

"John Kennedy was turning. The key to understanding Kennedy's presidency, his assassination, and our survival as a species through the Cuban Missile Crisis is that Kennedy was turning towards peace. The signs of his turning are the seeds of his assassination.
Marcus Ruskin worked in the Kennedy Administration as an assistant to National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy. Not long after the Bay of Pigs, Raskin witnessed an incident in the Oval Office that tipped him off to Kennedy's deep aversion to the use of nuclear weapons.
During the president's meeting with a delegation of governors, New York governor Nelson Rockefeller, expressing his irritation at the guerilla tactics of the Viet Cong, said "Why don't we use tactical nuclear weapons against them?"
Raskin, watching Kennedy closely, was in a position to see what happened next. The president's hand began to shake uncontrollably.
JFK said simply, "You know we're not going to do that."
But it was the sudden shaking hand that alerted Raskin to Kennedy's profound uneasiness with nuclear weapons, a mark of conscience that would later turn into a commitment to disarmament"

[James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable, pp. 321-322]

I am just asking this as I am not sure this correct, but if you read books like "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" they make the point that the elite (super-rich) are using peace as a cover for their plans (i.e. disarmament of nuclear weapons) so how do we know JFK's plans of peace were not for this purpose? Could JFK have been targeted by men who did not want the view that is now called the "New World Order"?

Just wondering.

[David Sellers]

That's a very ugly and useless characterization.


I've consulted the Rules of our hosts on this forum. Looks like there's not much else I might want to say that's permitted.

I do have an observation which I hope is not in violation of our civil guidelines:

President Kennedy could control neither the enemies who conspired to kill him nor the quality of his health. Your crude characterizations of his personal life are inaccurate and impolite, and do nothing to further your argument that Lyndon Johnson was the diabolical mastermind of the mother of all conspiracies in which he involved most of the people who were not assassinated in Dealey Plaza on Nov. 22, 1963.

If you have so little respect for President Kennedy's life, why do you concern yourself with the circumstances of his death?

I agree with you Alan and I read on another board by a poster that LBJ used to brag that he got more women by accident than JFK got on purpose! I have heard from secretaries and others that LBJ was way worse than JFK was. I mean, JFK had a horrible back to boot!

[Jim DiEugenio]

Can i ask a question?

There are many, many people who wanted JFK to use tactical nukes against Vietnam. If you watch the documentary Atomic Cafe, you will see a young Lloyd Bentsen doing the same. Hmm, he was from Texas too. Maybe he was in on it?

[David Sellers]

"In fact, JFK's out of control sex life is a big reason John Kennedy was murdered. It was just the opening that allowed Lyndon Johnson and Sam Rayburn to BLACKMAIL Kennedy and FORCE LBJ on the ticket on the night of July 13, 1960 at the Democratic convention in Los Angeles."

I don't mean to "pile on" Mr. Morrow, but this is just not factual to anyone who knows anything about LBJ and Hoover. First of all, LBJ had more open to blackmail him with than JFK did! Remember "Box 13"? Remember how he got the nickname "Landslide Lyndon?"

Secondly, Hoover did not need LBJ to give him anything on JFK as he had been saving stuff for years dating back to JFK sleeping with the Nazi spy (Inga Arvad) so he could have done this himself to save his career and force JFK and RFK from making him retire. I saw one program once that claimed RFK went to Hoover for help with the Profumo affair that supposedly would show JFK was one of the men carrying on with Christine Keeler (who had ties to an alleged Russian spy -- mistress) and in exchange for help the Kennedys had to agree not to force him to retire. I would really love to learn if this is true because at the very least that reason can be removed from the discussion of why Hoover would have participated in the cover-up so thoroughly.

Finally, and most importantly, JFK belonged to a family that far outranked LBJ's background so to think he could outfox him and do this alone is just not correct in my mind. A family like the Rockefellers is another story.

[David Sellers]

Oswald and the CIA, 2008 ed., John M. Newman
Deep Politics ll, 2003 ed., Peter Dale Scott
Our Man In Mexico... 2008, Jefferson Morley
Wilderness of Mirrors, 1980, David C. Martin
JFK and Vietnam, 1992, John M. Newman
JFK and the Unspeakable, 2009, James W.Douglass
Brothers, 2007, David Talbot

These are all good books. Let me add one more that is extremely important: The Dark Side of Camelot by Seymour Hersh. He quotes several Secret Service agents who were disgusted with John Kennedy's sex life...

Not being "moralistic" here, but an *honest* researcher needs to deal with the reality of it and its consequences:

http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Side-Camelot-...0316359556

As for Lyndon Johnson and HIS promiscous sex life ... LBJ once said in contempt that he got more women by accident than Kennedy got on purpose.

I am skeptical of anything Mr. Hersh writes. This is really a newer version of "A Question of Character" by Thomas C. Reeves

It has been said this is the second assassination of JFK and it is meant to make you feel like you shouldn't care he was killed.

I once saw a History Channel show that said he had unbelievably high cholesterol as if to say, "See, he would have dropped dead soon anyway!"

None of this has anything to do with what happened on 11/22/63 IMO.

[Phil Dragoo]

Robert,you evince great energy in the manner of Claudius Ptolemy proponent of the 1400-year-old geocentric concept, whose ever-expanding cycles and epicycles sought to retain its primacy in the face of growing evidence for ellipses, our sun, and the starsoh my.


Jim, you have exploded the legal case against Oswald vis-a-vis Tippit on numerous occasions, and in many ways shown the broken chains of evidence, the corrupted eye witness testimony, the misrepresentations which have propped up the official propaganda.


Charles, you continually indicate the welder did not design the bridge, though each fulfills his function.


I submit the cassus coup was Kennedy-against-the-grain, the lone man in Tiananmen Square standing in front of the column of four tanks, the man the PRC says does not exist.


Each of us represents a facet of the ninety-plus per cent of the American populus who hold an individual J'accuse, a slender volume of deeply-held truth against the ten million words from the Castle on the Plaza.


James Douglass presented the maverick for peace soon marked out for assassination.


The motivation of Ruby I submit was acting on orders from his Chicago roots who'd exiled him for drug-dealing in 1947 with the clear understanding they owned him. His relaxation at the news of Oswald's death was not Jackie-related. And oh yes it is linked, as all of it, back to the real sponsors to be determined.


In the continuum of time we refer to as history the life of a single man has great value.


The life of Kennedy has value todayas it has created a great force resisting the truth of his death.


I submit this as a prime proof of causality excluding the 36th president's characterization as designer or creator of the project.


Bloody, to be sure, but only one man.


So much more could be said of what Greg alluded to with the Regime-Change-R-Us crew, and the sponsors' attempts to confuse indicated by Charles.


And, as with Hunt doing that Donald Sutherland pointing, it all points AWAY from the seat of maximum guilt.



[ATTACH=CONFIG]1645[/ATTACH]

[Kenneth Kapel]

Most certainly Ruby was working on behalf of the Chicago Outfit and other interests, didnt he move to Dallas in 1947 when the Chicago mob was about to take control of the Dallas rackets ?. Jimmy Weinberg told Dallas police chief Guthrie that in late 1946, which Guthrie recorded and presented to the Kefauver committee in 1950 to prove that organzied crime was kept out of Dallas.