A Coup Against or By the State?

[Stan Wilbourne]

The forces that killed JFK, I think, have ownership of the government - they control it - but they are not of it.

A study of the Federal Reserve and how it was formed and by whom relates very much to Kennedy's murder. Executive Order 11110, which was signed with the authority to basically strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest, may have been part of the reason, but certainly not the entire reason.

Those that ordered the murder never came close to getting their hands dirty with the crime. After making the decision they didn't have to touch a thing.

This comes from Peter Dale Scott and is key, I think, to understanding the assassination:

Group 1 wants a certain president gone from office, before he can be re-elected and make radical changes that move them from the control they have enjoyed and want to continue. They wish another person as president, one that could possibly be president for even more than 8 years. They feel this other person can either be controlled or is so corrupt he is already controlled.

So they find an enemy of the president (Group 2) and give them direction emotionally and physically toward their already strong desires to also get rid of this president (JFK) and his brother, the Attorney General, whom they hate.

Group 2 (Intelligence/Rightwing/Oil group) finds Group 3 (Anti-Castro Cubans) and give them direction emotionally and physically toward their already stong desires to get rid of this president. This group thinks they have it over Group 2 because the Attorney General is helping them with their cause against their enemy (Castro).

Group 3 is suspicious of Group 2 and sets up a patsy (same patsy created by Group 2) to not only be patsied but to blame the assassination on their other enemy. Two birds with one stone.

Group 1 is aware but has no plans to let Group 3's plan succeed. After the assassination, they drop Group 3 and follow through with the new president.

Group 2 moves on to greener pastures.

Group 3 is pissed and continues to try to blame the assassination on their other enemy (Castro).

Group 1 has moved on to greener pastures.

Now if Group 2 is "Intelligence/Rightwing/Oil," who is Group 1?

John Perkins has two books out now that I think greatly relate to Kennedy's murder and what goes on beyond the curtain: "The Secret History of the American Empire" and "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man."

His interviews are all over the 'net. Here are a few:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...9182&hl=en

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...4813&hl=en

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...9897&hl=en

Kennedy is never mentioned by name in any of these videos, but after watching you come away with a far better understanding of how the world is run, what the U.S. empire is really about and how it does business. Murdering leaders who don't cooperate with the business model is all part of the plan.

[David Guyatt]

Although Stan, "Group 1" has still not been openly identified as the other 2 groups are also businessmen and business oriented. So who is Group 1 do you think?

[Stan Wilbourne]

Hi David. Rockefeller, Morgan, Warburg, Rothschild.

[Charles Drago]

Stan,

Many thanks for joining us and for your most thought-provoking contributions. Some comments follow.

The forces that killed JFK, I think, have ownership of the government - they control it - but they are not of it.

If I may paraphrase: Those forces govern in the broadest sense, but they are not to be found within the over-government as advertised.

Those that ordered the murder never came close to getting their hands dirty with the crime. After making the decision they didn't have to touch a thing.

These are the "Sponsors" of whom Evica and I have written. And yes, their hands are clean and uncalloused and stink of death.

This comes from Peter Dale Scott and is key, I think, to understanding the assassination:

Group 2 (Intelligence/Rightwing/Oil group) finds Group 3 (Anti-Castro Cubans) and give them direction emotionally and physically toward their already stong desires to get rid of this president. This group thinks they have it over Group 2 because the Attorney General is helping them with their cause against their enemy (Castro).

Group 3 is suspicious of Group 2 and sets up a patsy (same patsy created by Group 2) to not only be patsied but to blame the assassination on their other enemy. Two birds with one stone.

Here's where I have the temerity to part company with Professor Scott: I have great difficulty in ascribing to Group 3 the requisite resources (including that of nerve) to alter so significantly the Group 2 plan. Even if, out of a well-reasoned expectation of betrayal, they had tried to set up a multi-purpose patsy, their masters almost by definition would have discovered the plan and either quashed it or taken advantage of it.

In fact, such a move by Group 3 would have been all too predictable. There is a far better than even chance that Group 2 "Facilitators," as Evica and I label them, had plans in place to deal with just this contingency -- or perhaps they manipulated Group 3 into making the move so as to control it.

We also need to recognize that the anti-Castro Cubans, so driven by emotion and so unsophisticated in the grander schemes of life, must have been kept on a short leash. They would not have been given full responsibility for the "mechanical" aspects of the hit, for instance; the hunters of humans who fired on JFK were the best of their lot and beyond Gusano reach.

Murdering leaders who don't cooperate with the business model is all part of the plan.

"Business model" is a fine, eloquent, but incomplete description of that which was mortally threatened by JFK.

I submit that there was what I'll refer to as a spiritual motivation behind the assassination -- one that was inextricably linked to the economic profit/power maintenance motives.

[Charles Drago]

Hi David. Rockefeller, Morgan, Warburg, Rothschild.

Quite right, I'd say.

Sounds like the starting infield on Satan's baseball team.

[David Guyatt]

I most certainly think that David Rockerfeller forms part of the east coast elite - as well as having a foot in the "Cowboys" camp, but I really must cast considerable doubt on the names advanced as members of Group 1 and being culprits of the JFK assassination.

JP Morgan died in 1913, well before JFK got hit. Ditto Warburg who died in 1932. The Rothchilds family are still a power, but even they get assassinated from time to time (witness the strange suiciding (sic) of Amschel Rothchilds in the room of the Hotel Bristol in Paris in 1996 - with fingers pointed to a Russian oligarch for responsibility) and so are not the complete power some still believe.

What, I think your list of names suggest relates more to the founding of the Federal Reserve Bank at Jekyll Island circa 1910, than to the death of JFK. The ownership of the Fed has come under much scrutiny over the decades but it is a clear fact the Fed system is owned lock, stock and still-smoking barrel by the US banking industry and not a collection of powerful families.

Besides, Peter Dale Scott is far to able a writer and researcher to place these names in his Group 1.

[Charles Drago]

David,

"Families" rule the world.

So Morgan and Warburg might make sense if you read those names not as references to individuals, but rather to familial -- in the broad sense -- interests.

Is that any better?

[David Guyatt]

I do think that there are very powerful families - I'm just not certain that they who were once powerful always remain powerful.

I would be more than interested to know if Peter Dale Scott actually identified this "Group 1". It's been decades since I read his JFK book and I don't recall him naming any of these families...

[Charles Drago]

To the best of my knowledge, neither Scott nor Evica -- nor anyone else with credentials sufficient to make plausible charges -- has named names.

At least not publicly.

But I may be wrong on this.

[Dawn Meredith]

To the best of my knowledge, neither Scott nor Evica -- nor anyone else with credentials sufficient to make plausible charges -- has named names.

At least not publicly.

But I may be wrong on this.

I do not think that it is possible that we will ever be able to name names with certainty. For the hisorical record to be changed and preserved what needs to be illuminated is who did not do it. Starting with LHO.
If only we had a less complicit media.
Dawn