The Chicago Plot: A Hypothesis

[Lauren Johnson]

Charles, if I understand you correctly, I believe one of the best expressions of the sponsor/facilitator model came from a well-known facilitator, Henry Killinger.

In 1966, prior to entering the Nixon administration, Henry Kissinger wrote an article for the journal Daedalus in which he proclaimed the modern era as "the age of the expert," and went on to explain: "The expert has his constituency those who have a vested interest in commonly held opinions; elaborating and defining its consensus at a high level has, after all, made him an expert." [7] In other words, the "expert" serves entrenched and established power structures and elites ("those who have a vested interest in commonly held opinions"), and the role of such an expert is to define and elaborate the "consensus" of elite interests. Thus, experts, as Henry Kissinger defines them, serve established elites.
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...#post69430

There is probably more to the model than this quote, but it is certainly fascinating to see how it is embraced from those on the inside.

[Charles Drago]

Charles, if I understand you correctly, I believe one of the best expressions of the sponsor/facilitator model came from a well-known facilitator, Henry Killinger.

In 1966, prior to entering the Nixon administration, Henry Kissinger wrote an article for the journal Daedalus in which he proclaimed the modern era as "the age of the expert," and went on to explain: "The expert has his constituency those who have a vested interest in commonly held opinions; elaborating and defining its consensus at a high level has, after all, made him an expert." [7] In other words, the "expert" serves entrenched and established power structures and elites ("those who have a vested interest in commonly held opinions"), and the role of such an expert is to define and elaborate the "consensus" of elite interests. Thus, experts, as Henry Kissinger defines them, serve established elites.
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...#post69430

There is probably more to the model than this quote, but it is certainly fascinating to see how it is embraced from those on the inside.

"Killinger" -- I love it -- indeed should be viewed as a proto-Facilitator.

[Jan Klimkowski]

Charles, if I understand you correctly, I believe one of the best expressions of the sponsor/facilitator model came from a well-known facilitator, Henry Killinger.

In 1966, prior to entering the Nixon administration, Henry Kissinger wrote an article for the journal Daedalus in which he proclaimed the modern era as "the age of the expert," and went on to explain: "The expert has his constituency those who have a vested interest in commonly held opinions; elaborating and defining its consensus at a high level has, after all, made him an expert." [7] In other words, the "expert" serves entrenched and established power structures and elites ("those who have a vested interest in commonly held opinions"), and the role of such an expert is to define and elaborate the "consensus" of elite interests. Thus, experts, as Henry Kissinger defines them, serve established elites.
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...#post69430

There is probably more to the model than this quote, but it is certainly fascinating to see how it is embraced from those on the inside.

A perfect example of the supposed "expert" serving "entrenched and established power structures and elites" is Francis Fukuyama and his truly ridiculous, yet widely lauded, End of History hypothesis.

[Gordon Gray]

I have to wonder how these sponsors managed to get on the same page as to the goals of this plot. Did they meet in some clandestine gentlemen's club per the film Executive Action? It seems to me that the sponsors were a disparate group with varying agenda's in relation to an assassination. Wall Street wanted to keep the Federal Reserve and most likely the business coming from a policy of opposing wars of liberation. Big Oil wanted to keep the Oil depletion allowance. Right wing extremists wanted an end to the Civil Rights movement and the commie Kennedy. The military right wanted Cuba and a confrontation with the Soviets because they believed they could wipe them out and end the cold war. The intelligence community wanted to oust Castro and stop the importation of wars of liberation in Latin America. The Mob wanted payback for Joe Kennedy's betrayal and back into Cuba for drugs prostitution and gambling interests. If they were all of one mind, why was Phillips still pushing the Oswald Mexico City thing even after the formation of the Warren Commission?

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.

If you'll agree to work within the context above, we can enjoy a most fruitful exchange, included in which would be my answer to your question posed above and reprinted here:

"If they were all of one mind, why was Phillips still pushing the Oswald Mexico City thing even after the formation of the Warren Commission?"

Looking forward to it.

The facilitators are very clear to me as are the mechanics. But I would like some concrete examples of sponsors to better understand how you view them. My main question is why should it be assumed that they were in complete concert as the aims and outcomes of the assassination. I used Phillips as an example of a facilitator who was pursuing a direction that would seem to be at odds with a LN explanation that furthered the interests of some sponsors, e.g. the profits accrued from opposition to wars of liberation.

[Charles Drago]

The facilitators are very clear to me as are the mechanics. But I would like some concrete examples of sponsors to better understand how you view them. My main question is why should it be assumed that they were in complete concert as the aims and outcomes of the assassination.

Thanks, Gordon.

I suspect you may be conflating Sponsor and Facilitator.

It is in the latter category where we find individuals and groups whose agendas often were, if not in direct conflict, then at least superficially irrelevant to each others' goals.

And as we know, some of those goals proved to be unattainable in the wake of the assassination.

So we are left to ponder: How were, for example, the most virulent anti-Castro Cubans who wittingly provided highly compartmentalized facilitation and unwittingly were patsied as (False) Sponsors, mollified when they realized that they would not be marching through a liberated Havana?

Given how some of them ended up, directly or indirectly, doing dirty work for American interests post-Dallas, we can speculate that their disappointment was mitigated by financial opportunity. I would make an informed guess that others were either blackmailed (on the strength of their False Sponsor status) into submission or ... dealt with.

Other Facilitators, such as powerful interests within the military-industrial complex and elements of Organized Crime, were paid off in the forms of prolonged conflict in Southeast Asia and protected new sources for the raw materials of narcotics respectively.

But I digress.


I'm afraid that you've lost me with the following passage:

I used Phillips as an example of a facilitator who was pursuing a direction that would seem to be at odds with a LN explanation that furthered the interests of some sponsors, e.g. the profits accrued from opposition to wars of liberation.

Would you kindly be more forthcoming in terms of Phillips's "direction" in this context?

I would like some concrete examples of sponsors ...

So would I.

The best I can do at this point in time in terms of identifying Sponsors 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." [emphasis added for this post]

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."



That's as close as I can get: "masters [who] were above Cold War differences."

I hope this helps. Please, let's continue the dialogue.