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

[Stan Wilbourne]

I am addicted to the case of JFK's murder. It haunts me. Perhaps it's like Phil stated. You're looking back, wishing you could say, "Duck!" Maybe some of it is you just want to save the man, and in the process save the best of ourselves. We've lost something big. How can we get it back?

I read all of these JFK forums. I allow more time for them than I probably should. I know the personalites that post on them. I have spun projections that seem to make me feel as if I know a lot of the characters. There are many I admire and am thankful for; they have taught and continue to teach me a lot about this case and the country where I live.

I admit to being entertained by some of the drama that goes on: "As the Assassination Research Turns," I suppose.

Charles is obviously an interesting man. To me it seems as if he's a person of a large intellect and who just doesn't have time for the nonsense that can sometimes swirls around the murder of John Kennedy - and upfront apologies, Charles, for my amateur analysis of you. Fifty years. "Let's get with it people," seems to be the underlying mantra.

When I first stared studying this case, I frequented the Rich Dellarosa forum, way back in the day. What a cast of characters, a fascinating place.

I remember at one point I thought I had it all figured out (as I often have over the years, only to see my conclusion morph and turn into something else). I was convinced Allen Dulles had ordered Kennedy's murder.

When I posted something about that on Rich's forum, Greg Burnham responded, "Allen Dulles took orders, he didn't give them." That was an epiphany for me and lead me down another path of study. For me, it's stuff like that that make these forums worthwhile. I'm sure I would've gotten to where I am eventually in my view of the assassination, but Greg helped shave some time off the clock, and I was/am appreciative.

Charles is the stern task master, and this is his turf. He demands a lot, but he gives a lot as well. Impassioned intelligence isn't always right, but it is a bright light to follow. I don't care much who holds the lantern; it's the light that's important.

This forum is growing, and there is a great gathering of minds to share perceptions and information. Duking it out is okay. It's what happens when people passionately care about something. Just know who is your family. Just come home at the end of the day.

[Charles Drago]

I was convinced Allen Dulles had ordered Kennedy's murder.

When I posted something about that on Rich's forum, Greg Burnham responded, "Allen Dulles took orders, he didn't give them." That was an epiphany for me and lead me down another path of study. For me, it's stuff like that that make these forums worthwhile. I'm sure I would've gotten to where I am eventually in my view of the assassination, but Greg helped shave some time off the clock, and I was/am appreciative.

Stan,

Greg was absolutely on-target with his Dulles response. Contrary to what I wrote in the heat of "battle," I think of him as a gifted and committed-to-truth researcher. And no, he doesn't need me to confirm what his own work demonstrates.

Fifty years. "Let's get with it people," seems to be [Charles's] underlying mantra.

Charles is the stern task master, and this is his turf. He demands a lot, but he gives a lot as well. Impassioned intelligence isn't always right, but it is a bright light to follow. I don't care much who holds the lantern; it's the light that's important.

I appreciate your very kind words. And you too are on-target with your assessment of the core principle of my JFK assassination research.

But I must note for the record that DPF is not "my turf" any more than it is Greg's or your turf. It belongs to all who visit and contribute.

At the heart of the Burnham/Drago disagreement, I think, were our respective, conflicting views on the limits of productive discourse here and on other public forums. Greg, a gentleman, demands civility. I value such an approach, but no more or less than I value, say, bellicosity within a broad range of rhetorical weaponry in our arsenal.

Anyway, thanks again for your support. And thanks for being here with us on DPF.

Best,

Charles

[Albert Doyle]

The "addiction" is the fact pure evil can be exposed and a source of world corruption can be defeated by addressing that which has entrenched itself, and come to define itself by, that which was the intended result of the Kennedy Coup. I think it's more than clear that some very evil people in positions of power define that power as their ability to maintain this evil deception. They define themselves by their killing of Kennedy. We're like the loyal subjects of a fallen king who was wickedly betrayed and murdered with his evil counterpart still on the throne telling us how grateful we should be to live in such a kingdom.


.

[Bernice Moore]

Stan I recognize the name, good to see you onboard, welcome...best b

[Stan Wilbourne]

Thanks, Bernice. Very much appreciated.

I thanked you on another thread for the resources you provide on these forums. Don't know if you saw it. If not, thanks Bernice!

[Greg Burnham]

Stan,

I appreciate your post very much. Thank you. I also appreciate Charles' reply to it.

It would be disingenuous for me to claim that I have never "in the heat of battle" been less than a gentleman. It has happened in the past and it may occur in the future due to the passion that is expressed by those of us who care deeply and perhaps become somewhat carried away by the moment. However, I believe that my tolerance for the diversity displayed among sincere researchers has increased over the years and I am better off for it. But, that's just me. Perhaps the opposite or different approach is better suited to Charles--and that's just him. Again, diversity is tolerable, in my opinion--indeed it is desirable--and therefore I respect his approach even though it is not the same as mine.

I think that one reason that I have become more tolerant is because Rich DellaRosa pointed out to me that sometimes the intensity of my response to those with a more fragile confidence level than I may have caused them to withdraw from sharing their research, and some of that research turned out to be very worthwhile, notwithstanding the portion that we disagreed on. That revelation caused me to engage in some rather deep self evaluation and alter my approach to those with whom I disagreed on details. However, I know it's not my "job" to persuade anyone else to adopt such an approach.

Having said that, a point of clarification is in order. I re-read this thread and realized that perhaps more was "read into" my post than what I actually wrote and more than what I actually believe. I didn't address it earlier and therefore part, if not all, of this avoidable conflict was not averted. Namely, I did not mean to imply that JFK was speaking about those that he believed or anticipated were going to murder him! I didn't even realize that was the impression that several gleaned from my post. I think it started with Jack and I failed to clarify my position after his post.

In my view, JFK was not speaking directly or consciously about the forces he suspected would kill him. If that was the impression anyone got from my post please read it again with the view that I was speaking of a "global silent secret force" beyond communism, etc. -- In retrospect, I could have clarified that much sooner. Either way, thanks to all who participated in this thread. And thanks for having me.

[Greg Burnham]

The "addiction" is the fact pure evil can be exposed and a source of world corruption can be defeated by addressing that which has entrenched itself, and come to define itself by, that which was the intended result of the Kennedy Coup. I think it's more than clear that some very evil people in positions of power define that power as their ability to maintain this evil deception. They define themselves by their killing of Kennedy. We're like the loyal subjects of a fallen king who was wickedly betrayed and murdered with his evil counterpart still on the throne telling us how grateful we should be to live in such a kingdom.


.

Well said, Albert. Jim Garrison once said in a speech that:

[paraphrased] "It is in the interest of your government to make you believe that you live in the best of all possible worlds."

[Charles Drago]

I was speaking of a "global silent secret force" beyond communism, etc. -- In retrospect, I could have clarified that much sooner. Either way, thanks to all who participated in this thread. And thanks for having me.

Greg,

Perhaps we agree substantively here.

I too would argue that JFK was aware that the East v. West paradigm of global conflict was, shall we say, other than all-inclusive in terms of the "sides" it asked us to choose between.

I'm less confident in my efforts to quantify that awareness.

What did the president know about what we now term the Unspeakable, and when did he know it?

I don't know for certain. All I'm doing here is stating that there is nothing about the quote under evaluation that would convince me that it is a cleverly worded, subtext-rich message in which he reveals a deep understanding of the forces aligned against us all.

This in and of itself tells us nothing of the level of JFK's understanding of the Unspeakable.

But again, JFK was at a disadvantage: His grasp of the Unspeakable never was informed by deep political study of the events of 11/22/63.

[Greg Burnham]

I was speaking of a "global silent secret force" beyond communism, etc. -- In retrospect, I could have clarified that much sooner. Either way, thanks to all who participated in this thread. And thanks for having me.

Greg,

Perhaps we agree substantively here.

I too would argue that JFK was aware that the East v. West paradigm of global conflict was, shall we say, other than all-inclusive in terms of the "sides" it asked us to choose between.

I'm less confident in my efforts to quantify that awareness.

What did the president know about what we now term the Unspeakable, and when did he know it?

I don't know for certain. All I'm doing here is stating that there is nothing about the quote under evaluation that would convince me that it is a cleverly worded, subtext-rich message in which he reveals a deep understanding of the forces aligned against us all.

This in and of itself tells us nothing of the level of JFK's understanding of the Unspeakable.

But again, JFK was at a disadvantage: His grasp of the Unspeakable never was informed by deep political study of the events of 11/22/63.

Charles,

Our respective views are apparently not nearly as far apart as they may have at first appeared.

[David Sellers]

"For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match..."

-- from JFK's "The President and the Press" speech

Couldn't he simply be speaking about the Communist systems in Russia and China (and elsewhere)?