The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School

[Charles Drago]

Cinque cites Morrow, McClellan, Nelson, Hunt, TMWKK, Ventura. Obsesses with disproven thesis, counters with insults--"any (demeaning epithet) with half a brain"--(your response here).

Martin Hay used the term suspect vis-a-vis the FBI. Charles called for clarification. Martin took offense, more offense, and, more. Offense.

Charles hasn't varied an iota in arraying his men on the chessboard in the time I've wandered up here in the park to watch the masters.

Martin may at any time shrug it off and simply respond to that term.

What's in a word?

Try, Ladies and Gentlemen, "mastermind."

Further this deponent sayeth not

Phil, it always amazes me how different people interpret different things differently. To wit:

I swear to Christ, it's as if the Sponsor/Facilitator/Mechanic model never was presented.

Have we learned NOTHING from our studies?

"The FBI" and "the CIA" conspired to kill neither JFK nor MLK.

You conflate the hammer with the carpenter.

You conflate the carpenter with the architect.

You conflate the architect with the homeowner.

The Sponsors are wetting themselves from laughter.

You read "calls for clarification," whereas I read derision. You say tomaato; I say tomahto. Still sounds like the launch of a cruise missile to me. Asking for clarification would start with, "I am a little confused on a couple of points. Would you mind ....?" Charlie and I got into it over this; he said what he said; I said what I said. We are getting along just fine. But "I swear to Christ," Charlie was not blowing kisses to MH.

Lauren is correct.

I was not "asking for clarification."

I was in fact "deriding" the fools who cannot learn from 49 years of supreme sacrifice and accomplishment on the part of a host of warriors for truth and justice.

The fools who are so ignorant of deep political theory and practice that they continue to cite "the CIA" as a Sponsor of the JFK murder -- or any other true deep political act. As if a bureaucratic body of the complexity of "the CIA" does ANYTHING as a single, willful entity.

The fools who continue to expound upon their notions of how JFK was killed without first arriving upon and proffering a reasonable conspiracy model.

I swear to Christ, enough is enough!

The war is on.

[Albert Doyle]

The fools who are so ignorant of deep political theory and practice that they continue to cite "the CIA" as a Sponsor of the JFK murder -- or any other true deep political act. As if a bureaucratic body of the complexity of "the CIA" does ANYTHING as a single, willful entity.

Maybe not sponsor, but main participant. The way to look at this is can you really say CIA wasn't a primary participant in the assassination? I'm not challenging what you wrote at all because the conspiracy was so broad that it forces the Evica model from a true analysis of its components, however the way I look at it is the true Sponsors were the "software" and the CIA was a main part of the "hardware". The conspiracy had to surface somewhere in the form of mechanical parts.

[Charles Drago]

You continue NOT to get it!

I am NOT arguing that CIA officers and agents weren't involved in the JFK conspiracy.

I am trying to penetrate your titanium skull with a simple message: To state that "THE" CIA was involved in any deep political event is to imply that the agency committed the acts as official policy. It is to imply that it is a monolithic bureaucratic entity and is neither factionalized nor deep.

Further, to so state is to promote a simple-minded, shallow political appreciation of how the deep world works.

Was there a senior staff meeting in the DCI's office with an agenda on which "Kill JFK" was included?

So to answer your question: Yes indeed, I can and do state that [size=12]THE CIA WASN'T A PRIMARY PARTICIPANT IN THE ASSASSINATION!!!!!!!!![/SIZE]

NOW DO YOU GET IT?????????

Of course you don't.

I feel like the King of Swamp Castle.

From Monty Python and the Holy Grail:

King of Swamp Castle: Guards, make sure the prince doesn't leave this room until I come and get him.

Guard #1: Not to leave the room... even if you come and get him.

Guard #2: [hiccups]

King of Swamp Castle: No, no. *Until* I come and get him
.
Guard #1: Until you come and get him, we're not to enter the room.

King of Swamp Castle: No, no, no. You *stay* in the room, and make sure *he* doesn't leave.

Guard #1: And you'll come and get him.

Guard #2: [hiccups]

King of Swamp Castle: Right.

Guard #1: We don't need to do anything, apart from just stop him entering the room.

King of Swamp Castle: No, no. *Leaving* the room.

Guard #1: Leaving the room, yes.

King of Swamp Castle: All right?

Guard #2: [hiccups]

Guard #1: Right. Oh, if, if, if, uh, if, if, uh, if, if, if, we... oh, if... oh...

King of Swamp Castle: Look, it's quite simple. You just stay here, and make sure he doesn't leave the room. All right?

Guard #2: [hiccups]

Guard #1: Oh, I remember, uh, can he leave the room with us?

King of Swamp Castle: No, no, no, no, you just keep him in here, and make sure...

Guard #1: Oh yeah, we'll keep him in here, obviously, but if he had to leave, and we were with him...

King of Swamp Castle: No, just keep him in here...

Guard #1: Until you, or anyone else...

King of Swamp Castle: No, not anyone else. Just me.

Guard #1: Just you.

Guard #2: [hiccups]

King of Swamp Castle: Get back.

Guard #1: Get back.

King of Swamp Castle: All right?

Guard #1: Right, we'll stay here until you get back.

King of Swamp Castle: And make sure he doesn't leave.

Guard #1: What?
King of Swamp Castle: Make sure he doesn't leave.

Guard #1: The prince?

King of Swamp Castle: Yes, make sure he doesn't leave.

Guard #1: Oh, yes, of course.

[Points at Guard #2]
Guard #1: I thought you meant him. You know, it seemed a bit daft me I were to guard him when he's a guard.

King of Swamp Castle: Is that clear?

Guard #2: [hiccups]

Guard #1: Oh, quite clear. No problems.

King of Swamp Castle: Right.

[King of Swamp Castle turns to leave the room, both guards follow him]

King of Swamp Castle: Where are you going?

Guard #1: We're coming with you.

King of Swamp Castle: No, no, no. I want you to stay here and make sure *he* doesn't leave.

Guard #1: Oh, I see. Right.

[Lauren Johnson]

The fools who are so ignorant of deep political theory and practice that they continue to cite "the CIA" as a Sponsor of the JFK murder -- or any other true deep political act. As if a bureaucratic body of the complexity of "the CIA" does ANYTHING as a single, willful entity.

Maybe not sponsor, but main participant. The way to look at this is can you really say CIA wasn't a primary participant in the assassination? I'm not challenging what you wrote at all because the conspiracy was so broad that it forces the Evica model from a true analysis of its components, however the way I look at it is the true Sponsors were the "software" and the CIA was a main part of the "hardware". The conspiracy had to surface somewhere in the form of mechanical parts.

Allow me to take a crack at it. Plausible deniability is one of the central tenets of the CIA: a founding core. When that is the case, it will always be problematic to say "the CIA." How to say this reality with language. It is a struggle. Does one say, There are multiple CIAs? Elements of the CIA?



It gets vague, and I don't like vagueness. I want there to be a single, evil mastermind who manages all the house of mirrors. Prouty talks about a "secret team." Was there ever "a" CIA whithin "the" CIA? Or was it then appears to be now: plausible deniability chaos? Is there a better term?

[Charles Drago]

The CIA was, is, and ever shall be factionalized.

See Peter Dale Scott. See Joe Trento's The Secret History of the CIA.

See the entire Angleton affair. See the entire Nosenko affair.

Ask DCI Stansfield Turner.

Ask DCI Ted Sorensen.

[Lauren Johnson]

The CIA was, is, and ever shall be factionalized.

See Peter Dale Scott. See Joe Trento's The Secret History of the CIA.

See the entire Angleton affair. See the entire Nosenko affair.

Ask DCI Stansfield Turner.

Ask DCI Ted Sorensen.

In other words, no one person knows everything. There is no shadow master; just masters of shadows. Lots of people die. Oh well. Just who did it? Who really knows except the ones who did it. And they have plausible deniability. And maybe some who did it don't even know they did it. They were compartmentalized. And just exactly what was the "it" they did.

The only unanswered question: Who's on first?

[Greg Burnham]

The CIA was, is, and ever shall be factionalized.

See Peter Dale Scott. See Joe Trento's The Secret History of the CIA.

See the entire Angleton affair. See the entire Nosenko affair.

Ask DCI Stansfield Turner.

Ask DCI Ted Sorensen.

In other words, no one person knows everything. There is no shadow master; just masters of shadows. Lots of people die. Oh well. Just who did it? Who really knows except the ones who did it. And they have plausible deniability. And maybe some who did it don't even know they did it. They were compartmentalized. And just exactly what was the "it" they did.

The only unanswered question: Who's on first?

The CIA had nothing to do with the assassination's inception, planning, approval, nor execution. Neither did the FBI. Both are and were very deeply entrenched in obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct after the fact.

[Lauren Johnson]

The CIA was, is, and ever shall be factionalized.

See Peter Dale Scott. See Joe Trento's The Secret History of the CIA.

See the entire Angleton affair. See the entire Nosenko affair.

Ask DCI Stansfield Turner.

Ask DCI Ted Sorensen.

In other words, no one person knows everything. There is no shadow master; just masters of shadows. Lots of people die. Oh well. Just who did it? Who really knows except the ones who did it. And they have plausible deniability. And maybe some who did it don't even know they did it. They were compartmentalized. And just exactly what was the "it" they did.

The only unanswered question: Who's on first?

The CIA had nothing to do with the assassination's inception, planning, approval, nor execution. Neither did the FBI. Both are and were very deeply entrenched in obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct after the fact.

Greg, First let's just not use the term "the CIA" without qualification. But second, no Dulles, no Landsdale? No secret team? I can see that the inception and the approval goes upstairs to the Sponsor level. But planning and execution? Please say more, if you will?

[Greg Burnham]

The CIA was, is, and ever shall be factionalized.

See Peter Dale Scott. See Joe Trento's The Secret History of the CIA.

See the entire Angleton affair. See the entire Nosenko affair.

Ask DCI Stansfield Turner.

Ask DCI Ted Sorensen.

In other words, no one person knows everything. There is no shadow master; just masters of shadows. Lots of people die. Oh well. Just who did it? Who really knows except the ones who did it. And they have plausible deniability. And maybe some who did it don't even know they did it. They were compartmentalized. And just exactly what was the "it" they did.

The only unanswered question: Who's on first?

The CIA had nothing to do with the assassination's inception, planning, approval, nor execution. Neither did the FBI. Both are and were very deeply entrenched in obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct after the fact.

Greg, First let's just not use the term "the CIA" without qualification. But second, no Dulles, no Landsdale? No secret team? I can see that the inception and the approval goes upstairs to the Sponsor level. But planning and execution? Please say more, if you will?

Individuals within those organizations were necessarily in on the plot, but only because they were ORDERED to fulfill necessary tasks SPECIFIED by their MASTERS outside of those very organizations...indeed ABOVE those organizations. This includes Dulles, Landsdale, Hoover, and yes, Johnson. Can you say: Facilitate? I knew you could.

[Albert Doyle]

You continue NOT to get it!

I am NOT arguing that CIA officers and agents weren't involved in the JFK conspiracy.

I am trying to penetrate your titanium skull with a simple message: To state that "THE" CIA was involved in any deep political event is to imply that the agency committed the acts as official policy. It is to imply that it is a monolithic bureaucratic entity and is neither factionalized nor deep.

Further, to so state is to promote a simple-minded, shallow political appreciation of how the deep world works.

Was there a senior staff meeting in the DCI's office with an agenda on which "Kill JFK" was included?

So to answer your question: Yes indeed, I can and do state that [size=12]THE CIA WASN'T A PRIMARY PARTICIPANT IN THE ASSASSINATION!!!!!!!!![/SIZE]

My reply to that is you fall into your own trap of the multi-dimensional nature of deep political behavior when you refuse to recognize that when CIA formally denied any involvement in JFK's killing it was acting as a unified bureaucratic entity when it did so. As long as Fort Bragg had a Special Forces training facility with a mock-up of Dealey Plaza and trainers who practically bragged in the open about killing Kennedy, as Dan Marvin told, then CIA as an organization knew about their participation in the assassination. No matter what you say many of the primary participants in the assassination were CIA officers. Angleton, Phillips, Hunt etc were all CIA employees, which makes them CIA. The important point here is that CIA, no matter how fractured, splintered, compartmentalized or factionally controlled was still CIA and responsible for the actions of its members under its formal structure. In my opinion, to honor this internal division in CIA in order to prove deep political theory is to let them off the hook as far as accountability. While everything you say is true, it is that very multi-dimensional deep political nature of CIA that makes this true at the same and in coexistence with deep political theory. To honor the "dumb head" of the official front desk of CIA is to honor their ploy. They must be held to accountability and even though they, as a group, pretend not to know, they can't be allowed the privilege of formally not knowing when reality requires otherwise. Meanwhile there were many documented cases where CIA formally created memos trying to tell all involved assets how to disseminate anti-conspiracy propaganda. What I'm trying to say is at a theoretical level it makes no difference if this formal CIA entity is detached from the covert actors as long as it acts in effective agency with those who committed the assassination. In fact I can't think of a more precise definition of the totality of sponsorship than the words "central intelligence". At that point you are close to "evil eye". It could even be argued that the CIA itself was the "hardware shop" of the true sponsors and created as such for that very purpose.