• Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Steve Thomas

Strategy of tension

48 posts in this topic

Thanks George,  although I think I would still take the same position. The report proposed simulations, mock attacks and other activities that could be blamed on the Cubans.  The intention would have been to do such things without causing American casualties - planning that sort of detail would have come later and might well have gone bad anyway, no doubt one of the reasons the proposals never really went anywhere, especially with JFK.  What I would agree on is that the Joint Chiefs were all for open warfare with Cuba and what they wanted were orders to engage, they continued practicing large scale, undeniable invasions during the summer of 1963 - with JFK's full approval.

And the Joint Chiefs warned the CIA about their Bay of Pigs invasion plans, telling them directly that if even a single Cuban aircraft remained destroyed and was in the air to challenge the landing it would likely be a disaster - which it was.

I didn't post here to persuade anyone from their views, I posted to make the point that the provocation practices called out in Northwoods were not unique - and to emphasize the point that the CIA had been in the business of doing things such as provocations and political assassinations for years, they had highly experienced military personnel in operations who had studied the history of such assassinations, including deniable assassinations and didn't need any staff reports to tell them how to orchestrate provocations, or put together deniable assassination plots. We even know who some of those officers were and what they were doing in 1963 - and how much they hated JFK and considered him a security risk and probably a traitor.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/19/2017 at 8:10 PM, Larry Hancock said:

Business as usual Paul, I was trying to point out that everything from contingency planning (including provocations and false flag tension and destabilization programs) are very real practices and occur constantly.  And the US is not the only nation that practices them. All these things are quite serious and is important to know about them; however in my view just because they exist does not mean that they were associated with Dallas. On the other hand, we also know a great deal about assassination practices and in particular deniable practices - we have Harvey's exec action notes, we have examples of several CIA projects and for that matter a number of Russian deniable assassinations including some recent ones. The practices are laid out for us and pretty consistent.  And in the case of Dallas its possible to connect the dots showing that CIA folks and for that matter exiles involved in assassination projects were involved in the JFK assassination.  I know it sounds like I'm being repetitive but I fail to understand why when we have solid leads to people who were doing assassinations then and who considered JFK an imminent national security threat (the CIA types) and/or a traitor to their country (CIA assets and exiles) we continue to look further afield and wrestle around at the concept level when we already have well defined motives, people and timelines that connect everything together.  But that's just me.

Larry,

"All these things are quite serious and is important to know about them; however in my view just because they exist does not mean that they were associated with Dallas."

 

That was the intent of my original question. 

 

Earlier, you wrote, "All of which is my way of saying that that there is a real risk in approaching this case - and any major historical event - at the level Sanandria does rather than at the level a criminal investigator would. If you start at a very high level and with a pretty strong idea of what you are going to find, you are very likely to find traces of what you expected."

 

In psychology terms, what do they call that? Projection?

 

OTOH, should Dallas be viewed in isolation, or was it part of a historical trend? Was Dallas part of Serac's "armed struggle on a planetary dimension"?

 

Steve Thomas

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve, I think "projection" captures what I was saying far better than the way I said it...sigh...then again if one word will do I usually use a couple of dozen...

I don't view Dallas in isolation, actually I view it as a product the rampant fear and paranoia of the Cold War - part of the same fear that did lead the US into not just an armed struggle in places like Korea and Vietnam but at least as dangerously into deniable, covert warfare against what was seen as a world wide communist movement - but which in most cases was simply an independence movement involving anti-colonialism and post war nationalism. The degree of fear (which included the fear of losing economic hegemony) was tremendous - triggered by Stalin but fueled by Kennan and in particular John Foster Dulles.  While everyone around here probably sees Alan Dulles as the worlds biggest villain, I look towards brother John. 

To the point...people like Kennan and the Dulles brothers drove Eisenhower into a position where the world was black and white and in an existential struggle....JFK was one of the very few with the vision and courage to get beyond that.  He could actually see value in neutrality (which is were he was about to push Castro in the fall of 63).  That was the reason he was able to start separating India from Russia. The problem was that was viewed by many as so naive as to be virtually traitorous.

Which is why I believe that the move towards the attack in Dallas actually began in the summer of 1963 with word being circulated on the Castro contacts and while it solidified in October with confirmation down from Angleton about JFKs totally independent and back channel negotiations with Castro. Sadly we can almost date that since we now have documents showing that JM/WAVE and Mexico City suddenly and with no prior interest became focused on at least one individual who was part of that covert dialog between JFK and Castro.

See...one more example of where I could have just said Yes but wasn't able to...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I have been wanting to put a term out there, but I have not felt that I could intelligently integrate it into this discussion. It's meaning in literary criticism suggests, goes beyond, and ultimately falls short of the psychological results the Dallas Coup. The term is "Future Shock". While the term usually has more to do with the impact of accelerating industrialism on social psychology, I see, and am searching for, a comparable term that describes the planned, and actual, impact of the JFKA on the American and world psychology.

The message was that our President could be assassinated, and his ideals and dreams as well as those of people who believed that peace and justice were attainable, would be killed and buried with him, with impunity.

We were not meant to actually believe in the Warren Comission's findings. We were meant to believe that this could be done and their was nothing that we could do about it.

Cicero called the assassination of Caesar a "Wonderful Banquet". With the assassinations of RFK, MLK, Malcom X, and a host of others, banquets became akin to McDonalds take-out.

MacBeth's refrain of "Nothing is, But what is not" became the solace fed to an accepting populace.

Edited by Michael Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further, I was, again, watching the aptly named 12-1-66 Firingline episode. This was the interview of Mark Lane by William Buckley Jr.. I was struck by Jr's framing of Eisenhower, hypothetically of course, as a Communist. It was shocking to me, and it appeared to me to be an assertion of the existing psychological war on the American People.The assertion seemed outrageous to me and it's presence on national TV spoke to that above mentioned refrain of Shakespeare's MacBeth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

Steve, I think "projection" captures what I was saying far better than the way I said it...sigh...then again if one word will do I usually use a couple of dozen...

I don't view Dallas in isolation, actually I view it as a product the rampant fear and paranoia of the Cold War - part of the same fear that did lead the US into not just an armed struggle in places like Korea and Vietnam but at least as dangerously into deniable, covert warfare against what was seen as a world wide communist movement - but which in most cases was simply an independence movement involving anti-colonialism and post war nationalism. The degree of fear (which included the fear of losing economic hegemony) was tremendous - triggered by Stalin but fueled by Kennan and in particular John Foster Dulles.  While everyone around here probably sees Alan Dulles as the worlds biggest villain, I look towards brother John. 

To the point...people like Kennan and the Dulles brothers drove Eisenhower into a position where the world was black and white and in an existential struggle....JFK was one of the very few with the vision and courage to get beyond that.  He could actually see value in neutrality (which is were he was about to push Castro in the fall of 63).  That was the reason he was able to start separating India from Russia. The problem was that was viewed by many as so naive as to be virtually traitorous.

Which is why I believe that the move towards the attack in Dallas actually began in the summer of 1963 with word being circulated on the Castro contacts and while it solidified in October with confirmation down from Angleton about JFKs totally independent and back channel negotiations with Castro. Sadly we can almost date that since we now have documents showing that JM/WAVE and Mexico City suddenly and with no prior interest became focused on at least one individual who was part of that covert dialog between JFK and Castro.

See...one more example of where I could have just said Yes but wasn't able to...

Larry,

 

Whew.

 

Several Things:

 

1) I don't mind if you babble.      heehee

You've taught me a lot over the years.

 

2) You might be interested in reading this article:   https://libcom.org/library/strategy-tension   at least the first 3 or 4 paragraphs. It echoes a lot of what you said in your post above, I think. You have to overlook the fact that he got the year of the Generals' Putsch wrong.

This Guido Giannettini was no mere "journalist"  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guido_Giannettini

 

3) I agree with you about John Dulles. Between him and George Kennan they did a lot of damage. I remember reading about Kennan when I was a wee lad and thinking even then that he was pretty extreme.

 

4) Along with JFK's backchannel negotiations with Castro, I'd include his backchannel communications with Kruschev. Any chance that got out somehow?

 

5) What do you think of the Bay of Pigs veterans who came back and were incorporated into the US Armed Forces? I think I've read that some (if not a lot) of them were trained alongside of Green Berets at Fort Benning was it? Do any of them in particular factor in to how you see JFK's demise went down? Those guys must have been highly trained.

 

Steve Thomas

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve, not sure about the Russian back-channel thing although we do know that the compromise over the missile crisis was literally described by key Cuban exiles as a physical shock and a wake up call.  Many of them are quoted in saying that it confirmed that JFK was a traitor, to both the US and Cuba.  We also know that immediately afterwards certain exile cliques began to plot assassination against JFK...that's pretty clear. What is unclear is whether any of those individuals ended up in the Dallas attack.

As to the Fort Benning trainees, yes I suspect one or more were recruited into the Dallas action.  Most of them went from Benning into the Artime AM/WORLD project - and people involved in that were Robert Kennedy's first suspects, we know that from his phone call immediately after he heard of the shooting in Dallas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

... Northwoods not unique

Larry

Some operations of Veciana did not have the approval of JFK. Many operations did have his approval but I've never seen a document that has JFK's signature approving any operation by the CIA. That doesn't mean that aren't any, it may mean that these documents are hidden away somewhere. I would guess that someone's book includes a document but I'm not sure.Or it could mean all the CIA needed was a nod by JFK and they would run with it. If as you say these types of operations, operations that Northwoods would fall under, were routine and not unique why is JFK's signature needed. It seems that Northwoods was regarded by the JCS as different from the normal CIA anti - Cuban operations.

I think the main reason the JCS needed JFK's signature was this was an attempt by the JCS to get approval for covert operations against Cuba. In that respect it was unique. They were moving in on the CIA's territory because they felt the CIA had botched things up and the CIA's attempts to entice the USA into war with Cuba were a failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

I have been wanting to put a term out there, but I have not felt that I could intelligently integrate it into this discussion. It's meaning in literary criticism suggests, goes beyond, and ultimately falls short of the psychological affect of the psychological results the Dallas Coup. The term is "Future Shock". While the term usually has more to do with the impact of accelerating industrialism on social psychology, I see, and am searching for, a comparable term that describes the planned, and actual, impact of the JFKA on the American and world psychology.

The message was that our President could be assassinated, and his ideals and dreams as well as those of people who believed that peace and justice were attainable, would be killed and buried with him, with impunity.

We were not meant to actually believe in the Warren Comission's findings. We were meant to believe that this could be done and their was nothing that we could do about it.

Cicero called the assassination of Caesar a "Wonderful Banquet". With the assassinations of RFK, MLK, Malcom X, and a host of others, banquets became akin to McDonalds take-out.

MacBeth's refrain of "Nothing is, But what is not" became the solace fed to an accepting populace.

Michael,

 

I was just reading something along these same lines just the other day - maybe it was Salandria?

 

Whoever I was reading (and I'd hate to attribute it to anyone in particular in case I get it wrong), was saying that the conspiracy was so transparent that it was meant to be discovered. The damage came afterwards when the federal government failed to follow up and that said to the American people, "See, this can happen and there's "nothing you can do about it."" 

 

I mean, how can the HSCA determine that there was a 95% probability that there was a conspiracy, and the Justice Department just that lay there like some kind of foul smelling rotten egg?  That's outrageous.

 

Could you provide another line or two from Cicero's quote? I'd like to roll that around in my brain for a while.

 

Steve Thomas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

George, actually the Joint Chief staff study was part of a larger effort of JFK's to move covert military operations away from the CIA entirely.  He had issued a directive for that, it was already in progress in Vietnam and his move of the Cuba project under Lansdale - leaving the CIA purely in a supporting role - was all part of that transition.  The CIA was very much aware that it was being moved out of high level control of such operations, they had forfeited that at the Bay of Pigs. The specific reason the staff study was done and reviewed by JFK was that he was taking control over covert action at a much more detailed level and quashing parts of it - while expanding others, like approving covert military missions into North Vietnam and shipping artillery to the Hmong in Laos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

23 minutes ago, Steve Thomas said:

Michael,

 

Could you provide another line or two from Cicero's quote? I'd like to roll that around in my brain for a while.

 

Steve Thomas

It is in a February, 43 BC. letter to Trebonius. 

Here it is...

TO GAIUS TREBONIUS (IN ASIA) - 
ROME, 2 FEBRUARY 43 B.C.

How I could wish that you had invited me to that most glorious banquet on the Ides of March! We should have had no leavings! While, as it is, we are having such a trouble with them, that the magnificent service which you men then did the state leaves room for some grumbling. In fact, for Antony's having been taken out of the way by you - the best of men - and that it was by your kindness that this pest still survives, I sometimes do feel, though perhaps I have no right to do so, a little angry with you. For you have left behind an amount of trouble which is greater for me than for everyone else put together. 

For as soon as a meeting of the senate could be freely held, after Antony's very undignified departure,1 I returned to that old courage of mine, which along with that gallant taking over the province, as though he were "succeeding" to the governorship, without allowing his predecessor even the thirty days beyond his year given him by the Julian law. citizen, your father, you ever had upon your lips and in your heart. For the tribunes having summoned the senate for the 20th of December, and having brought a different piece of business before it, I reviewed the situation as a whole, and spoke with the greatest fire, and tried all I could to recall the now languid and wearied senate to its ancient and traditional valour, more by an exhibition of high spirit than of eloquence.2

This day and this earnest appeal from me were the first things that inspired the Roman people with the hope of recovering its liberty. And had not I supposed that a gazette of the city and of all acts of the senate was transmitted to you, I would have written you out a copy with my own hand, though I have been overpowered with a multiplicity of business. But you will learn all that from others. From me you shall have a brief narrative, and that a mere summary. Our senate is courageous, but the consulars are partly timid, partly disaffected.3 We have had a great loss in Servius.4 Lucius Caesar entertains the most loyal sentiments, but, being Antony's uncle, he refrains from very strong language in the senate. The consuls are splendid. Decimus Brutus is covering himself with glory. The youthful Caesar is behaving excellently, and I hope he will go on as he has begun. You may at any rate be sure of this - that, had he not speedily enrolled the veterans, and had not the two legions5 transferred themselves from Antony's army to his command, and had not Antony been confronted with that danger, there is no crime or cruelty which he would have omitted to practise. Though I suppose these facts to have been told you, yet I wished you to know them still better. I will write more when I get more leisure.

Edited by Michael Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, George Sawtelle said:

Larry

Or it could mean all the CIA needed was a nod by JFK and they would run with it. 

 

George,

 

The problem was that some people in the CIA were "running with it" even without a nod from JFK - ala Harvey's insertion of a ten-man team into Cuba during the Missile Crisis.

God, what he could possibly have been thinking of?

 

Steve Thomas

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Larry

My explanation of uniqueness and Northwoods stopped short of where it should have stopped. Kennedy was pushing the CIA out and making way for the military to take over covert CIA operations which is common knowledge. 

The JCS was complying with Kennedy's desire to move in a different direction. Northwoods is an attempt on the part of the JCS to get into covert operations. The uniqueness of Northwoods is the military engaging in covert operations on US soil.

As far as needing Kennedy's signature, the military needed to protect themselves. If anything went wrong, the generals could say, ... hey it's not my fault I'm just following orders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

George, actually the military was very hesitant to go where JFK wanted it to go, I don't know if  you have read Shadow Warfare but I go into that resistance in considerable detail.  This particular instance was indeed new and unique in that JFK had created an integrated structure with the Joint Chiefs staff giving advice, CIA in support with its own ideas and Lansdale over it all - something which everybody hated.  I don't think the JCS had any intention or desire to go into covert operations and certainly not domestic activities, their staff was just responding to a project directive and doing what they were requested to do - conceptualize provocations and forward them to the Cuba project. Of course at the same time the CIA itself was blowing up things inside Cuba, and had blown up department stores earlier.

I'm afraid this is just one of those subjects far too broad to effectively discuss in these limited spaces so I think I had best back off at this point - other projects are calling me. As to the full interplay between the CIA, the military, Lansdale, the CIA etc, I've written about that extensively in NEXUS and Shadow Warfare and I'll just leave it at that. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Larry 

Thank you. Content that you have taken the time to discuss this with me. I've learned so much.

False flags have become a part of life in the world, and on our soil also. Northwoods was just another false flag that was turned on us.

After one gets rid of the red herrings and false leads, one will find that the JFK assassination was just a simple murder the solution of which is simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0