Jump to content
The Education Forum

David Talbot: Allen Dulles, CIA and Rise of America's Secret Government


Recommended Posts

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/hiddenevil/hiddenevil10.htm

<quote on>


"Now our textbooks tell us that the Nazis and Soviets were bitter enemies and their systems are opposites," observed Professor Sutton. But in the "1920s, W. Averell Harriman was a prime supporter of the Soviets with finance and diplomatic assistance... [and] participated in RUSKOMBANK," which was "the first Soviet commercial bank. Furthermore, Max May, the Vice President of Guaranty Trust, which was dominated by Harriman and Morgan, became the first Vice-President of Ruskombank."

"Averell Harriman, his brother Roland Harriman, and... E.S. James and Knight Woolley, through the Union Bank... were prime financial backers of Hitler."

<quote off>

Harriman was the #1 war hawk in the Roosevelt Administration, tight with Winston Churchill even though he was one of Hitler's top bankers.

In August of 1963 Harriman had negotiated the nuke treaty with the Soviets, made the cover of Time, and stood a chance of becoming Secretary of State -- a long, deeply held ambition -- in a second Kennedy term.

On August 24 '63 Harriman threw that ambition over-board when he rallied George Ball, Roger Hilsman and Michael Forrestal to bum-rush Kennedy into approving Cable 243 to Amb Lodge in So. Vietnam to green light a military coup there.

After the murder of Diem and Nhu Harriman was demoted to trivial South American issues.

He chucked his greatest personal ambition in order to get rid of Diem.

What was Harriman's game in South East Asia, anyway?

George Michael Evica cuts to the chase...

http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/The_critics/Evica/Perfect_cover.html

<quote on>

The Lansky Connection:

Meyer Lansky initiated, developed, and supported Organized Crime’s drug operations from their inception and beyond the death of JFK. Lansky was in continuous contact with U.S. intelligence agencies, primarily because of a shared anti-Communist orientation, including Naval Intelligence, the CIA, the FBI, and the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Lansky and U.S. intelligence initially conspired to assassinate Fidel Castro, and both Lansky’s associates and U.S. intelligence profited from the world-wide drug trade. When the anti-Castro hits were called off, this shared interest in preserving heroin profits led, on the facilitators’ level, to the death of John F. Kennedy.

The Catalyst of the Crime:

The Sicilian drug traffic was run through Meyer Lansky’s Cuban casinos through 1959. Castro closed down the Mob’s Cuban operations, and JFK refused to sanction an invasion of Cuba after the Bay of Pigs to topple Castro, which, had it been successful, would have restored the Mob’s casinos and drug business. Further, from JFK’s inauguration in 1961 through November 22nd, 1963, the Kennedy administration dramatically developed a major transformation in U.S. anti-narcotics policy: the Kennedy administration moved to radically reform U.S. anti-narcotics programs and policies. Through two major Congressional investigative hearings, three major reports to the president, a major Washington conference, and a blue-ribbon presidential commission—all of them organized and directed by Attorney General Robert Kennedy and President John F. Kennedy—the Kennedy administration supported a revolutionary approach to drug addiction and U.S. drug laws. If successful, the JFK program would have put the heroin cartel out of business. For the Mafia, the Lansky Group, Hoffa and his corrupt Teamsters locals, the CIA, the anti-Castro Cubans and the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, the permanent loss of huge narcotics profits therefore constituted a major motive for assassinating the president.

Had the Kennedy drug program been fully implemented, the international drug trade—financing scores of black operations around the world and directed by the U.S. power structure—would have collapsed. John F. Kennedy was assassinated before his anti-narcotics program could be put into operation. JFK was murdered by the National Security State and their intelligence, criminal, and Dallas area assets on November 22, 1963.

<quote off>

I find this as good an explanation of the "why" as any, but I must take exception with one line -- Evica wrote:

When the anti-Castro hits were called off, this shared interest in preserving heroin profits led, on the facilitators’ level, to the death of John F. Kennedy.

First of all, the interest in the drug trade is never so much on preserving profits but increasing them ever more so.

And this interest informs the entire organization from top to bottom.

Evica trips over his own Evica/Drago Sponsor/Facilitator/Mechanic False Mystery Model.

Evica/Drago is a drag on Evica.

If we're studying a drug organization the best model (seems to me, your mileage will vary etc) is provided by David Simon's brilliant TV series The Wire.

They started with a blank tackboard, then pinned up one photo -- Marlo Stanfield, suspected emerging drug kingpin.

Start with a blank tackboard for the JFK assassination.

What was the most suspicious high level activity immediately following the murder in Dallas?

Looks suspicious McGeorge Bundy calling AF1 saying there was no evidence of conspiracy.

Averell Harriman allegedly lied to LBJ about how the US government's top Kremlinologists held the consensus view that the Soviets were not involved -- even though Harriman never contacted George Kennan or Charles Bohlen, the USG's top Soviet hands.

All within a few hours of Kennedy's death!

Start with a blank tackboard, put up two photos -- McGeorge Bundy and especially W. Averell Harriman.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 252
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

From David Talbot's Facebook page:

And now, another teaser from my forthcoming book, "The Devil's Chessboard"...

Jacobo and Maria Arbenz: They were the Kennedys of Guatemala -- young, wealthy, attractive, charismatic -- and dedicated to improving the lives of the desperately poor in their country. And like the Kennedys they had powerful enemies -- the landed oligarchy, United Fruit and the Dulles brothers who had long represented the agribusiness colossus. When a CIA-engineered military coup overthrew President Arbenz in 1954, Arbenz and his family escaped with their lives -- but they were hounded and harassed throughout the world by CIA agents like Howard Hunt, beginning at the Guatemala City airport, where the proud Jacobo was forced to strip in front of the world press before boarding the plane. In exile, the Arbenz family traveled the world like ghosts looking for a home, tragedy following them everywhere. Jacobo's own life ended in 1971 in a Mexico City hotel room, when authorities said he climbed into a scalding hot bath and either drowned or burned to death. His wife Maria was convinced he was murdered -- the latest victim on a hit list of Guatemala nationalists that had been compiled by the CIA. I was fortunate to interview members of the Arbenz family and hear their tragic family story -- a tragedy that was played out on a much grander scale after the 1954 coup for the entire people of Guatemala.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boy this sounds like a good one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The stars align.

The entire Third World Central American communist threat that CIA espoused in the late 1950's-early 60's always rang hollow for me. The Clandestine factions cut their teeth on Argentina and Guatemala... with the Dominican and Cuba thrown in for good measure. They claimed these as resounding successes. The stated threat was communism ... but the real issues were oil, money and profit for the United Fruit Company.

John Kennedy saw through these excesses. The game plan or template for Dealey Plaza is remarkably similar to that executed in those hostile covert take-overs ... and similar to the game plan played out at the Ambassador Hotel when Bobby was murdered. CIA and Hunt et al kept running the same offense, even when it became apparent that it was old school, dated and ineffective.

Helms, Hunt et al were devotees of the Dulles cult ... they should all be burning in a special place in hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government Hardcover – October 13, 2015

by David Talbot (Author)

http://www.amazon.com/Devils-Chessboard-Dulles-Americas-Government/dp/0062276166/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1439864715&sr=1-1&keywords=david+talbot+the+devil%27s+chessboard

Been waiting and waiting . I will order now. IMHO DULLES THE CEO OF DALLAS . gaal

To readers of the London Forum:

I have believed--for decades--that Allen Dulles was (more or less) the "CEO" --or at least a major player--in the synthesis of the JFK plot. As many of you may know, I had a personal--and rather intense and elaborate--meeting with Allen Dulles at a small gathering at UCLA in December 1965. It lasted for some 15 -30 minutes, and is described in detail in Chapter 2 of Best Evidence. Rest assured: it was a highlight of my years at UCLA. When I went to that meeting--which took place in Hedrick Hall at UCLA (and in front of a group of about 50 students) --- I had no idea that Allen Dulles had played the role (re Dallas) that I subsequently concluded he must have. In December 1965, I was simply a UCLA grad student (in engineering) --employed at the time at North American Aviation (on Project Apollo, the moon landing program); had the right to attend this (relatively) small meeting, wanted to confront Dulles on the matter of the Zapruder film headsnap (which is exactly what I did), and made arrangements to have this "public altercation" with him. I sat next to Dulles on a large sofa in a student lounge area, showed him enlargements of the sequence of Z frames showing the head moving backwards (courtesy of Ray Marcus), and had to sit there while Dulles loudly denied the evidence saying, "The head does not go back!" repeatedly. (See chapter 2, B.E. ,for details). [And if any details differ, I defer to what was published in B.E.; I am writing this from memory.] Basically, I had to establish my own bona fides and (hopefully) prove--to an audience that never had heard any of this (remember, in 1965, there was no Internet, and no publicly available display of the Zapruder film--that Allen Dulles was a damned xxxx (!).

The experience was remarkable, and one-of-a-kind. As far as I know, no one ever had a confrontation with Allen Dulles. He was always treated with great deference by journalists, and no JFK researcher ever confronted the man directly. Dulles was 72 at the time of our encounter; he died three years later, at age 75.

Later that evening, flush with the experience I had just had, and very aware that memory fades, I sat down at my Smith Corona typewriter, in the apartment where I lived, and I wrote a 10 page (approx) single spaced memo about the experience. (This memo--copies of which went to Sylvia Meagher, Vincent Salandria, and a few other others-- was also provided to David Talbot for use in his book). Subsequently--and by "subsequently" I'm referring to some 10 months later (i.e., October 1966, when I discovered the first evidence that the President's body had been covertly intercepted and altered [see Chapters 9 - 12 of Best Evidence]) --my view of the nature of JFK's assassination (as involving a very well planned strategic deception) changed considerably. That's also when I had changed view about the "political origins" of the assassination.

Of course, people like David Von Pein are still roaming around in the intellectual equivalent of Jurassic Park, wedded to the sophomoric view that the "sniper's nest evidence" at the TSBD is the be-all and end-all of the JFK case; of course, nothing could be further from the truth --especially once one understands the basic fact that this was a body-centric (political) plot (as explained in my Bismarck address, in November 2013. Just Google "David Lifton Bismarck" --its about an hour long).

But I digress. Once one understands that this was a sophisticated covert operation (and part of a larger strategic deception, designed to permit LBJ to advance to the presidency under the appearance of legality) the proper paradigm to understand what happened in Dallas can best be explained (I believe) in the book Coup d'etat (1969), by the American military strategist, political scientist, and historian Edward Luttwak. His book has become a minor classic, has gone through many printings, and is still readily available today. (FWIW: Luttwak's book [imho] is must reading for any serious student of the JFK case, i.e., anyone who is seeking a proper model for the events of Dallas).

DALLAS WAS NOT A SIMPLE ("shooting") PLOT

The Kennedy assassination was not a simple "shooting" plot; but a complex operation involving not just a shooting, but the coordinated falsification of an array of key evidence the purpose of which was to erect a false reality and create the false appearance that Oswald was the assassin. Bobby Kennedy was aware of the general nature of the plot that took his brother's life, a point I will be discussing in Final Charade. The actual operation in Dealey Plaza probably involved the complicity of quite a few people. It (necessarily) involved substantial corruption and "buried money" (i.e., graft and pay-offs) and its almost certainly the case that just about all of the lowest level operatives (i.e., the Dealey Plaza "foot soldiers")--were eliminated within 1-2 days of the shooting, if not within hours. No one got their expected "pay" or "airplane ticket" to Nirvana. There were no "happy endings." Instead, they were deceived and shot. This was like a multi-level marketing program, in which the bottom level was simply done away with, after it was all over.

Why is any of this important? Because, over the years, I have concluded that although it may well be true that Allen Dulles can properly be viewed as "CEO" (or at least a key person on what can be viewed as the "steering committee" of this operation), he was simply too old and feeble (and I make this statement based on my own experience and observation that night at UCLA) to explain the actual complexities of what happened in Dallas. Yes, I can see Allen Dulles doing the preliminary political "networking" and giving a "thumbs up" etc.--yes, he was probably a "cheerleader" of the operation--but I cannot see him doing the "heavy lifting" that must have been involved in (a) putting together this plan and ( b ) actually executing it. There must have been a "middle level tier" of people who were in their 40's (plus or minus) who formed the core group of this affair. Unfortunately, we really do not have good information about this "middle level" --exactly who they were, and what became of them; although Final Charade will present some startling new information in that regard.

But in the public discussion and debate as it now exists, the focus has been on much higher level people, because they are public figures and their political motivations are readily visible and can easily be theorized about. But believe me, there is much more to the picture. This was like an iceberg, where only the top part was visible.

I'll have more information to say about all of this in Final Charade. But rest assured that regardless of the importance of Allen Dulles, or Dean Rusk (who took so many of the JFK cabinet out of the country) or even Lyndon Johnson himself (who, after all, advanced to the presidency as a consequence of this crime) there is (i.e. "was") a "middle level" that must have existed, played a major role, and which consisted of persons who then lived out their lives without ever facing justice.

The vacuum created by this lack of information about the basic structure of the Dallas plot has permitted the appearance of phonies and fraudsters like James Files (or Judyth, when It comes to LHO himself); but historically these faux "participants" will be a passing phenomenon.

The bottom line: The key to unraveling the "who-done-it' starts by understanding the "how-done-it". That's what Best Evidence was all about, and Final Charade will add an important addendum to the saga.

DSL

9/26/15 - 2:15 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Revised, 9/26/15 - 2:05 p.m. PDT

Certain additions added 9/27/15--4:45 a.m. PDT

P.S. (re Jim DiEugenio's Post #157 below): The reason this particular UCLA event was not taped by any of the attendees is that the technology simply did not exist for audience members to carry what--just a few years later--became common place: cassette recorders (i.e., "shoebox recorders"). As I recall, the smallest "civilian recorders" at the time was a 3.5" reel-to-reel recorder (manufactured by Craig), but no one present in the room was carrying any such device. Of course, UCLA could have arranged to tape the session with the standard type of audio equipment (e.g., a 7" reel-to-reel tape deck), but no such recording equipment was utilized. If there was a single word to describe the way the 1965 student audience treated Dulles, it would be "worshipful." One of the closing questions asked--in all seriousness--by a student in the audience was: "Mr. Dulles: Can you tell us about the methods of torture used when spies were captured?" (Really: that was just about the wording of the question, from some starry-eyed student. It is described in B.E., Chapter 2, quoting my memo). Can you imagine such a question being asked a former director of the CIA by a student today?) -DSL, 9/27/15 -5 a.m. PDT).

Edited by David Lifton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, If anyone has not read that exchange, you really should.

I excerpted some of it in Reclaiming Parkland. (p. 273)

But it really should be read in its original form for its full shock value. (My only regret is that it was not taped.I would have loved to have heard the exasperation in Dulles' voice as he denied what was happening in the Z film.)

After you read it, you will see why:

1.) The WC never had a snowball's chance in Hades of finding the truth in this case, and

2.) Just how pernicious Dulles' presence on it was.

Why? Because not only was Dulles determined to avoid the impact of the evidence, but, as Walt Brown shows in his book, The Warren Ommission, Dulles was the most active member of the WC.

And as we also now know, Dulles was doing some back room dealing while on the Commission with his old buddies. Even a whitewasher like Peter Grose had to admit that one.

I look forward to Talbot's book because I want to see precisely how Dulles got on the Commission. And just how bad he really was. This was a part of the story that Kinzer avoided. (Perhaps deliberately?)

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From David Talbot's Facebook page which he posted today (referenced photos omitted here):

Many of the personal insights I gained into spymaster Allen Dulles came from his daughter, Joan, whom I interviewed as she neared 90 -- a retired Jungian therapist in New Mexico -- as well as from the diaries and correspondence of his wife Clover (on the left, around the time of their marriage) and his mistress Mary Bancroft (sitting on the right, with Clover, after they became friends in Switzerland during the war). Clover and Mary called the cold, driven man who dominated their lives "The Shark." Dulles regarded his family with a benign but chilly remoteness, as if they were guests in his house. "My husband doesn't converse with me...about ANYTHING," Clover confided in her diary. A sensitive, artistic woman, Clover narrowly escaped being put in the hands of the notorious, CIA-funded psychiatrist, Dr. Donald Ewen Cameron, whose barbaric "Sleep Room" experiments were later exposed by investigators. Dulles's son, Allen Jr., was not as fortunate, as my book reveals. He was subjected to experimental insulin-overdose therapy by another CIA-funded doctor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Latest review of "The Devil's Chessboard" (Oct. 13 pub) -- this one from Library Journal:

"This aptly titled book portrays CIA director Allen Dulles as the dark prince of the Cold War who manipulated the media, deceived presidents, helped stir up coups... [and might] have been involved in Kennedy's assassination. Readers who enjoy espionage’s dark history will have a tough time putting this book down."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Better and better.

BTW, the son is a really sad case. Seamus Coogan found him online.

He showed me some of the exchanges.

He did not have a lot of good stuff to say about his pop.

In addition to being a nightmare for the Third World, Dulles was an incredibly bad father and husband.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, If anyone has not read that exchange, you really should.

I excerpted some of it in Reclaiming Parkland. (p. 273)

But it really should be read in its original form for its full shock value. (My only regret is that it was not taped.I would have loved to have heard the exasperation in Dulles' voice as he denied what was happening in the Z film.)

After you read it, you will see why:

1.) The WC never had a snowball's chance in Hades of finding the truth in this case, and

2.) Just how pernicious Dulles' presence on it was.

Why? Because not only was Dulles determined to avoid the impact of the evidence, but, as Walt Brown shows in his book, The Warren Ommission, Dulles was the most active member of the WC.

And as we also now know, Dulles was doing some back room dealing while on the Commission with his old buddies. Even a whitewasher like Peter Grose had to admit that one.

I look forward to Talbot's book because I want to see precisely how Dulles got on the Commission. And just how bad he really was. This was a part of the story that Kinzer avoided. (Perhaps deliberately?)

As to how Dulles got on the Warren Commission, the actual transcript of the 11/29/63 telephone call from LBJ to Dulles is available at the LBJ LIbrary and is posted online at the History Matters website. Excerpts from the transcript--LBJ speaking to Allen Dulles ("AWD") are as follows:

LBJ: have a little unpleasant news for you.

AWD: Yes. . .

LBJ: We're going to name very shortly a Presidential Commission made up of 7 people, 2 from the House, 2 from the Senate, 2 from the public and 1 from the court. . . as a study group to go into this FBI Report . . . this Court of Inquiry and all the incidents in connection with the assassination of our beloved friend (!!-DSL)) and you've got to go on that for me.

AWD: ((tone, apparently, one of incredulity)). . . You think I can really serve you?

LBJ: I know you can..I know you can. . there's not any doubt about it. . .just get ready now to go in there and do a good job. . We've got to have. . .America has got to be united in this hour.

AWD: I would like to be of any help. . [apparently a "pause" --DSL] and you've considered the work of my previous work (sic) and my previous job (!! -DSL) ?

LBJ: I sure have. . and we want you to do it. . [so] that's that. (Who is "we"? --DSL)

AWD: Well, I'll follow. . .

LBJ: You always do what is best for your country. . I found that out about you a long time ago. ((Where? At Dealey Plaza? --DSL)) Thank you very much.

AWD: Thank you.

LBJ: Thank you. . I'll be talking to you, my friend.

AWD: And I'll keep this entirely quiet. . ((Hmmm --DSL))

LBJ: Please do. . please do. . because I haven't [yet] cleared it but with one other man.

AWD: I understand. I'll do. . . and am at your orders. . .[As in "am at your beck and call" --DSL]

LBJ: Thank you. . sir. .

AWD: Thank you.

END OF TRANSCRIPT

BEST QUOTE: LBJ: ". . . this Court of Inquiry . . .in connection with the assassination of our beloved friend. . ." ((Ouch! - DSL))

RUNNER-UP: AWD: " . . .and you've considered the work of [i.e., as in 'my previous work' --DSL] my previous work and my previous job [e.g., of arranging assassinations of foreign leaders? --DSL ]

2nd Runner-up: LBJ's Response: "I sure have." (!! - DSL)

Final DSL Comment: You can't make this stuff up !!

Archival Source: "History Matters- LBJ Phone Calls - November 1963".

FWIW: I was sent a large blue binder containing hundreds of pages of these phone transcripts some 20 years ago; and I learned in 2008 that History Matters put them all on-line. (Good for them!). Another of my favorite quotes (from a transcript of LBJ speaking with House Speaker McCormick --this, unfortunately, from memory; but when I find it, I will check it word-for-word against what follows):

McCormick: Is there anything I can do?

LBJ: Stop investigating. *

ADDENDUM - - ADDED ON 9/27/15 - 9:15 PDT

*I still haven't located the original blue binder, sent to me by the LBJ Library, but here is the nearly identical quote, as published in Michael Beschloss' book Taking Charge: The Johnson White House Tapes, 1963 - 1964 (Edited with Commentary By Michael R. Bescloss) -published by Simon and Schuster, 1997.

Comment preceding the excerpt, by author/editor Beschloss:

With an emotional appeal, Johnson has just persuaded Chief Justice Earl Warren to chair what will now be called the Warren Commission. Now he asks the Speaker of the House (McCormack—DSL) to clear the way on Capitol Hill.

Transcript of LBJ/McCormack from page 62 (as typed by DSL):

LBJ: We don’t want to be testifying, and some fellow comes up from Dallas and says, “I think Khrushchev planned this whole thing and he got out president assassinated. (fn 1) . . . You can see what that’ll lead to right quick. . . . You take care of the House of Representatives for me.”

McCormack: How am I going to take care of them?

LBJ: Just keep them from investigating!

McCormack: Oh that. I’ve been doing it now. (!! –DSL)* Listen, outside, I had Otto Passman in here. (fn 2). . . I want to call him in and would like for you to say hello to him.

LBJ: OK, you betcha. . . put him on. . . etc.

*DSL Comment, 9/27/15 – Were these guys raised in any home that taught the meaning of the word “truth”?

Edited by David Lifton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an interesting excerpt.....

Robert Morrow of Austin, Texas, asks:

"Do any of you believe that Lyndon Johnson or the CIA murdered John Kennedy?" .....

https://youtu.be/y1mXeLHR8Ao?t=7101

Full video (re: the CIA's release of the President's Daily Briefs):

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

and its almost certainly the case that just about all of the lowest level operatives (i.e., the Dealey Plaza "foot soldiers")--were eliminated within 1-2 days of the shooting, if not within hours.

Not to detract from David Lifton's fine analysis and invaluable longtime study, but on this point we have to consider the relative longevity of possible Dealey Plaza operatives such as the presumed spotter Jim Hicks and the supposed car salesman Jack Lawrence. Frank Sturgis? Eugene Hale Brading? People may have just been allowed to melt back into their accustomed covert lives - that and their evil satisfaction may have been their reward.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

and its almost certainly the case that just about all of the lowest level operatives (i.e., the Dealey Plaza "foot soldiers")--were eliminated within 1-2 days of the shooting, if not within hours.

Not to detract from David Lifton's fine analysis and invaluable longtime study, but on this point we have to consider the relative longevity of possible Dealey Plaza operatives such as the presumed spotter Jim Hicks and the supposed car salesman Jack Lawrence. Frank Sturgis? Eugene Hale Brading? People may have just been allowed to melt back into their accustomed covert lives - that and their evil satisfaction may have been their reward.

With all due respect for David I think JFK was likely done in by an on-going crew whose occupation was heroin-trade assassinations.

The crew prospered (in all likelihood).

Let the CIA and the military and the Mob and the anti-Castro Cubans take the blame.

Just because the operation may have involved guys with those backgrounds doesn't mean it was an institutional affair.

I'm suggesting it was Averell Harriman at Foggy Bottom with Paul Helliwell's drug crew cat's paw.

This is not my line -- wish it was but I can't remember the author right now -- "It isn't like the JFK assassination was the worst thing they did."

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...