Jump to content


Photo

The Preordination of Assassination


  • Please log in to reply
68 replies to this topic

#1 Charles Drago

Charles Drago

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,116 posts
  • LocationWherever I am observed by myself.

Posted 12 August 2014 - 10:01 AM

Was it pre-ordained that a version of JFK would be elected and then eliminated in so violently archetypal a manner as a pre-preemptive strike to render moot the anticipated next iteration of the world's cyclically rising hope for the realization of the ideals he, and many before him (the Graachi brothers, Jesus Christ, Gandhi, et al), personified and championed?

 

Was JFK put in to be taken out?

 

Were the elevation and assassination of an Arthurian president the key components in a larger plan to support the continued physical and metaphysical dominance of this planet by the murder's Sponsors?


  • MatthewOr and Robertboff like this
"[Y]ou can't blame the innocent, they are always guiltless. All you can do is control them or eliminate them. Innocence is a kind of insanity." -- Graham Greene, The Quiet American

"If an individual, through either his own volition or events over which he had no control, found himself taking up residence in a country undefined by flags or physical borders, he could be assured of one immediate and abiding consequence. He was on his own, and solitude and loneliness would probably be his companions unto the grave." -- James Lee Burke, Rain Gods

a wind has blown the rain away and blown
the sky away and all the leaves away,
and the trees stand. i think i too have known
autumn too long
-- e. e. cummings

#2 Charles Drago

Charles Drago

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,116 posts
  • LocationWherever I am observed by myself.

Posted 12 August 2014 - 10:08 AM

Let's now drop the other shoe.

 

I first raised the possibilities presented above more than four years ago on another forum.  Within two months and just two posts, the thread -- started by our own Stan Wilbourne, by the way -- had been hijacked and turned into an entirely off-point, idiotic, destructive "debate" about the role(s), if any, played by Israel in the assassination -- including that of Sponsor.


"[Y]ou can't blame the innocent, they are always guiltless. All you can do is control them or eliminate them. Innocence is a kind of insanity." -- Graham Greene, The Quiet American

"If an individual, through either his own volition or events over which he had no control, found himself taking up residence in a country undefined by flags or physical borders, he could be assured of one immediate and abiding consequence. He was on his own, and solitude and loneliness would probably be his companions unto the grave." -- James Lee Burke, Rain Gods

a wind has blown the rain away and blown
the sky away and all the leaves away,
and the trees stand. i think i too have known
autumn too long
-- e. e. cummings

#3 Larry Trotter

Larry Trotter

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • LocationHouston, TX

Posted 12 August 2014 - 11:31 AM

On occasion, I have wondered about the possibility that a "powerful group" felt the need to violently remove the next president, and then tried to help assure the election of JFK as his assassination would have stronger ramifications regarding hope for the future.


Larry

Student of Assassination Research


#4 Adele Edisen

Adele Edisen

    Founding Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 643 posts

Posted 12 August 2014 - 01:00 PM

The way I consider this question of preordaining the election of JFK is that certain Republicans did not like 

losing the 1932-1952 elections of five Democratic presidential terms, even after their attempt at a coup d'etat

in 1933-34.  Despite their limitation of the number of terms to two that a president would now serve, they

wanted to keep a Republican succession of presidents going so that they could undo all of the pieces of

 democratic and socially beneficial legislation enacted under Roosevelt and Truman.   The thought of 

another popular Democratic president whom they could not control, as they were beginning to find out,

was very frightening to these corporate and banking interests who were not convinced by Kennedy's 

initial apparent conciliatory statements and movements.  

 

In the first few months of the Kennedy administration they witnessed how he handled the Bay of Pigs 

incident thrust upon him by the prior Vice President Nixon-initiated plans, and the dismissal of the

head and major administrators of the CIA.  They heard his speeches to the American people and the

listings of his ideas and goals for the Nation, all generally contradictory to their own ideas and aims.

 

They understood politics and economics well enough to realize that John Kennedy was not going

to be anyone they could work with or tolerate, and a second term in office had to be blocked by 

some means.   They had the means to do this and to get away with it.   So they did.



#5 Greg Burnham

Greg Burnham

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 3,060 posts
  • LocationSan Diego, CA

Posted 12 August 2014 - 01:12 PM

Adele,

 

I hope you are not suggesting that the Sponsorship Level consists of individuals who are mostly driven by partisan--in this case, Republican Party--politics.


_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
 
Greg Burnham
Admin

 

 

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- JFK

"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."  -- Farewell America (1968) 

“The ancient Greek definition of happiness was the full use of your powers along lines of excellence."  -- JFK

"A wise man can act a fool, but a foolish man can never act wise."  -- Unknown

 

Website:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Main Page

 

Forum:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Research Forum

 
YouTube Channel:
 
GooglePlus:
 
Twitter:
 
Facebook:
 

#6 Adele Edisen

Adele Edisen

    Founding Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 643 posts

Posted 12 August 2014 - 02:30 PM

No, but if we look at those who led the Coup against Roosevelt and study their political and class status,

they were very right-wing .   A better term might have been "Fascist".   Example, the admirer of Joseph

Goebbels (sp), and head of the CIA, Allen Dulles.    Who were those in the CIA and US military who

brought Nazis like Dornberger, making him head of a huge corporation, and the Nazi spies, and  

physicians/human experimenters to US military hospitals, in the late 1940s and 1950s and et cetera.

'

And all on taxpayers' hard earned money?

 

Also remember, please, the Wall Street plotters of 1933-34 were planning to replace Roosevelt with a 

real dictator like Mussolini.  Prescott Bush was one of them, the Duponts and the entire American

Liberty League which fought Roosevelt and the Democrats in every election in the 1930s until they

had to give up and disbanded around 1940.

 

Yes, there were two exceptions, two Democrats, both Wall Street affiliates who went along with mostly

these Republicans - Al Smith, former mayor of NYC and former governor of NY State, and John Davis,

Presidential Candidate in 1924 (?).   Since we do not have multiple political parties as in other countries,

we can only think in terms of the two partie, plus Independents, which is not an organization.

So when an opposing party is made up of mostly certain demographic types that favor certain views and 

 vote a certain way, as say, Republican, it is not incorrect to so state, or is it?   What other way could

they be described when discussing elections and politics?



#7 Greg Burnham

Greg Burnham

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 3,060 posts
  • LocationSan Diego, CA

Posted 12 August 2014 - 03:40 PM

Virtually by definition, Sponsor Level concerns supersede those concerns normally associated with International Borders, religious or other philosophical differences in ideology, and even those perceived issues that were allegedly driving the Cold War.

 

Certainly such concerns rise above faux differences between "Democrat and Republican" partisanship. Although I believe the term fascist is preferable, it still misses the mark, IMO.


  • Charles Drago likes this

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
 
Greg Burnham
Admin

 

 

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- JFK

"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."  -- Farewell America (1968) 

“The ancient Greek definition of happiness was the full use of your powers along lines of excellence."  -- JFK

"A wise man can act a fool, but a foolish man can never act wise."  -- Unknown

 

Website:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Main Page

 

Forum:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Research Forum

 
YouTube Channel:
 
GooglePlus:
 
Twitter:
 
Facebook:
 

#8 Jim Hackett II

Jim Hackett II

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 928 posts

Posted 12 August 2014 - 04:58 PM

Can we reboot Stan's thread? I think so.

 

Neocons, Fascists, and etc. Mach's Nix to me, six of one and half a dozen of another.

 

No proper label that I can think of fits quite right. However it is clear the operatives serving even now the Enemy.

 

Enemy isn't even close either I know.

 

Jim



#9 Adele Edisen

Adele Edisen

    Founding Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 643 posts

Posted 12 August 2014 - 06:17 PM

Could we develop a possible profile of the Sponsor(s)?  What constraints would we have to impose, such as

nationality or citizenship?  Economic class might be very important.   Because the person who was murdered

was a politician, was the murder performed for political reasons, or for some other purpose?   What other 

purposes could there be?

 

Since we are focussing here on the death of President Kennedy, we should ask why were public places 

chosen for the murder (public streets in Miami, Chicago, Dallas, and Tampa.  Why was the murder to be

done by gunfire?  Why did so many people have to be involved?   (Why not a quiet poisoning in a private

dining room, involving less than, say, five people?

 

Anyway, what kind of twisted minds could conceive the murder of another human being in such a horrific manner?  


  • Larry Trotter likes this

#10 Gordon Gray

Gordon Gray

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 126 posts

Posted 13 August 2014 - 12:51 PM

Whenever I think of the Sponsors and their motives I think of Arthur Jenson's speech from Networks: "We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, the world is a college of corporations inexorably determined by the immutable by laws of business. The world is a business."

IMO Kennedy was killed because it was determined that he was bad for business.



#11 Charles Drago

Charles Drago

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,116 posts
  • LocationWherever I am observed by myself.

Posted 13 August 2014 - 01:57 PM

I'm with you, Gordon, as far as you go.  But I'm convinced that motives unrelated to materialism were at play.


  • Jim Hackett II likes this
"[Y]ou can't blame the innocent, they are always guiltless. All you can do is control them or eliminate them. Innocence is a kind of insanity." -- Graham Greene, The Quiet American

"If an individual, through either his own volition or events over which he had no control, found himself taking up residence in a country undefined by flags or physical borders, he could be assured of one immediate and abiding consequence. He was on his own, and solitude and loneliness would probably be his companions unto the grave." -- James Lee Burke, Rain Gods

a wind has blown the rain away and blown
the sky away and all the leaves away,
and the trees stand. i think i too have known
autumn too long
-- e. e. cummings

#12 Jim Hackett II

Jim Hackett II

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 928 posts

Posted 13 August 2014 - 02:43 PM

I'll make an attempt at a profile for Sponsors,

no limitation as to national citizenship, they are everywhere the power is allowed to concentrate.

I would have to conclude no matter the ethnicity of the people, they are quite racist in practice,

But it goes even deeper,

those *(%^*#$s hate the poor and anyone of color and anyone not taking their poison into spirit and mind.

 

Class? Well sort of. Arrogant, Mathusian, Social Darwinists and Hateful to be sure.

Nameless but to those that obey.

Hence faceless to the people.

The invisible deciders in their own minds.

 

And this point of mind poison leads to Charlie's point of more than materialism being at play.

 

I profoundly agree.

I am glad Jim Douglass' book breached a point that should have been part of the discussion currency of independent researchers long ago.

Jim



#13 Charles Drago

Charles Drago

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,116 posts
  • LocationWherever I am observed by myself.

Posted 13 August 2014 - 05:00 PM

I am glad Jim Douglass' book breached a point that should have been part of the discussion currency of independent researchers long ago.

 

 

So am I.

 

If only Jim Douglass and George Michael Evica could have known and worked with each other in this life.

 

George Michael was a professor of Comparative Religions (among other academic disciplines).  He encouraged my thoughts and inquiries along these lines ... always a furlong or nine ahead of me.  

 

Those who seek and attain ultimate, self-sustaining material wealth and the unchallengeable earthly power it bestows cannot understand why their thirst is never quenched.  So, to use the phrase we all know so well, they try to take it with them.

 

They beseech the Unspeakable ... and in so doing, become as one with it.

 

Okay, okay, I'll lighten up.

 

George Carlin observed, "If it's your new black suit, you can probably take it with you."


  • Jim Hackett II and Chuck Barlow like this
"[Y]ou can't blame the innocent, they are always guiltless. All you can do is control them or eliminate them. Innocence is a kind of insanity." -- Graham Greene, The Quiet American

"If an individual, through either his own volition or events over which he had no control, found himself taking up residence in a country undefined by flags or physical borders, he could be assured of one immediate and abiding consequence. He was on his own, and solitude and loneliness would probably be his companions unto the grave." -- James Lee Burke, Rain Gods

a wind has blown the rain away and blown
the sky away and all the leaves away,
and the trees stand. i think i too have known
autumn too long
-- e. e. cummings

#14 Karen Clift

Karen Clift

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • LocationUnited States

Posted 13 August 2014 - 11:38 PM

I'm convinced that motives unrelated to materialism were at play.

 

I agree. 

 

The fact the sponsors chose to murder JFK in such a brutal and public fashion, indicates to me that it was about power, control, and ego.  I think they were making a statement to anyone who could see beyond the face value of the event that they held massive power and control.  They could assassinate the president, pin it on a patsy, hide/destroy all official evidence to the contrary, control several government inquires, and get away completely scot-free.  They were above the law, and above the government (any government).

 

As to your original question:  Was JFK put in to be taken out?  I certainly think it is possible.  But I tend to lean toward a different explanation. 

 

The sponsors only needed JFK dead to destroy the feeling of hope he provided to the nation.  As Adele pointed out, there were simpler ways to do it. 

 

The fact they chose to blow the man’s brains out in front of dozens of men, women, and children leads me to speculate that it was an act of vengeance as well as a display of power.  It was not assassination, it was annihilation. 

 

It seems more likely to me that they allowed nature to take its course with JFK being elected, but when his policies, decisions, and ideals did not meet with their approval, they took matters into their own hands to correct the problem, decisively and vindictively.

 

Just my 2 cents.


"And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should ... withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know."      

-- John F. Kennedy


#15 Jim Hackett II

Jim Hackett II

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 928 posts

Posted 14 August 2014 - 04:31 AM

Wm. Blum's book "Killing Hope" and Colby and Dennett's "Thy Will Be Done" (and others) lay out the real foreign policies of the Sponsor-set.

When the global masters decide the US Govt. gets in line with their desires.

Hence the Tonkin Gulf bull and a generation abused for drugs and profit.

And nothing more.

No dominos fell.

Oops well ya can't win 'em all.

 

The trend of events around the Murder were to destroy spirit and will of the people.

Brutality in public was only a tactic of the murder to reinforce the coronation of a new system.

A system to destroy hope and intimidate the people.

Hope was killed in that time, the Congress, Executive and Judiciary signed off on the Bull.

WeThePeople stood alone with no seconds in their corner.

Except the independent researchers, then in 1964 same as now.

 

Profits were the icing on the cake to be harvested from the sacrifice of the conscripted folks.

 

Long-term an important point is the degradation of Americans view of themselves.

To stifle independence of mind and make more remote rights of the Constitution.

In the age of Co-Intel Pro the law was only another tool of repression.

Only the oppressed were aware of the criminal deeds of "law enforcement" assets for a while.

 

Like the Bu$h/Cheney poisoned hearts, the "law-and-order" Nixonites paved the road to totalitarianism,

worse most people bought the bull for a season ignoring the criminal acts of repression in the streets.

 

Today is not all that different in the age of Snowden exposures of crimes.

No prosecutor joins wethepeople in that lonely corner.

No hope in the prosecutors' hearts either, none left.

Spiritual degradation spreads and rots integrity I guess.

 

Jim



#16 Charles Drago

Charles Drago

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,116 posts
  • LocationWherever I am observed by myself.

Posted 14 August 2014 - 05:40 AM

The fact the sponsors chose to murder JFK in such a brutal and public fashion, indicates to me that it was about power, control, and ego. 

 

It seems more likely to me that they allowed nature to take its course with JFK being elected, but when his policies, decisions, and ideals did not meet with their approval, they took matters into their own hands to correct the problem, decisively and vindictively.

 

If you use the word "about" to indicate motive, then the murder of John Fitzgerald Kennedy was "about" many things for many conspirators at many levels of the conspiracy. 

 

I agree that the preservation through demonstration of power, control, and ego was in evidence in Dealey Plaza.

 

But understand that lusts for power and control and the gratification of ego" grow more difficult to sate in direct proportion to the energy expended to sate them.

 

So in reference to the ultimate motivation of the assassination's Sponsors, the tired Madison Avenue conundrum informs our quest for answers:  

 

What do you give to the person who has everything?

 

Or as these Sponsors might have posed the question: 

 

What can I take when there's nothing that I haven't already taken?

 

In Dealey Plaza, we witness materialists in pursuit of ownership and control of the immaterial ... trying to make heaven my Home Goods.

 

For them, the laws of nature are just blue laws.

 

They are the law.

 

They are nature.

 

Or so they conclude, until nature inevitably decrees otherwise.


  • Larry Trotter and Chuck Barlow like this
"[Y]ou can't blame the innocent, they are always guiltless. All you can do is control them or eliminate them. Innocence is a kind of insanity." -- Graham Greene, The Quiet American

"If an individual, through either his own volition or events over which he had no control, found himself taking up residence in a country undefined by flags or physical borders, he could be assured of one immediate and abiding consequence. He was on his own, and solitude and loneliness would probably be his companions unto the grave." -- James Lee Burke, Rain Gods

a wind has blown the rain away and blown
the sky away and all the leaves away,
and the trees stand. i think i too have known
autumn too long
-- e. e. cummings

#17 Larry Trotter

Larry Trotter

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • LocationHouston, TX

Posted 14 August 2014 - 07:59 AM

If you use the word "about" to indicate motive, then the murder of John Fitzgerald Kennedy was "about" many things for many conspirators at many levels of the conspiracy. 

 

I agree that the preservation through demonstration of "power, control, and ego was in evidence in Dealey Plaza.

 

But understand that lusts for power and control and the gratification of ego" grow more difficult to sate in direct proportion to the energy expended to sate them.

 

So in reference to the ultimate motivation of the assassination's Sponsors, the tired Madison Avenue conundrum informs our quest for answers:  

 

What do you give to the person who has everything?

 

Or as these Sponsors might have posed the question: 

 

What can I take when there's nothing that I haven't already taken?

 

In Dealey Plaza, we witness materialists in pursuit of ownership and control of the immaterial ... trying to make heaven my Home Goods.

 

For them, the laws of nature are just blue laws.

 

They are the law.

 

They are nature.

 

Or so they conclude, until nature inevitably decrees otherwise.

Very, very well put. And, as discussed in other posts, as far as political party allegiance is concerned, just maybe "infiltration" comes into play. JMO.


Larry

Student of Assassination Research


#18 Gordon Gray

Gordon Gray

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 126 posts

Posted 14 August 2014 - 10:08 AM

As I read  Prouty's Secret Team, it seems to me that they were reactive instead of proactive. They tended to take advantage of events as the presented themselves to pursue the sponsor's agenda, but they didn't plan ahead. I doubt the assassination was preordained. Kennedy's ability to inspire hope was fine as long as it lead to things like the space program, arms race, and the Peace Corps, I'm sure  those programs pleased the sponsors. The message sent by the assignation was not meant for people like me and my family. Middle class Americans who trusted in the Government and thought it was a tragic act at the hands of a lone nut. I was meant for a select few, those at a much higher level of power who might not have been so completely interested in getting with the program. People like Bobby who pretty much got the message that day. In that sense it was no different than a Mafia hit. As to motives other than materialism, I would suspect many  of these powerful elite, who weren't total Machiavellians,  think of themselves as benign despots, or good shepherds, who sometimes must take Draconian measures for the good of the herd. Perhaps they had a kind of jaundiced idealism as expressed in the latter part to the Arthur Jenson's Networks speech: "and some day we will see that perfect, world in which there is no war or famine, no oppression or brutality, one vast and ecumenical holding company for which all men will work to serve a common profit , in which all men will hold a share of stock. all necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused." I don't know who the sponsors are or were, but I know Paddy Chayefsky could write.



#19 Greg Burnham

Greg Burnham

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 3,060 posts
  • LocationSan Diego, CA

Posted 14 August 2014 - 10:31 AM

Gordon Gray wrote:

 

As to motives other than materialism, I would suspect many  of these powerful elite, who weren't total Machiavellians,  think of themselves as benign despots, or good shepherds, who sometimes must take Draconian measures for the good of the herd. Perhaps they had a kind of jaundiced idealism as expressed in the latter part to the Arthur Jenson's Networks speech: "and some day we will see that perfect, world in which there is no war or famine, no oppression or brutality, one vast and ecumenical holding company for which all men will work to serve a common profit , in which all men will hold a share of stock. all necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused."

 

 

So Adele thinks the Sponsors were Republicans and you think they were Communists?


_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
 
Greg Burnham
Admin

 

 

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- JFK

"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."  -- Farewell America (1968) 

“The ancient Greek definition of happiness was the full use of your powers along lines of excellence."  -- JFK

"A wise man can act a fool, but a foolish man can never act wise."  -- Unknown

 

Website:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Main Page

 

Forum:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Research Forum

 
YouTube Channel:
 
GooglePlus:
 
Twitter:
 
Facebook:
 

#20 Gordon Gray

Gordon Gray

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 126 posts

Posted 14 August 2014 - 02:38 PM

That IMO is more a description of the kind of totalitarian state Orwell envisioned, or one might find in the film Roller Ball. hardly communist in the Marxist sense.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Web Work by: XmasZen.com