JFK: What we know now that we didn't know then

[Charles Drago]

Let's not revise and rewrite our history, please.

,
Indeed. Let us understand history in all of its depth, complexities, and superficial contradictions.

I am a scientist.

But not, apparently, a student of deep political science.

I look for evidence, and I believe in facts and try to explain things on the basis of facts.

Try deepening your focus.

I had an experience in April 1963 learning about "deep politics" in the Kennedy assassination matter; I almost died from it.

And you almost learned from it.

It is what I have lived with every day of my life since then.

A state of affairs which, while tragic, has not bestowed upon you any discernable extraordinary powers of perception. Accordingly, your argument from false authority is noted and rejected.

I thought that's what this forum was supposed to be all about. I thought it was to understand the underlining events and forces in such events, and to find the Truth. Was I mistaken?

No.

I look forward to the day when you first exhibit such understanding.


Your absolution of Lyndon Baines Johnson in the murder of JFK is as superficial, as nonsensical, and as damaging to the truth as is the Nelson/Fetzer indictment of LBJ as the assassination's "mastermind."

[Stan Wilbourne]

David Rockefeller is having lunch one in day in the fall of 1962 with Averill Harriman. Many of these talks have taken place now, with a small group of like-minded businessmen in the upper echelon of the American corporatocracy. The discussion is now common.

Rockefeller turns to Harriman and says, "It's time we get this taken care of before it goes any further. Let's set up a meeting with Allen."

Harriman agrees and a meeting with Allen is set up a few days later.

"Allen, we need to get this done soon. Can you give us a time-table?"

Allen has a discussion with Richard Helms and James Angleton.

"Do what you have to do."

Allen flies down to Texas to meet with Clint Murchison and Lyndon Johnson.

"The wheels have been set in motion. Here's what's needed from you..."

E. Howard Hunt begins to work alongside Allen on a "book project." Those meetings are a cover for work on the assassination of President Kennedy.

Of course, I'm not certain that this is what happened, but it's a lot closer than to the truth than what the Warren Commission put out.

[Charles Drago]

Stan,

As a student of deep politics I can appreciate your premise. But as a dramatist, I'm not sure I buy the scene you've written.

LBJ would have been approached by someone he feared and acknowledged to be a representative of the entities that could order the assassination to take place. Was Dulles the messenger? One of the messengers? Perhaps. Was Dulles a Sponsor of the assassination? I think not.

Was "Rockefeller" a Sponsor? I suspect so -- but "Rockefeller" needs to be defined by you within the context of your charge. Do you mean Nelson? David? Both? Do you use "Rockefeller" as a term referring to the American elite? An international elite of which the Rockefeller family was a part?

I do not accept the JFK assassination as being sponsored by any one nation, but rather by a supra-national force of interests for which the Cold War, like so many others, was just a chess piece in an almost incomprehensibly larger and older ongoing game. JFK was both Knight and Bishop, and both black and red pieces were aligned against him.

Much as a chess game can be managed as a dramatic construct, the JFK assassination conspiracy was written as drama. Accordingly, we must look to the literary cliques within the civilian and military intelligence services which were used to facilitate the operation. In the U.S. there were the dark poet Angleton, the pulp novelist Hunt, the onanistic wordsmith Phillips, and to a lesser degree Lansdale, who put the "mad" in Madison Avenue.

Thus what we have here is a "plot" in more than one sense of the word.

I'd like you to consider this: Resolved that even if JFK had not been perceived as a serious threat to the elite, the time had come to execute an American president and remove a Soviet premier so as to remind generations of successors around the globe that they are simply pieces on a board -- pieces with no real power to manage or change the game.

And if my chess/drama metaphor holds, then understand that Fischer and Spassky were on the same side.

I should add, Stan, that I truly appreciate and learn from your posts here.

[Stan Wilbourne]

Hello Charles,

Thank you for the response - I was hoping for it.

This is where the case gets interesting to me. My understanding of these events is ever-fluid, and I'm always willing to allow my understanding to re-shift. In fact, I welcome that.

First, the whole "Rockefeller" thing. If I'm not mistaken, the Rockefeller Empire took over majority interest in the Federal Reserve in the early 30s. That's significant. The "Rockefellers" exist in relationship to other global interests, certainly. The "Rothchilds" come to mind. This "elite" mechanism is tied to the "top dogs" of the monetary system, but that's a topic for another day.

I've heard some researchers claim the assassination was never ordered, it just happened organically. I can't get my mind around that. Doesn't there have to be a conversation (or many), and the topic discussed? Doesn't the order have to be given? Where did this conversation take place? What's the apex of power that could order such event and know there would never be any repercussions? Who could've been in the room? I can easily understand your premise of a guiding global hand. But, this conversation took place somewhere on earth, in time.

Your explanation of the "Sponsors" and the "Facilitators" has helped my understanding of this murder. I do not believe Allen Dulles was even close to being a sponsor. The same for Richard Helms, James Angleton, Ed Lansdale, Clint Murchison, Lyndon Johnson or any of the other cast of characters we've grown to know over the years. Nor do I think they lost any sleep when the directive came down.

I've always felt part of President Kennedy's murder was for the pure exercise of power. It was a flexing of muscle for the sake of the display of brute force. I think we are on the same page there:

I'd like you to consider this: Resolved that even if JFK had not been perceived as a serious threat to the elite, the time had come to execute an American president and remove a Soviet premier so as to remind generations of successors around the globe that they are simply pieces on a board -- pieces with no real power to manage or change the game.

Back to Lyndon Johnson. Why was JFK assassinated in Dallas? Why was Johnson being so rigorously perused legally at the time of murder? More doubts. More of the story. More deflection from the truth. LBJ had a role to play in this drama, whether he wanted it or not. My guess: He enjoyed the part he had to play.

How far does this storyline go into the Kennedy presidency, Charles? The Bay of Pigs - part of the intended drama? The Cuban Missile Crisis - part of the intended drama? The closest election in history - part of the intended drama? The death of baby Patrick Kennedy - part of the intended drama? And, certainly the trip to Dallas, intended.

I'm just curious how deep the story goes.

Do you believe that no matter who was to be elected in '60 was marked for assassination? Do you believe John Kennedy was selected for this purpose? Do you believe the assassination had nothing to do with his policy as president? Do you believe JFK was cast in the part of the idealistic, young, progressive president with the full intent to kill him before the world?

Thanks again for the conversation, Charles. Always a pleasure.

-Stan

[Albert Doyle]

I am surprised that with your interests in deep politics you so casually throw away factual evidence like that. Why aren't researchers looking for the real enemies of John Kennedy, and and the other martyrs killed in the 1960s?

This is why Nelson's book has some usefulness. It shows why Johnson and his corruption could never be labeled "friendly' to Kennedy.

Kennedy and Johnson were not enemies of each other. They were seeking the same democratic goals. Lyndon Johnson succeeded in getting a stronger Civil Rights Act passed, the voting Rights Act passed, the Freedom of Information Act passed, and through his Executive Order, put teeth into the Title 7 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the only title listing gender as a factor in employmet discrimination. Since colleges and universities were exempted from coverage in the original 1964 Act, Johnson's Executive Order provided a legal basis so that women, along with minorities, people of different national origins and religions, could effectively sue those employers, a very important and necessary issue because of the enormous discrimination in our colleges and universities. Kennedy wanted similar goals, so what reason would Johnson have had to murder his friend and colleague? Let's not revise and rewrite our history, please.

In my opinion, in no way could these progressive gestures be described as being "pro-Kennedy". I think they were perks being used to assuage the public after murdering their leader. If the Military Industrial Complex that murdered Kennedy could be seen as a body that promoted liberal progress it would lessen the bite of the fascist coup d-etat of which Johnson was a key member. To not understand this is to not understand the key critical mechanics of the Assassination. None of those progressive perks change or modify Johnson's conscious participation in the coup. Johnson knew it was coming. He tried to get Jackie to sit back in his car and replace (I think it was) Yarborough for Connally. More southern hospitality and gentlemanly-ness I guess!

Also, Jack and Bobby were about to prosecute Lyndon in the Bobby Baker corruption scandal.

I am a scientist. I look for evidence, and I believe in facts and try to explain things on the basis of facts.. I had an experience in April 1963 learning about "deep politics" in the Kennedy assassination matter; I almost died from it. It is what I have lived with every day of my life since then.

No insult intended, but I suggest you research Johnson's murderous corruption in Texas and ask yourself if that would have suddenly changed once he took the office of the Vice President? The "facts" of this case is Johnson did everything he was expected to do by the killers after Kennedy was dead. Don't look at the liberal perks, look at the Viet Nam War and empowerment of a covert government to fathom Johnson's true hand.

[Charles Drago]

This is where the case gets interesting to me. My understanding of these events is ever-fluid, and I'm always willing to allow my understanding to re-shift. In fact, I welcome that.

Me too.

First, the whole "Rockefeller" thing. If I'm not mistaken, the Rockefeller Empire took over majority interest in the Federal Reserve in the early 30s. That's significant. The "Rockefellers" exist in relationship to other global interests, certainly. The "Rothchilds" come to mind. This "elite" mechanism is tied to the "top dogs" of the monetary system, but that's a topic for another day.

Pretty much on the same page here.

I've heard some researchers claim the assassination was never ordered, it just happened organically. I can't get my mind around that. Doesn't there have to be a conversation (or many), and the topic discussed? Doesn't the order have to be given? Where did this conversation take place? What's the apex of power that could order such event and know there would never be any repercussions? Who could've been in the room? I can easily understand your premise of a guiding global hand. But, this conversation took place somewhere on earth, in time.

ABSOLUTELY on the same page here.

I've always felt part of President Kennedy's murder was for the pure exercise of power. It was a flexing of muscle for the sake of the display of brute force. I think we are on the same page there

In part, at least.

How far does this storyline go into the Kennedy presidency, Charles? The Bay of Pigs - part of the intended drama? The Cuban Missile Crisis - part of the intended drama? The closest election in history - part of the intended drama? The death of baby Patrick Kennedy - part of the intended drama? And, certainly the trip to Dallas, intended.

The greater the light that is extinguished, the greater is darkness's victory.

The light cast by JFK's American University speech was great and, left to shine and spread, non-survivable by the creatures of the night. So to speak.

Do you believe that no matter who was to be elected in '60 was marked for assassination? Do you believe John Kennedy was selected for this purpose? Do you believe the assassination had nothing to do with his policy as president? Do you believe JFK was cast in the part of the idealistic, young, progressive president with the full intent to kill him before the world?

1. I don't know yet. 2. Ditto. 3. It had a lot to do with JFK's policies -- and also his essence. 4. I don't know yet. While JFK's youth, and the life force it represented, always was obvious, I don't know if his progressive tendencies were predictable. I'm curious about JFK's studies with Harold Laski at the London School of Economics; clearly JFK was under intense scrutiny by ostensibly competing intelligence agencies during his London residency.

The search endures. The fight endures.

[Jan Klimkowski]

I do not accept the JFK assassination as being sponsored by any one nation, but rather by a supra-national force of interests for which the Cold War, like so many others, was just a chess piece in an almost incomprehensibly larger and older ongoing game. JFK was both Knight and Bishop, and both black and red pieces were aligned against him.

Much as a chess game can be managed as a dramatic construct, the JFK assassination conspiracy was written as drama. Accordingly, we must look to the literary cliques within the civilian and military intelligence services which were used to facilitate the operation. In the U.S. there were the dark poet Angleton, the pulp novelist Hunt, the onanistic wordsmith Phillips, and to a lesser degree Lansdale, who put the "mad" in Madison Avenue.

Thus what we have here is a "plot" in more than one sense of the word.

I'd like you to consider this: Resolved that even if JFK had not been perceived as a serious threat to the elite, the time had come to execute an American president and remove a Soviet premier so as to remind generations of successors around the globe that they are simply pieces on a board -- pieces with no real power to manage or change the game.

And if my chess/drama metaphor holds, then understand that Fischer and Spassky were on the same side.

I should add, Stan, that I truly appreciate and learn from your posts here.

One of the strengths of the Mechanic - Facilitator - Sponsor framework as a tool for analysing deep political events is that it forces an examination of the required knowledge and capability for achieving or delivering a particular action for each hypothesized player.

Consider the attempted assassinations of French President Charles De Gaulle.

Mainstream history claims that they were perpetrated by the Organisation de l'armée secrète (OAS), a far right terror group consisting largely of French nationalist soldiers and intelligence agents disgusted by De Gaulle's concessions to Algerian independence. These "warriors" felt betrayed by De Gaullle.

Just as certain Americans and Cuban-Americans felt betrayed by Kennedy over the Bay of Pigs.

The OAS assassination attempts on De Gaulle came very close to success, and there are claims of breach of security, advance knowledge of Presidential travel routes, etc. In other words, high level inside knowledge and collaboration with the plotters.

The assassination attempts even have their own silenced and slaughtered patsy: military engineer Jean-Marie Bastien-Thiry, executed by firing squad in March 1963.

Here's the geopolitical context that is never mentioned in relation to the attempted assassination of De Gaulle. As early as 1958, De Gaulle was removing France's military from NATO structures, and challenging NATO's role as the Ying to the Warsaw Pact's Yang. De Gaulle removed France's Mediterranean fleet from NATO control, forced foreign nuclear weapons out of his country and closed US air bases in France. Even SHAPE (not an invention of Ian Fleming but in reality the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe) was moved from French territory to more docile Belgian land.

Mainstream history is clear: it fingers the far right French nationalists of the OAS, fuming over the betrayal of "French Algeria", as the guilty parties in the De Gaulle assassination attempts.

But who were the OAS? Historians such as Ganser have identified the OAS as a highly compartmentalized cell structure organisation, operating as part of Operation Gladio.

So, lets hypothesize. It is entirely possible that a particular OAS cell, strictly compartmentalised and in zero contact with other cells, may have been tasked with a mission to assassination De Gaulle. The OAS cell would have accepted this mission with relish, honoured at the job they were entrusted with, convinced that they were working for true patriots who shared their goal of a forever French Algeria.

Whereas the OAS hit squad may have been working for another master altogether - a military-intelligence insider of high enough rank to know about the top secret Gladio operation in 1962, and able to give orders to a Gladio OAS cell.

If the hypothesis is correct, the OAS would not have been the Sponsors of the assassination attempt. They would not even have been its Facilitators. They would have simply been the Mechanics - mere hirelings tasked with getting their hands dirty and performing the deed.

If the Sponsors sat at the top of NATO, or above the NATO-Warsaw Pact structure, then the use of the OAS would be ideal, providing perfect cover, directing public attention in entirely the wrong direction. Forcing an establishment cover up of deep military intelligence secrets if the Gladio connection was ever suggested.

Bastien-Thiry was most likely a Mechanic, cast as a Patsy to be slaughtered and silenced.

It has recently been suggested that Bastien-Thiry was not a member of the OAS, but rather of the nebulous Vieil État-Major. This might elevate him to Facilitator rank, but only in a junior sense.

This analysis of the De Gaulle assassination attempts using the Mechanic - Facilitator - Sponsor model suggests that a hit squad can act in good faith, and commit an act on behalf of a cause which is irrelevant to the motivations of the deed's True Sponsors.

Jim Garrison: Who killed the President?
David Ferrie: Why don't you fucking stop it? Shit! This is too big for you, you know that? Who did the President? Fuck! It's a mystery. It's a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma! The shooters don't even know! Don't you get it?

[Charles Drago]

A proper and provocative application of the JFK model to the De Gaulle affair.

For more of Jan's insights into this subject, see

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...on-attempt

[Phil Dragoo]

Revealed in Douglass, and through patient repetition by Charles, the effect of the sub rosa correspondence of John F. Kennedy and Nikita S. Khrushchev was to dismantle the game.

Each was removed in a fashion intended to teach in the manner of a morality play.

In the West, the hero of light will be removed by a miasma concocted deniably by the Ministry of Those Kinds of Things used routinely by the Best People.

In the East, the too liberal will yield to the militant of the Bigger Hammer School.

Thesis, antithesis, tea time, assassination, regime change, oh the humanity.

Gates to Leahy, "Senator, all governments lie to each other; it's how business gets done."

And business transcends all governments, Senator; but you know that by now.

I am fortunate to be able to observe the Grand Game depicted carefully, the pieces weighed, and not bolted.

In the Midway, the bottom two milk bottles are bolted; the top, is of lead, and the sights on your rifle, Sucker, are bent with Vise-Grips.

In Wilcox, Target: Patton, the author presents the appointment of Donovan with the British intelligence chief's remark, "one of ours."

And if Dulles was working for German clients in 1917 when Lenin was injected into the Bear, just how much "conversation" do these fellows require--a wink, a nod, a clenching of the rictus around the pipe stem.

[Adele Edisen]

Let's not revise and rewrite our history, please.

,
Indeed. Let us understand history in all of its depth, complexities, and superficial contradictions.

I am a scientist.

But not, apparently, a student of deep political science.

I look for evidence, and I believe in facts and try to explain things on the basis of facts.

Try deepening your focus.

I had an experience in April 1963 learning about "deep politics" in the Kennedy assassination matter; I almost died from it.

And you almost learned from it.

It is what I have lived with every day of my life since then.

A state of affairs which, while tragic, has not bestowed upon you any discernable extraordinary powers of perception. Accordingly, your argument from false authority is noted and rejected.

I thought that's what this forum was supposed to be all about. I thought it was to understand the underlining events and forces in such events, and to find the Truth. Was I mistaken?

No.

I look forward to the day when you first exhibit such understanding.


Your absolution of Lyndon Baines Johnson in the murder of JFK is as superficial, as nonsensical, and as damaging to the truth as is the Nelson/Fetzer indictment of LBJ as the assassination's "mastermind."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles,

To each his/her own, I say. Do you feel better now?

Adele Edisen