Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Douglas Caddy

JFK and the Big Banks

Recommended Posts

JFK and the Big Banks

I strongly recommend listening to this fascinating interview with Nomi Prins. She makes many revelations, one of which was how JFK would only grant 20 minutes in the White House for anyone who was from Wall Street or the Big Banks. In particular JFK got into a verbal battle in LIFE magazine with David Rockefeller.

"Was JFK the tool of the Eastern Establishment, or was he its bitterest enemy? Don Gibson challenges the conventional wisdom and asserts, with powerful support from Kennedy's own words and actions-and those of his enemies-that Kennedy was always on the side of economic, political and social progress. To achieve his goals of government for the people, JFK crossed swords courageously and vigorously with the real centers of power. They punished him with the ultimate sacrifice - his own life, and fifty years of crushing defeats of our American ideals. In this intriguing and penetrating analysis, Gibson looks at what JFK himself said, wrote, and did, contrasting that with the words and actions of his enemies-the Wall Street Journal, Fortune magazine, and the corporate and banking magnates themselves, who, as this book shows, truly despised the President. Conventional wisdom depicts Kennedy as a cautious president committed to the status quo and to the Establishment. This book makes a compelling case to the contrary, showing that President Kennedy was always willing to do battle for his progressive policies, even in the face of vicious attacks. With its clear and lively style, this book is a revelation to the general reader and to the specialist, opening the way to a new understanding of the meaning of Kennedy's legacy."
http://www.amazon.com/Battling-Wall-Street-Kennedy-presidency/dp/1615779604/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1430876175&sr=1-1&keywords=donald+gibson+battling+wall+street

Arthur M Schlesinger, Jr. in his book on the Kennedy presidency, A Thousand Days, wrote that Kennedy was not part of what he called the "New York establishment":
"In particular, he was little acquainted with the New York financial and legal community-- that arsenal of talent which had so long furnished a steady supply of always orthodox and often able people to Democratic as well as Republican administrations. This community was the heart of the American Establishment. Its household deities were Henry Stimson and Elihu Root; its present leaders, Robert Lovett and John J. McCloy; its front organizations, the Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie foundations and the Council on Foreign Relations; its organs, the New York Times and Foreign Affairs.”

Once LBJ became president, he was one of Rockefeller’s biggest boosters and even encouraged him to run for president in 1968.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From 1990s Manuscript/book CROSSTRAILS

JFK

In a Lincoln grave he was lain

He that we damned his life disdained

By other's words and bullets we've slain

In a power struggle of death-dollar strain

Beyond present cloud a call I hear

Bringing truth and justice near.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My concept of the assassination has evolved to this: There were three "architects" of the assassination: [1] guys who pulled the levers of finance, Eastern Establishment guys who loathed the idea of a president (who knows, maybe a dynasty) who took a stance in opposition to them; [2] certain of their acolytes in the U.S. Government; and [3] a party, maybe another country, that had other reasons for wanting JFK dead.

Such a confluence of interests would be difficult to detect; could continue to exist; and would explain the continuing cover-up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing that, Douglas. Really important stuff.

JFK really was different from most presidents, and most politicians, for that matter. The campaign to assassinate his character has transformed his historical image into one of a reckless, pragmatic politician who really didn't care about peace, civil rights, the poor, etc. That simply isn't accurate, and is connected, in my view, to the ongoing cover up of this death. After all, if they can distort the truth about his life, why should anyone care about who assassinated him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Posthumous Assassination of JFK
Judith Exner, Mary Meyer, and Other Daggers
http://www.ctka.net/pr997-jfk.html
]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
The Posthumous Assassination of JFK Part II
Sy Hersh and the Monroe/JFK Papers:
The History of a Thirty-Year Hoax
http://www.ctka.net/pr1197-jfk.html

============================================================

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/D%20Disk/DiEugenio%20James/Item%2006.pdf

see page 12

LONG AND KENNEDY:
TARGETS OF THE
ESTABLISHMENT

Edited by Steven Gaal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting that Steven. Jim DiEugenio's "Posthumous Assassination of JFK" greatly influenced much of what I wrote about the Kennedys in Hidden History. The ongoing campaign to slander their legacy continues.

I will have a lot to say about the assassination of Huey Long in my next book. He was unquestionably targeted by the establishment, and openly spoke of the plots to assassinate him, from the floor of the U.S. Senate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW - the Textron purchase of Bell with the help of CIA general Cabell had much more to do with the Bank Of BOSTON, Sun Life of MONTREAL, the Boston Fabians, Arthur Little, Prudential Life (a Morgan Co therefor a Rothschild co) and the Bank of England than with anything related to "New York Establishment"

Seems to me more of the Lawyers, like Cravath, Swaine and Moore are from NY - with ties back to London

While the NY Banks seem more tied to Boston, Canada and England than to the NY elite.

Choate, Hall and Stewert also played prominently and is a Boston law Firm.

I believe that due to limited thinking these international business men and women were categorized as "Eastern Establishment" when in reality the "Eastern" part had it's hand in it at the beginning but the Establishment, or New New Establishment as the New Yorker calls it, has no geographical boundaries and were only headquatered in NY...there is as much "Establishment" in TX, CA, and a variety of other states.

The MICC extended everywhere and involved those in the Establishment deemed worthy of inclusion. Conflict is the substance of the MICC's success.

JFK was a larger threat to ongoing "conflict" than any president ever was... While these elite - the "sponsors" will always make their money and grab their power regardless of the political climate, JFK was basically the first of the presidents in the modern era to challenge the status quo. To me the 25th Amendment says it all... it basically legalized the influential in the MICC to insist on the removal of a president and be able to accomplish it.

JFK could not be allowed to be re-elected.

http://nymag.com/news/features/establishments/68510/

The first secular invocation of the Establishment dates to 1841, when Ralph Waldo Emerson employed the term in a lecture at the Masonic Temple in Boston, but its entry into the modern vernacular came more than 100 years ­later—thanks, tellingly, to a journalist. The year was 1955 and the scribe was Henry Fairlie, the puckish, young conservative political columnist for the London Spectator.By the ‘Establishment,’ I do not mean only the centers of official power—though they are certainly part of it—but rather the whole matrix of official and social relations within which power is exercised,” he wrote. Fairlie’s coinage spread quickly to America, which, of course, had developed its own incarnation of the same phenomenon—with New York at its very center. During the Cold War, the city was home to many of the paragons of the Eastern Establishment: Averell Harriman, John McCloy, David Rockefeller, Brooke Astor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Josephs,

I think you grasp the assassination.

Question: In your view, did individuals who controlled the U.S. financial system orchestrate the JFK assassination?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Josephs,

I think you grasp the assassination.

Question: In your view, did individuals who controlled the U.S. financial system orchestrate the JFK assassination?

No... I think they primarily benefitted from it. the Sponsor-level you and I have discussed

The Facilitator orchestrates the assassination and ensuing cover-up.

I think Bundy was a Sponsor who acted as one of the top Facilitators whereas Hoover was a top Facilitator of the conspiracy and had little to do with the actual assassination and was definitely not in the Sponsor class.

I don't think Sponsors had a hand in the manipulation of evidence other than by request. Would we believe that Sec of Treasury Dillion gave the order for the SS to take the body from Parkland or was it one of any number in the chain of command from Dillion to Rowley thru Roberts & Boring and finally to Kellerman? Yet it seems obvious that Dillon was connected to these US Financial giants and was in a position of great influence.

In 1961 President John F. Kennedy, a Democrat, appointed Republican, Dillon Treasury Secretary. Dillon remained Treasury Secretary under President Lyndon B. Johnson until 1965.

Dillon proposed the fifth round of tariff negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), conducted in Geneva 1960–1962; it came to be called the "Dillon Round", and led to substantial tariff reduction.

Dillon was important in securing presidential power for reciprocal tariff reductions under the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. He also played a role in crafting the Revenue Act of 1962 that established a 7 percent investment credit to spur industrial growth. He supervised revision of depreciation rules to benefit corporate investment.

A close friend of John D. Rockefeller III, he was chairman of the Rockefeller Foundation from 1972 to 1975. He also served alongside John Rockefeller on the 1973 Commission on Private Philanthropy and Public Needs, and under Nelson Rockefeller in the Rockefeller Commission to investigate CIA activities (along with Ronald Reagan). He had been president of Harvard Board of Overseers, chairman of the Brookings Institution, and vice chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations.[2]

(Section 4 of the 25th Amendment)

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

I believe that key Military leaders in concert with the CIA "orchestrated" the assassination and cover-up for the continued success and wielding of power the MICC desired and had grown accustomed to under Ike and Nixon.

When efforts were repeatedly made to get JFK in line, as had been so successful with other politicians - especially Nixon - and repeatedly failed... I believe a decision that "this pebble needs to be removed from our shoe" (ala Marcello) was made and underlings, in their desire to rid the US of this treasonous president "Orchestrated" the killing at a number of spots.

I believe these Military leaders move in the same circles as the Industrialists and Congress of the MICC yet only a select few are "Sponsors".

"None Dare Call it Conspiracy" is one of the better and easier to read books on the influence and strength of this Sponsor class... the free pdf is all over the internet

my $.02

DJ

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  

×
×
  • Create New...