JFK describes "The Unthinkable" -- "The High Cabal"

[Stan Wilbourne]

You hiss at the Big Cat, you're gunna get scratched.

[Phil Dragoo]

I read that paragraph from John F. Kennedy's The President and the Press speech and I do not immediately think it parallels the premise of James Douglass' JFK and the Unspeakable: Why he died and why it matters.


For me, it is a Patti Page Old Cape Cod double-tracking of J. Edgar Hoover, Masters of Deceit.


It reads as 1958, not 2008, a half-century of Soren Kierkegaard's rear-view mirror to the contrary notwithstanding.


That's why he's a tragic figure: because we are here looking back shouting, "Duck!"

[Greg Burnham]

You hiss at the Big Cat, you're gunna get scratched.

I've had flies land on me harder than that. Guess what happened to them?

[Charles Drago]

You hiss at the Big Cat, you're gunna get scratched.

I've had flies land on me harder than that. Guess what happened to them?

They most likely mistook you for one of their larvae and flew home relieved.

[Albert Doyle]

JFK was clearly referencing CIA and the military industrial complex.


If you read Douglass, reining-in CIA and covert powers that had gotten loose after WWII were Kennedy's main focus and what got him killed. There's no doubt whatsoever in my mind Kennedy is directly addressing the "unspeakable" in his words.


There's clues in there where he criticized their secret funding and says no democracy should have to bear their offenses. Well, since no democracy has communism within it to bear he's absolutely, therefore speaking of an entity that exists inside democracy.


There's a reason the 'pivotal' CIA took-on Kennedy and killed him.


As a side note I've read things in The Unspeakable that convince me Bundy was in on it and recruited in a similar way as Lodge. This was a miserable coup that was conducted by inside administration members who had turned against the president. That's why they need to keep it at the Mr Rogers level.


.

[Charles Drago]

Ultimately, Albert, this is a matter of interpretation.

All I can offer -- yet again -- is the following caveat: Do not conflate what we know now with what JFK knew then.

Or as Phil Dragoo put it so memorably:

["The JFK quote] reads as 1958, not 2008, a half-century of Soren Kierkegaard's rear-view mirror to the contrary notwithstanding.

"That's why he's a tragic figure: because we are here looking back shouting, 'Duck!'"

The catharses brought about by Dallas are, thank God, powerful and lasting. But they came at the most terrible price, and to understand and benefit from them you must understand the nature of the place from which they carried us.

I have no problem whatsoever in agreeing that JFK and a handful of others in power here and around the world (Nikita Khrushchev, for instance) had more than an inkling of the Unspeakable -- but far, far less than a sophisticated understanding of the forces aligned against them sufficient to inspire the crafting and the delivery of the subtext some hear/read in these words of JFK.

I again remind you of RFK's post-Dallas "I thought I knew how the word worked, but I didn't" line. It took the murder of his brother to bring RFK to enlightenment.

JFK's enlightenment has come in another place.

I reiterate that the issue at hand is a matter of informed opinion. As I've written in the introductions to all of my DPF "hypotheses" threads, there are no certainties attached to those arguments. But there are probabilities to be assigned based on related empirical data.

Show me evidence from the established record that JFK had a sophisticated understanding of the forces James Douglass describes as the "Unspeakable."

Finally: Much earlier in this thread (posts 22 and 23 respectively), Greg Burnham and I politely agreed to respect each other's differing interpretations. "I suppose we'll just disagree on this one, Charles. That's OK, though," he wrote.

I responded, "Indeed it is, Greg. From impassioned, informed, honorable disagreement there arises tested, enlightened concensus."

And so I chose to leave it. Until Greg felt obliged to go all psychobabble on me.

I responded by putting him in his place, and again I tried to walk away. Then came his "fly landing on [him]" post of earlier today. Again I felt obliged to spank him, and so I did.

This sort of exchange between two would-be/should-be allies is most troubling -- especially insofar as nothing of scholarly substance seems to have been behind its initiation.

I won't prolong the exchange, but I shall reserve the right to respond in force to any additional kamikaze attacks by Greg or anyone else.

As always, Albert, I value your contributions -- even when we disagree.

Charles

[Greg Burnham]

I suppose I re-entered the fray in response to what is, in my opinion, an ill advised tone of condescension. Although the post was not aimed at me, directly, still the tone of superiority over those who would dare disagree with the conclusion reached by its author was more than I chose to ignore.

The judgment from "on high" that: "The hell he did" and the exclamation of "poppycock" to describe another's well informed opinion is, in my estimation, not conducive to civil discourse.

None here are the sole authority on the subject. None here can claim that the death of the 35th president impacted them more than it impacted another. None here can claim that they have a monopoly on the truth. And, I would hope that none here are considered, nor do they consider themselves to be, sacred cows.

I agree that I certainly make a much better ally than adversary. However, I will not be bullied or silenced by a "wave of the hand" in any event. I will accept that we simply disagree on this one. That's fine. However, I will object when I believe that the "big kid on the block" is declaring victory when his opponent hasn't even thrown a punch.

[Charles Drago]

"Civil discourse" is but one of many means toward an end.

We are at war. We have a common enemy who is not noted for its display of tender mercies. If "poppycock" offends you, you might be best served by contributing to the war effort from other than a front-line position.

In any event: You do it your way, I'll do it mine.

If my language offends you, avoid reading it.

In the meantime: I shall not presume to take you to task for your methods.

And I won't tolerate being taken to task for mine.

Got it?

As for your sermon:

"None here are the sole authority on the subject. None here can claim that the death of the 35th president impacted them more than it impacted another. None here can claim that they have a monopoly on the truth. And, I would hope that none here are considered, nor do they consider themselves to be, sacred cows."

Amen.

I think we're clear.

Hatchet buried.

[Greg Burnham]

I agree we're at war, but not with each other. I agree we should bury the hatchet, but not in each other.

eom

[Charles Drago]

Again ...

Amen.