How Did President Kennedy's Assassination Happen?

[Stan Wilbourne]

Upon a superficial examination, one would tend to think that the book will appeal to the Bible-thumping, right-wing populists of the John Birch fringe who despise the Rockefellers. This band of the American political spectrum, which has been known to publicize bizarre allegations of a Rockefeller--orchestrated plot to create a socialist world government, will be baffled and perplexed by one of Thy Will be Done's chief conclusions: that they've been had. According to Colby and Dennett, far from being a threat to the Machiavellian power of the Rockefellers, the Christian fundamentalists were extremely useful in furthering the global designs of the heirs of the Standard Oil fortune.

On the other hand, left-leaning liberals will find the book's conclusions even harder to swallow, since the Rockefeller philanthropies (which include the Rockefeller Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Rockefeller Family Fund) are among the main funding sources of liberal political activism in the US, including civil liberties, feminism and the environmental movement. Beneficiaries of Rockefeller charitable giving in recent years have included groups like Essential Information, the ACLU, the Ms. Foundation, the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, Environmental Action, the Student Environmental Action Coalition, the Center for Responsive Politics, the NAACP who are much more likely to say, "Wait, you're being a little unbalanced. Sure, they've done terrible things in the past, but they're funding some really terrific stuff nowadays." As much as one may try to rationalize the embarassing predicament of taking money from the ultra-rich to finance social change, the question remains: What are the prospects for an American progressive agenda when it is heavily dependent on funding from a philanthropic system that owes its forhine to commercial activities that destroy ecosystems worldwide, erode biological diversity and create a holocaust for indigenous peoples? Colby and Dennett do not pose that question to readers, but it will certainly hover ominously over the mind of any American reader whose political beliefs are at least five degrees to the left of National Public Radio or The New Republic.

Thanks, Jan.

[Charles Drago]

[i]" ... learning about the nature of the system of corporate profit and exploitation which intelligence agencies were created to serve."

In a nutshell.

Remember this the next time you're tempted to argue that "the CIA did it."

" ... profit and exploitation" systematized, protected, disguised.

Or, if you will -- and you should -- Sponsors.

Gli sponsor sono al vertice della catena umana frenesia.

E qui ci si siede al centro della catena alimentarei.

[Seamus Coogan]

Upon a superficial examination, one would tend to think that the book will appeal to the Bible-thumping, right-wing populists of the John Birch fringe who despise the Rockefellers. This band of the American political spectrum, which has been known to publicize bizarre allegations of a Rockefeller--orchestrated plot to create a socialist world government, will be baffled and perplexed by one of Thy Will be Done's chief conclusions: that they've been had. According to Colby and Dennett, far from being a threat to the Machiavellian power of the Rockefellers, the Christian fundamentalists were extremely useful in furthering the global designs of the heirs of the Standard Oil fortune.

On the other hand, left-leaning liberals will find the book's conclusions even harder to swallow, since the Rockefeller philanthropies (which include the Rockefeller Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Rockefeller Family Fund) are among the main funding sources of liberal political activism in the US, including civil liberties, feminism and the environmental movement. Beneficiaries of Rockefeller charitable giving in recent years have included groups like Essential Information, the ACLU, the Ms. Foundation, the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, Environmental Action, the Student Environmental Action Coalition, the Center for Responsive Politics, the NAACP who are much more likely to say, "Wait, you're being a little unbalanced. Sure, they've done terrible things in the past, but they're funding some really terrific stuff nowadays." As much as one may try to rationalize the embarassing predicament of taking money from the ultra-rich to finance social change, the question remains: What are the prospects for an American progressive agenda when it is heavily dependent on funding from a philanthropic system that owes its forhine to commercial activities that destroy ecosystems worldwide, erode biological diversity and create a holocaust for indigenous peoples? Colby and Dennett do not pose that question to readers, but it will certainly hover ominously over the mind of any American reader whose political beliefs are at least five degrees to the left of National Public Radio or The New Republic.

Thanks, Jan.

Great piece that Jan. I really do agree. What it's seemed to me is that the right don't really get, how these guys like to hedge their bets and double dip. I think on the left due to having something more of a structural analysis, it's something many can grasp. But as you say mate, it's something the left sure as shit don't want to talk about if at all. Well I mean they aren't really even left. They are faux posers as far as I can tell (which is precisely your point). I dig what you have said about the future of progressive politics being funded by what are ultimately private interests. It irks me for example when I see PBS documentaries and National Geographic specials sponsored by shit like the Ford Foundation. While I agree that there may well be some form of coercion. One of the things you and I have come across in our respective countries are affluent people who may vote Green for the local council but Tory for the government, or under MMP in New Zealand vote for a National with the party vote and the green candidate (whose going to do shite). So yeah it's crazy stuff isn't it.

As for CD's comments concerning the CIA false sponsor line. I have to say that while no one believes the CIA in their entirety were involved. They have been involved in covering up numerous facts about members of the agencies likely involvement. As CD has also noted they have spread a ton of shite conspiracy angles themselves. Funnily enough Jim Garrison in later interviews never implicated the entire agency. Nor did Prouty. What they both did was target the Dulles faction of the CIA. As for the bigger picture I've enjoyed all of the comments that Vas, Jan, CD and others have made. I can't rightly say I know it all. Dulles really troubles me though. Nobodies master but sure as punch nobodies slave either. His family are just out and out weird.

[Charles Drago]

You're STILL not getting it.

There is no "the CIA" any more than there was a "the KGB."

These organizations are/were compartmentalized and factionalized (not redundant) and anything but organizationally or ideologically monolithic entities.

This reality is central to our appreciations of deep politics and its many manifestations.

Until we can master the very language we use to express what decades of study have revealed to us, we are fucking helpless.

[Lauren Johnson]

You're STILL not getting it.

There is no "the CIA" any more than there was a "the KGB."

These organizations are/were compartmentalized and factionalized (not redundant) and anything but organizationally or ideologically monolithic entities.

This reality is central to our appreciations of deep politics and its many manifestations.

Until we can master the very language we use to express what decades of study have revealed to us, we are fucking helpless.

CD, I have made myself go a little crazy putting my brain, such as it is, through different thought experiments. One of them being about "the CIA" versus some other entities. Once there is compartmentalization, factionalization, need to know, etc., the key to this zoo is who controls the compartments. In the day of The Secret Team, I suppose there was some kind of centralized control. But now? Would it be something out of the Good Fellas and the God Father? How would the factions adjudicate their differences?

Fletcher Prouty said that the CIA's founding cover story was that is was an intelligence gathering organization. Being right was never its prime directive. I would suppose its cover story now is that there is "a" CIA. Or does the whole thing devolve into a manifestation of The Unspeakable. Just cause more chaos, get rich, play poker for hookers, and have a hell of a lot of fun doing it.

[Charles Drago]

Who can say with any certainty?

Control of factions would be exercised by those entities -- corporate, political, religious/spiritual/occult, national, multi-national, and/or supra-national -- whose agendas they were charged with forwarding.

Adjudication of differences? I think not.

Carl Oglesby's Yankees and Cowboys seldom if ever took tea and chuck together.

[Lauren Johnson]

Who can say with any certainty?

Control of factions would be exercised by those entities -- corporate, political, religious/spiritual/occult, national, multi-national, and/or supra-national -- whose agendas they were charged with forwarding.

Adjudication of differences? I think not.

Carl Oglesby's Yankees and Cowboys seldom if ever took tea and chuck together.

I would have to think there is some kind of center of power to pull off a 9/11, for example. Obviously, this kind of operation would effect a lot of interests. How does the decision get made to go ahead and do it. Who wins; who loses? It had a lot of moving parts requiring careful coordination. It implies a military bureaucracy. The whole thing implies a fair degree of centralization.

I recognize I am reverse engineering without a deep politics degree in reverse engineering. Time to look at Yankees and Cowboys again.

[Greg Burnham]

[video]http://www.prouty.org/suydam.ram[/video]

[Phil Dragoo]

What was the result. The war got the paddlesit's alive.

Rockefeller got what he wanted in South and Central America.

We had the access to the heroin of the Golden Triangle.

The oil depletion allowance was left intact.

How was any regime changed. Agee whined of CIA money to swing elections. What of killing coups, a Lodge here, a Lansdale there.

Whose profit. Does United Fruit include Richard Simmonsand we are shooting leaders now, people, one, two, shoot, and three, and four, and shoot.

Organizations belie the terma creeping mandala of colored sand vibrated into place and blown.

Angleton knew all about Lee but not who struck John.

Dulles was out of town and Hunt was buying Chinese groceries, Nixon was in three places, GHWBush two, the cabinet nowhere to be found.

Curtis LeMay descends from Canada. Certain members of the Secret Service serve as doormen and ushers, having driven the death car, then stolen the body.

Lyndon is in but just til 68 when he goes bump bump bump down the funny stairs having appointed Helms. Whoops there goes Martin, and Bobby.

In comes Dick until he and Henry make too much détente with Mao and Chou then whoops Hunt for dread August when Gerry would come to add Nelson as vice and to investigate The CIA in re those pesky assassinations, pardon Dick.

A calliope, painted horses pumping, lights whirling, we stroll the sawdust of the park until closing.

No morrow it wasn't all about Lyndon, nor is it slash was it all about an agency.

Moving in and out of all agencies taking funding from dark matter, the business gets done.

Sometimes it's necessary to get some missile guidance information. Sometimes the poppy crop of a nation or region.

The president can be flexible. Kennedy could not.

What forces presidents to flex.

Baer once complained Tony Lake sent the FBI to arrest him as he was closing in on the mastermind behind the 1983 Beirut Embassy bombing, that the U.S. policy was owned by the Saudi oil pushers.

Why would Posner defend Ahmed Wali Karzai when the latter was charged with being a CIA tool and a druglord and why would Karzai be assassinated.

If FBI had homogeneity why was Sullivan shot and Felt dealt a pass.

If the Utah coal is off-limits the Indonesian coal is enhanced. China drills with Cuba.

Russia is suppressing opposition parties. China is censoring its internet. U.S. is building up its Homeland Security and enhancing NSA surveillance power.

The overarching principle is command economy on the largest scale attained by means of industrial espionage and sabotage, all deniable and financed from black sources.

Bureaucratic structures exist as so many fixed shelters for mobile launchers, a global game of Battleship denied by a class which disclaims, "It's not personal; it's business."

[Arni Thoroddsen]

[quote=Charles Drago][quote=Charles Drago][quote=Phil Dragoo] Since someone took the trouble to mention Graham Green, I am going to mention Ian Flemming. I shall have to be careful in my wording since any connection of the assasination to the organization that Flemming identified as SPECTRE could be actionable, especially in view of the fact that Thomas Buchanans book on the assasination of JFK suggests a relation to an oil industry connected criminal organization. The first thing to notice is that after Jackie read From Russia With Love, and pointed the book out to her husband, Flemming was invited to a meeting with the couple as a result of this where they no doubt discussed the book. Now my first question is, did Jackie recognize something or someone in the book, or was it merely that J.B. was a serial seducer that reminded her of her husband JFK? Now it will be obvious to all that the inspiration for the character in Thunderball was possibly Aristoteles Onassis (although he might not have been as agressive and unscrupulous as the Thunderball character though providing the inspiration for him). Ian Flemming knew Onassis and had slept in his Yacht which was an obvious inspiration for events in his novels. Of course we know that Onassis did provide finance for Kennedys campaign and is said to have made a deal with Onassis that JFK later broke perhaps as a result of taking benzedreene. Also Flemmings title at MI6 was commander (the same as 007), and this suggests that he may have had assignments connected to the fleet (one of the main objectives of the British Secret Service was securing a supply of oil for the fleet). It is known that Onassis came under the scrutiny of every intelligence service in the world when it was feared that he was establishing a monopoly of transporting oil from the middle east with financial help from the Saudis who had commissioned him to build a fleet for such an enterprise (who were the bankers involved in this enterprise? Was the Safari Club involved? They must have had intelligence on this enterprise.). It seems to me that Ian Flemming would have been ideal for the task of investigating Onassis since he knew him and travelled widely. Secondly Onassis had been helped in amassing his wealth by the fact that his shipping was left largely untouched be german attacks during WW2. This might indicate a connection to an intelligence network that provided info on where and when attacks would occur. An intelligence network that reached outside the usual borders of US, Britain, USSR, and Germany in a SPECTRE type of cooperation. It has also been suggested that the Rockefellers were selling oil to Germany (by klandestine means) during WW2 and they were Blackmailed for doing this during the establishment of Israel. Who was responsible for transporting alleged oil to the Germans? Ian Flemming identifies the Thunderball character as Number Two in the SPECTRE organization. Number One is identified as Ernst Stavros Bloefeld if I remember correctly. Now I must tell you that the fact I have the same I.Q. as Lex Luthor would never have lead me to make any connection from the above statements to the Kennedy assasination. That means that there is essentially no way that the people that most likely planned the assasination and the coverup could be found directly. It was only because my interest in this (Ian Flemming inspired) SPECTRE network was aroused due to a different sequence of events that caused me to ask how this SPECTRE network could be identified and some of the persons involved in it could be tagged. I wondered if the Thunderball character had a possible inspiration in Onassis, if the same applied to Ernst Bloefeld that some real character provided the inspiration for him. And lo and behold. Searching the Internet I came across the FBI file of the character that was most likely the inspiration for Ernst. He probably had intimate connections with the KGB, considering his past Tycoon activities. He had a family crest that reminds of the HOME and HEARTH crest of Bloefeld in "in her majesties secret service" (and he certainly was Boarish in his demeanor). The past described in his FBI file had probably served as inspiration for events in some 007 books (it suggests that Flemming had possibly read this file or some similar MI6 file). But then what connected him to Kennedy? He had been convicted of making illegal campaign contributions in a presidential campaign and received a suspended sentence. This might suggest that he was involved in the KGB ongoing attempt to influence american presidential elections (one of the main responsibilities of the chairman of the KGB, which probably in the end led to the collapse of the Soviet Union (his failure to stop Reagan and his operational activities that among other repercussions politically destroyed Carter)). And one more thing. Who were the first persons to visit the Kremlin in an official capacity after the Kennedy assasination? (as described in "Red Carpet") David Rockefeller and our Ian Flemming muse for the Bloefeld Character. I can understand why Jackie chose to marry Onassis as the only means of protecting her children from the reach of this organization. Did the network that inspired SPECTRE blow the whistle on the Bay of Pigs? Did they now have an agent in the White House, in the Oval Office? I hope you find these questions interesting.