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

[Ed Jewett]

I am going to poke my neck out a little bit but before anyone takes a hack at it, let me offer a few caveats.

First, I don't pretend to be a serious, deep, long-term reader, researcher or investigator of Jack Kennedy or his Presidency or his assassination (or, for that matter, much of anything).

Second, I admit and preface the thoughts I am about to express with the prior acknowledgement that, in many ways, I am out of my league. I do like to read a lot, akin to rummaging around; once in a while, I dig a little deeper. Having just read most of this thread from start to finish, having read JFKU, "A Certain Arrogance", and having recently begun a deep foray into the topic of secret societies, I would like to disagree with the idea that JFK's "secret societies" speech was solely about communism. I'll admit at this point I don't have much ammunition with which to fight the battle.

But the thoughts I will express are these:

1) Keep the subject and one's minds open.

2) Recognize that JFK, for all his puerile goofiness and charm at any early age, was a pretty smart fellow. [Gosh, we're still studying the cognitive arts to understand how the human persona knows what it knows.]

3) Acknowledge that JFK attended Choate.

4) Acknowledge that Skull and Bones was invested, one might say infested, with many, many wealthy, elite graduates of elite preparatory schools, most of which were built on a foundation of Protestantism.

5) Ask yourself (and look deeply for evidence -- I just did a scan of the 'net for an hour) about JFK's familial milieu as a Catholic, and the bias against Catholics that existed at that time.

6) Recognize his father's quest to fit into that elite society; despite his wealth and his position, and his ability rub elbows with them, did he still feel an outcast, and did he transmit this to his son?

7) Read Millegan and Sutton on Skull and Bones and spend enough time perusing the membership lists to appreciate that many of the Knights of Chapter 322 went back to prep school as teachers, headmasters, etc., as well as into schools, churches, pulpits, colleges and universities, as well as other basic social institutions. Avery Dulles graduated from Choate a year after Kennedy did. The attitudes of the Dulles milieu toward religion have been noted.

8) Ask yourself about the degree of comfort JFK did or did not feel with regard to his schooling at Canterbury and Choate (where are the sources?!), recognizing that he perhaps did not have the grades to get into Yale, but that nevertheless he had attended the same school and the same types of schools that served as feeder institutions to S&B, and that he may have felt some animosity for a variety of reasons, perhaps adolescent, perhaps carried into manhood.

9) Recognize that he grew up in New England, and may have been exposed to some of the early literature, history and apprehension there since 1790 about the Bavarian Illuminati.

10) Recognize that "In 1939 [while his father was the United States Ambassador to the Court of St. James's (the United Kingdom) in London], Kennedy toured Europe, the Soviet Union, the Balkans, and the Middle East in preparation for his Harvard senior honors thesis. He then went to Czechoslovakia and Germany before returning to London on September 1, 1939, the day Germany invaded Poland." Are there any writings, journals, correspondence or history from this time? Yes, of course, he wrote his thesis on appeasement which became "Why England Slept" when he returned. Is it possible that he learned, read, or otherwise absorbed the European historical aura and literature of secret societies, or gleaned some larger sense of the forces at work there?

11) Given that JFK "rubbed elbows" (and I use that term very loosely and without definitive evidence of proximal relationship) with people who went on to serve inside intelligence agencies, publications, cultural institutions and who came from wealth which was dominantly in support of Republican dominance; given that his father [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_P._Kennedy,_Sr] was a banker and stockbroker and the first Chairman* of the Securities and Exchange Commission (1934-35) and that the Skull and Bones crowd -- even if he didn't know them for their having been tapped -- was "trading with the enemy"; given that his dad said "Democracy is finished in England. It may be here, [in the US]."[6] [Boston Globe, 11/10/40], that his Dad was allied with McCarthy, that his dad had controversial views on Jews, that his dad-- according to Wikipedia but without attribution -- "was invested as a knight of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta", and that his dad had an affair with Claire Booth Luce [Henry's wife]**: Did he perhaps reflect on some of this at one time or another but fail to express it then in ways and language we'd recognize today?

In summary, I don't think the question is closed.


* "After Franklin Roosevelt called Joe to Washington, D.C. to clean up the securities industry, somebody asked FDR why he had tapped such a crook. "Takes one to catch one," replied Roosevelt.[23] Kennedy's reforming work as SEC Chairman was widely praised on all sides, as investors realized the SEC was protecting their interests. His knowledge of the financial markets equipped him to identify areas requiring the attention of regulators. One of the crucial reforms was the requirement for companies to regularly file financial statements with the SEC, which broke what some saw as an information monopoly maintained by the Morgan banking family."

** Is there information on this? Who initiated it? How did it come about?

[Seamus Coogan]

Seamus,

I don't want the blood to boil again on this topic, but the quote in your previous post is beyond absurd.

Lol, no danger of 'blood boiling' here. I'm not getting at anyone or proving a point. I just think it's an interesting idea and I'm sure Gregs got a good answer for it. Of course we do need sources and if Al can come up with some that would be interesting. But I imagine Greg will point out that dear old Bundy was pretty tooled up in the Eastern Establishment anyhow. If anything CD I jumped the gun on GB awhile back before I'd had the chance to hear him out.

As for the rest of what you said. Im not sure if its directed at me or the general populace because I do agree with you 100 percent on the issue of JFK's speech. :dancingman:

[Seamus Coogan]

I am going to poke my neck out a little bit but before anyone takes a hack at it, let me offer a few caveats.

Ed, I see what your saying and the point your making. The big thing as you know is that the Ivy League is abound with fraternity. I'm sure Kennedy was well aware of these groups. But remember that it's all a little more complex than that and it's a point I've expressed in the very Alex Jones piece I pulled the Kennedy speech from. Anyhow I hope it's useful.

In Bermas' history lesson about the NWO, he completely overlooks the fact that Hitler himself was a conspiracy theorist of some renown. It was this, plus his own racist beliefs, that led him to exterminate millions of Jews, Gypsies, Catholics, Socialists, as well as some 20,000 to 80,000 Freemasons (Christopher Hodapp, Freemasonry for Dummies, pg 85). Bermas goes on to name numerous secret groups from the Masons to Bilderbergers, Illuminati, Bohemian Grove, and the ever-present Skull and Bones. Collectively, according to Bermas, these groups form the New World Order, and together they inflate his hypothesis that all are working toward the same goals. Let's have a quick look at this twisted mass Bermas construes.

Masons Though the Masons only account for a speck of the invisible empire on Prison Planet, the Libertarian Jones has a strange relationship with Freemasonry. According to Jones, groups like the Freemasons supported many prominent "founding fathers" of the United States.

Alex Jones, in one of his more sober moments, in a discussion with a caller on his show, actually said much of the above. However, he couldn't help but add that only the higher levels, or 33rd degree Masons, are dangerous or enlightened.
President Harry Truman was a bona fide and ardent mason and reached the much-vaunted 33rd degree level of Masonry. He also created the CIA in 1947. Yet in 1963 he wrote a famous editorial decrying the some of the operations that the CIA had partaken of as being way beyond what he had imagined. Allen Dulles was so worried about this column, which was published a month after JFK's murder, that he paid a personal visit to Truman and tried to get him to retract it. (Jim DiEugenio; Tom Hanks, Gary Goetzman, and Bugliosi's Bungle, Part 8; Section VI)
Further, Truman's 33rd degree level of Masonry didn't stop his administration from being undermined by the Republicans and the likes of Joe McCarthy which eventually saw the resultant rise of Eisenhower in 1952 over Adlai Stevenson (Richard M. Fried, Nightmare in Red pgs 7-10, 16-17). Warren Commission member Senator Richard Russell was a high-level Freemason. He was also the most ardent critic of the lone gunman line on the panel (Gerald McKnight, Breach of Trust, pgs 282-298). And he was the first of the Commissioners to break away from the Oswald-did-it-alone scenario. In fact, he actually conducted his own private inquiry while the Commission was in progress.

Bohemian Grove, CFR, Trilateralists, Skull & Groaners According to author Michael Wala, Eisenhower was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and a regular visitor to Bohemian Grove. That didn't stop him from warning the US about the acquisition of power by the Military-Industrial Complex. Being granted entrance to a place like Bohemian Grove did not stop Bobby Kennedy (who addressed a Grove retreat while Attorney General) from having his brother and himself both shot under the most suspicious circumstances. (William Domhoff, The Bohemian Grove and Other Retreats; p. 27)

Richard Nixon, also a CFR member, didn't get any help from his fellow Bohemians during Watergate. Likewise, for Jimmy Carter: Being a member of Bohemian Grove, the CFR, and an ardent Trilateralist didn't stop him from signing into existence the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) which concluded there was a probable conspiracy in the killings of both Kennedy and King. Nor did the protection of these groups help Carter when the Republicans derailed his re-election campaign with the October Surprise.

Touching on the Skull and Bones fraternity, Bermas has clearly never heard of another prominent Bonesman, Robert Lovett, who was scathing of CIA foreign policy under the Eisenhower administration. (Jim DiEugenio; Tom Hanks, Gary Goetzman, and Bugliosi's Bungle, Part 8; Section V)

Another Warren Commission member, John Sherman Cooper, was also a member of Yale's Skull and Bones Society, and his doubts about the lone gunman conclusion have been well documented. Being a member of Skull and Bones, Bohemian Grove, the Trilateral Commission, and the CFR didn't help George Bush get elected over Bill Clinton. Clinton is a known Bilderberger whose connections didn't save his "socialistic" healthcare initiatives, nor save him from being smeared in numerous supposed scandals around his business dealings in Little Rock, Arkansas, nor from being impeached by the US House of Representatives when his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky was exposed.

The point is (as anyone who studies the Power Elite well knows) that there are splits among the upper classes. For instance, there can be little doubt that around 2004-2005, when the Iraq War began to head south, that there was a powerful reaction against the Bush family. For Bush was such a horrible president that he endangered the future of the GOP. None of the Bush family connections saved them from this. It's a little known fact that many a "crank's" arch-conspirator, George Bush Sr., signed the JFK Act in October of 1992. The tickler here is that it came under the steerage of Bill Clinton and led to the establishment of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) in 1994, whence a number of sealed documents from Carter's HSCA saw the light of day.

[Charles Drago]

Seamus,

I don't want the blood to boil again on this topic, but the quote in your previous post is beyond absurd.

Lol, no danger of 'blood boiling' here. I'm not getting at anyone or proving a point. I just think it's an interesting idea and I'm sure Gregs got a good answer for it. Of course we do need sources and if Al can come up with some that would be interesting. But I imagine Greg will point out that dear old Bundy was pretty tooled up in the Eastern Establishment anyhow. If anything CD I jumped the gun on GB awhile back before I'd had the chance to hear him out.

As for the rest of what you said. Im not sure if its directed at me or the general populace because I do agree with you 100 percent on the issue of JFK's speech. :dancingman:

Let me be clear, Seamus:

1. I did not direct my commentary at you.

2. I had previously reacted strongly against the Doyle quote you chose. It contains textbook examples of over-complication and the conflation of hypothesis and fantasy.

3. Greg and I have agreed to disagree on this point. I remind all who may be interested that the harsh words we exchanged have been buried, and my respect for Greg's work continues to grow. FWIW, my friend Peter Lemkin and I also hold radically different views on JFK's meaning (Pete is in basic agreement with Greg). So too my friend Jack White.

[Ed Jewett]

Seamus, without getting into a deep discussion at this point, I think it's a mistake to see or assume that S&B membership means that all S&B members are involved, attuned, aligned, or even aware of the plans and actions of one or two of them. I think it's a mistake to see S&B as a college fraternity. If your point is that it is too easy to see Freemasonry or the S&B or the Illuminati as the hook upon which everything can be hung, I agree. But at the same time I think it important to understand the roots of the secret society phenomenon, how it was used by some (especially including the Rothschild network, the Fed, and others), and to look at the expressed intent and philosophical dictates of its many outlets. I'm still reading and learning.

The Illuminati phenomenon was running in parallel and in sync with the Enlightenment and the emergence of Darwin, Malthus, Hegel and others and the mentality that only science, and the natural right of the elite man, enabled the evolution of man to a higher level. This leads to the reduction and destruction of religion and spiritual belief, the idea that parapsychology works and that the mind of a man or men is the playground of those selected or "tapped" by virtue of wealth and in-breeding, and that the infiltration of government for the purposes of increasing that wealth is fair game. [There are interesting ties yet to be fully explored between S&B boys and the Teapot Dome Scandal, for example.] The S&B phenomenon is "insider information" at the 3rd or 4th magnitude.

It is also a mistake to look at Harry Truman as the father of the national security state or its enabling legislation. He assisted at the birth, no doubt, but he did not plant the seed.

Finally, whatever one makes of the history of the secret societies (and I have yet to delve into the translations of Alexander Solzhenitsyn's "Two Hundred Years Together"), it is important to understand the "occult" and alchemical nature and foundation underneath these secret societies [see Peter Levenda's Unholy Alliance and his trilogy Sinister Forces, among others, and their underlying focus on psychological manipulation, psychological warfare, etc.

As has been noted elsewhere, it seems to require an examination of the histories of Europe (which includes Russia) since about 1700 and its development of secret societies, much of which transformed itself and re-appeared elsewhere (in France, in the US, and most notably in Germany), where it gave birth to other movements, societies and most importantly mind-sets (or what came to be known in Germany as "world-views"). It also gave birth to the Thule Gessellschaft, and a cult that came to be known as Naziism.

That the growth and practice of Naziism (with all its vile excesses) was the outcome of an orientation to what can only be described as a satanic cult is well-documented in numerous sources.

That the support and transference of those "world-views" [which include a very unhealthy, criminal, amoral and undemocratic practice of learning how to control another mind individually or collectively which emanates now from within the US through adopted findings, research and practices planted near-simultaneously in Russia, Germany and the US by the "sinister forces" behind the development of secret societies] was generated and kept alive by the same massed wealth (acting through the Eastern Establishment and the OSS/CIA) which now makes itself known on Wall Street and inside the Fed is also well-known and well-documented.

So the US government and the financial sector of the US economy (Wall Street and the Fed) are working hand-in-glove to insure that the world is constantly divided, engaged in turmoil, active in open and covert warfare which generates debt which makes certain people inordinately rich and the "actors" somewhat rich but which impoverishes and kills off the rest of the world. These powers are working to control everything for themselves, sharing it not with anyone else. Everything they do is done in secrecy, with lack of accountability, through methods of deception, propaganda, NewSpeak, etc. [That is also well-documented.]

it is important to remember the warning (I think it was Levenda's) that it does not matter whether the Illuminati exist, or what you call them, or how you track the phenomenon. What is important to recognize and counteract -- and the question in this thread is whether that was what JFK was hinting at -- the survival of the unethical worldview that the ends justify the means.

[Seamus Coogan]

Ed I found that last, rather passive-aggressive retort Something of a slur to be honest. This whole thing of you 'not wanting to pick a fight' but then kind of 'picking one' is very silly. Trust me, if you wanna dance I can certainly do that. But trust me I don't really want that. If you pick a fight with anyone from CTKA on issues as ambiguous as say 'secret societies' it's not going to be a pleasent experience.

You've taken my comments out of context for starters.

As if I truly believe Truman was the 'arch' creator of the CIA. Do you really think that? Have you read anything at CTKA? Or indeed in my work.

And your final lines (which amounted to myself not really understanding the context of this conversation) was pretty rank. Ed, your not coming to terms with the 'fantasies' you are unwilling to let go of. That's your problem. Not mine.

Trying to make out as if it's unclear 'IF' I meant no one secret fraternity was behind it....to which you agree? Oh thanks, Im really glad you do. Because it's very, very black and white what I said about there being 'no one secret society' behind it.

So why play semantics? If you didn't actually 'agree' and 'disagreed' you'd actually be more genuine. Why not just say 'hey good point but I actually believe the Rothschilds are a secret high cabal and the S&B are on the third or fourth tier'. I personally think that's 'shit' to coin a phrase Ed. But hey your entitled to your opinion. Just don't try and be Torbitt Document to the Flammonde.

Twisting and ripping off what I say to embellish your opinions is not a good look. In fact it's libellous. Do you really, in all honestly think I need to or should read Peter Levenda to figure out there's self replication of the elites, that theres a certain limited amount of people at the top? When I'd actually said something similar in another post. So, why tell me my own sentiments? I don't like talking to myself.

Anybody whose read the Bible done Sociology, History or has basic common sense could figure out Levendas saying. Please don't tell me your 'learning' and then proceed to lecture me. Why not say 'hey what do you think?'. I've actually looked into the SS area myself in rather some depth. If you look through all of my writings (please also check out my notes on David Icke and Alex Jones on Greg Parkers site). Oh and please don't take this as an opportunity to say 'Seamus denies secret societies exist'.

When I've always said it's far more complex than that.

Furthermore, I've just come off the back end of doing a 6 part 50,000 word piece on MJ-12 and the Kennedy assassination. So I know a thing or two about secret groups. I don't claim to know it all. But what is there to know? Because I have also learn't a lot about the BS and self perpetuating myths about them as well.

[Seamus Coogan]

[quote=Seamus Coogan][quote=Charles Drago]Seamus,

I don't want the blood to boil again on this topic, but the quote in your previous post is beyond absurd.

Sorry mate. I should check the forums a little more. I had no idea this had been something of a heated conversation though I can see why. In terms of where Greg and Al are coming from or have in the past I agree with you. But Isn't Bundy a fascinating little fellow irrespective of past disputes?

Have a good weekend!

[Ed Jewett]

Ed I found that last, rather passive-aggressive retort Something of a slur to be honest.

Seamus, untwist your knickers. It's not personal; we use each other in the format of online discussion as foils. If you are suggesting that the last paragraph is a passive-aggressive slur against you, you can wear that self-created hat if it fits you. Are you offended by the supposition that "the end justifies the means" has been the operative theory inside the US intelligence world since its creation in the late 40's?

No, I haven't read all of your work (indeed I have read hardly any of it), don't spend any time at CTKA, and don't buy into the theory that any given site (even this one) is the end-all-and-be-all for topic discussion or topic conclusion. I know better.

Somewhere up above I have noted that I am not deep into "things Dealey", nor a researcher of international note. I read a lot and read more deeply to check the conclusions in the piece I read previously. Sometimes I post things to see what other people say; that has already been stated here, as well as the theory that we are working together in pursuit of understanding about deep and controversial issues. If you want to disparage the authors, or my tentative conclusions, feel free to do so. But you took the whole thing as an attack on you, which it surely is not. In the future, I shall try to refrain from using names of other posters. You are entitled to your interpretations and conclusions; I am entitled to mine. There are still people out there who are telling me that it is simply irrevocable truth that 19 Arabs with box-cutters dismantled four commercial jets, the national air defense system, and three and a half buildings, and had the tons of steel from the WTC slipped out of town into smelters.

As noted, my readings are still underway; it will be months before I conclude them. Among them are the works of Alex Constantine on psych-oriented games inside government, Melanson's book on "Perfectibilists", the book "Sanctions for Evil" noted inside Evica's "Arrogance", and others. All of these will drop into my mind and experiences, which are surely different than yours. And that's not a disparagement of you, your mind or your experiences. It is a study on the history and deep "science" of attempts to make up my mind for me, or at least to manipulate the minds of others.

I do note that the publisher of several of those books I am reading or have mentioned has, himself, put together several thoughts on the matter. (It was his father, an OSS/CIA veteran, who told him to look into secret societies, and he has turned that suggestion into a publishing house.)

Mind Control, the Illuminati and the JFK Assassination 1
http://www.ctrl.org/essay2/MCIJFKA1.html

Mind Control, the Illuminati and the JFK Assassination 2
http://www.ctrl.org/essay2/MCIJFKA2.html

Mind Control, the Illuminati and the JFK Assassination 3
http://www.ctrl.org/essay2/MCIJFKA3.html

[Greg Burnham]

Firstly,

Charles and I, having agreed to disagree, have also buried the hatchet. I thank him for his kind words.

Secondly,

I am not aligned with Albert on this subject. We have converging as well as diverging opinions on several aspects of it, including the CIA's "fall back" plan of which Albert wrote. I do not agree that the DRAFT of NSAM 273 nor its timing had anything to do with a fall back position to aid in the cover up. Although it is an intriguing proposition, perhaps worthy of a fictional novel, I reject that thesis on its face for several reasons that I have already stated as well as several that I haven't even addressed. However, I respect Albert and his work.

Thirdly,

Seamus, thanks for the kind words regarding my Dallas COPA 2010 presentation on NSAM 263 & the DRAFT of NSAM 273, where I hoped to--in 30 minutes or less--shine a flood light on the actions of McGeorge Bundy during the final 90 days of JFK's presidency. In my estimation, the indications of his perfidy seem to be overwhelming. Perhaps I am somewhat prejudice against him, but not because of his involvement in Secret Societies.

He initially became suspect when he ordered the cancellation of the pre-dawn airstrikes from our bases in Puerto Cabezas, Nicaragua to the Bay of Pigs in the wee hours of the morning--just hours before Brigade 2506 landed on the beach and was consequently pinned down by Castro's forces. According to the Cuban Study Group's Report, Bundy's action countermanded JFK's last orders from the night before, namely that: all of Castro's remaining air force jets were to be neutralized [destroyed on the ground] or the mission was to be cancelled. Bundy's order to cancel the airstrikes that were strategically planned to complete JFK's order was the IMMEDIATE CAUSE OF FAILURE of the invasion plan. Again, according to the Cuban Study Group, which consisted of DCI, Allen Dulles, General Maxwell Taylor, Admiral Arleigh Burke, and Attorney General, Robert Kennedy: the IMMEDIATE CAUSE OF FAILURE was the cancellation of the pre-dawn airstrikes by McGeorge Bundy.

As for Bundy's involvement in "secret societies" -- I couldn't care less. Perhaps I should, but I don't. That is Robert Morrow's field of study, I suppose.

For the record, I never meant to imply that JFK was predicting that he would be killed by members of any specific "secret society" per se, such as S&B, or whatever. A group that can be named has not accomplished secrecy.

[Seamus Coogan]

Lol. You can't even apologise for misquoting and libelling my own comments.

When did I ever say that CTKA had all the 'truth'. You'd better come back at me with something that say's that. Please tell me do? I certainly believe that's where the most consistent and best research can be found without a doubt. I also think that any serious researcher goes to have a gander-whether they agree or disagree. That complete and utter gibberish you sent about the Illuminati-JFK and MK Ultra. How silly is that? Kris Milligan, good god. The only thing useful he has ever done is outting James Bamford. Oh and then you make out as if I haven't read GME? I have Ed and he didn't babble about half the stuff you've misrepresented him with in this discussion. As for Phil Melanson I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure he would agree with my stand on a number of issues pertaining to this discussion. Oh yes I know his work as well.

It seems as if your trying to find every little bit or hint of some kind of occult dealings in anything. In fact I see you did this with my prior points. IE ripping them off to use my own points and make yourself look like some expert. Like you have something to tell me. Its a very bad habit. And your friends at Steam Shovel Press do it all the time.

Once again you also can't resist a lecture. So you see yourself as some kind of legend delving into the paranormal realm of the JFK case. That's very clear. Good for you. I bet you think that Dealey Plaza was chose because of it's Masonic supposed symbolism, not it being a great place to whack a pres. People like you in the Nexus-nexus always do Ed. Fantastical for the practical at every stretch.

Now I may be incorrect about you here but well. See how annoying that is when people put words in your mouth?

Consider this conversation very much over. I've read much of this sort of crud and yet you dont even have the appendages to go to read CTKA articles. How can I take you seriously? Ed I want to deal with a real researcher not some forum 'Wall Flower'. Check out Gregs reply to my questions and you'll see that though Greg and I may disagree, I have a lot of respect for him putting it out there and not twisting other peoples words or sentiments around in doing so. I'd debate GB any day of the week, well because there's a chance we both might actually learn something.