Who was at top of the chain

[Kathleen Collins]

From what I read about him on the Internet, HL Hunt, during his time, was the wealthiest man in the world. An oil baron. He was a member of the John Birch Society. He had radio shows that forward the views of conservatives. He enjoyed a friendship with Senator McCarthy. He lived unassumably in a modest house in Dallas. He carried his lunch with him in a paper bag. And I believe he was the man who financed, or headed the financing, of President Kennedy's Assassination. With exception to my last sentence, I found tons of things about him on the Internet. All you have to do is search for H.L. Hunt. In my opinion, he was the top of the echelon and he had final say.

Did he draw up plans? I wouldn't be surprised. I think he liked spying and was involved with a lot of things going on in this country. I think he liked to play Cowboys and Indians. I think he felt the country was going downhill because of Kennedy wanting a Civil Rights Bill (which passed when he died). I guess with all that money, he would want to finance the assassination of "commie" President Kennedy. The Kennedys lived in Ivory Towers and he felt Jack and Bobby didn't understand having to work and live with black people. Imo, he paid the Cuban Exiles to carry out the plot, as they didn't want to kill Kennedy for free.

I found no references of him belonging to the KKK.

Hunt died in 1977 of "unspecified causes." He was ancient by then.

Kathy

[John Dolva]

"no reference to.. belonging to the KKK."

Kathy, you are unlikely to find any direct 'proof" as such.

Nevertheless, there are a number of sources that (see Strategy of Tension, The Black Nationalists and the Rockwell group) place him right in the milieu. The HUAC 1965 investigations into the KKK were stymied by an almost completely united front pleading the fifth amendment. A prime subject was the (non) existence of records. The various ever changing KKK flavours have layered memberships and a cellular strategy. They are often refereed to the Invisible Empire. Numerous prominent individuals ranging from Truman, Hugo Black to 'Jane and Joe Blow' are suspected members or at least members of the self styled 'ex-member club' of apologists.

http://www.theconspiracy.us/9408/0027.html

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=655

http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/fundien...right_south.htm

http://www.freepress.org/Backup/UnixBackup...g/racism-1.html

http://afasummary.blogspot.com/2004/12/rfa...an-nations.html

http://www.mdah.state.ms.us/arlib/contents...46|1|1|1|82737|

"The Kennedys lived in Ivory Towers and he felt Jack and Bobby didn't understand having to work and live with black people."

Perhaps in some sense. It depends on which side of the fence you are.

For an anti-misceginist segregationist 'living with black people', bolstered by the pseudo scientific eugenicists that created and maintained and justified a particular type of 'relationship' that dominated the old south, was a different thing to someone who acknowledged the Declaration of Independence. Ivory tower or no ivory tower.

Nevertheless, Kennedy was the first president who (while Johnson had already said so to black leaders in 1960) stated that 'the time of waiting is over'.

'Wait', was the message the Negroes had continually been fed by previous administrations. Kennedy acknowledged (TV Civil Rights speech) the grievances of the negres, and their justified street agitation, two hours before black leader Medgar Evers was assassinated. Robert flew to Medgars brother, Charles', side and they stayed friends right to the end of Roberts life.

Kennedy, I think, adhered to the Declaration of Independence: part thereof: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

His opponenets were openly anti-democracy, pro selective reading of the Constitution which was used in all sorts of imaginative ways to argue Statets Rights against Federal Rights to justify apartheid (segregation) even going so far as to redefine an individual as an institution thus using individual rights of association to justify 'separate but equal', which in itself was never ever really equal anyway.

John F. Kennedy interceded on Kings behalf on a number of occasions, not least before becoming President.

Many credible studies that connect self image with social position and behaviour undermine the 'they are different, and more significantly: 'they are somehow 'less''.

The status quo created the very differences that Hunt found hard to bridge. He and his ilk in this sense were the ones in the 'ivory tower'. Emmett Tills murderers prudly procalaimed they knew how to live with the blacks. They were not alone: Control them and if they can't be controlled, kill them.

Edited May 19, 2007 by John Dolva

[Kathleen Collins]

"no reference to.. belonging to the KKK."

Kathy, you are unlikely to find any direct 'proof" as such.

Nevertheless, there are a number of sources that (see Strategy of Tension, The Black Nationalists and the Rockwell group) place him right in the milieu. The HUAC 1965 investigations into the KKK were stymied by an almost completely united front pleading the fifth amendment. A prime subject was the (non) existence of records. The various ever changing KKK flavours have layered memberships and a cellular strategy. They are often refereed to the Invisible Empire. Numerous prominent individuals ranging from Truman, Hugo Black to 'Jane and Joe Blow' are suspected members or at least members of the self styled 'ex-member club' of apologists.

http://www.theconspiracy.us/9408/0027.html

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=655

http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/fundien...right_south.htm

http://www.freepress.org/Backup/UnixBackup...g/racism-1.html

http://afasummary.blogspot.com/2004/12/rfa...an-nations.html

http://www.mdah.state.ms.us/arlib/contents...46|1|1|1|82737|

"The Kennedys lived in Ivory Towers and he felt Jack and Bobby didn't understand having to work and live with black people."

Perhaps in some sense. It depends on which side of the fence you are.

For an anti-misceginist segregationist 'living with black people', bolstered by the pseudo scientific eugenicists that created and maintained and justified a particular type of 'relationship' that dominated the old south, was a different thing to someone who acknowledged the Declaration of Independence. Ivory tower or no ivory tower.

Nevertheless, Kennedy was the first president who (while Johnson had already said so to black leaders in 1960) stated that 'the time of waiting is over'.

'Wait', was the message the Negroes had continually been fed by previous administrations. Kennedy acknowledged (TV Civil Rights speech) the grievances of the negres, and their justified street agitation, two hours before black leader Medgar Evers was assassinated. Robert flew to Medgars brother, Charles', side and they stayed friends right to the end of Roberts life.

Kennedy, I think, adhered to the Declaration of Independence: part thereof: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

His opponenets were openly anti-democracy, pro selective reading of the Constitution which was used in all sorts of imaginative ways to argue Statets Rights against Federal Rights to justify apartheid (segregation) even going so far as to redefine an individual as an institution thus using individual rights of association to justify 'separate but equal', which in itself was never ever really equal anyway.

John F. Kennedy interceded on Kings behalf on a number of occasions, not least before becoming President.

Many credible studies that connect self image with social position and behaviour undermine the 'they are different, and more significantly: 'they are somehow 'less''.

The status quo created the very differences that Hunt found hard to bridge. He and his ilk in this sense were the ones in the 'ivory tower'. Emmett Tills murderers prudly procalaimed they knew how to live with the blacks. They were not alone: Control them and if they can't be controlled, kill them.

The KKK. Near where I live is a mostly rural section called the Moon Lake district. A friend of mine drove throught there and saw them in all their glory. About 15 standing around in white sheets and hoods. There are also survivalists in that area. It's well known that black people rarely ride through there. Whenever anyone says they've seen a strange-looking man in the Moon Lake area, you can bet he's either KKK, a survivalist or a skin-head. So down south, the KKK are very open about their organization.

Kathy

[John Dolva]

Kathy, the KKK is a multi flavoured multi layered cake ever shifting, splintering and regrouping. 'The Inner Sanctum' or the true invisible empire is a domain not on display on moon lit nights by the lake. It is a dedicated, educated, elite. They have an agenda that historically can be traced back over a hundred years. Some (perhaps mythologically, 'romantically') date it to the Germanic-Roman wars.

The original Klan in question here, dates to the Civil War. It's multi layered structure allows for 'non-membership' as a strategy. Visibility is a strategy.

What it does do is provide a repository of what Marx's terminology would call an aspect of the 'Lumpen proletariat'. This is a grouping that is dependent on ignorace of self, and the world as it is, and motivated by base human reaction. This is the malleable Einsatzgruppen member, the torchlight marcher, the foot soldier, the worshipper at the foot of the Leader. For a sense of existance they congreagate visibly. Behind the scene are Funders, Think Tanks, Alliances ad infinitum which one is not readily, if at all, privy to.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Kathy, the KKK is a multi flavoured multi layered cake ever shifting, splintering and regrouping. 'The Inner Sanctum' or the true invisible empire is a domain not on display on moon lit nights by the lake. It is a dedicated, educated, elite. They have an agenda that historically can be traced back over a hundred years. Some (perhaps mythologically, 'romantically') date it to the Germanic-Roman wars.

The original Klan in question here, dates to the Civil War. It's multi layered structure allows for 'non-membership' as a strategy. Visibility is a strategy.

What it does do is provide a repository of what Marx's terminology would call an aspect of the 'Lumpen proletariat'. This is a grouping that is dependent on ignorace of self, and the world as it is, and motivated by base human reaction. This is the malleable Einsatzgruppen member, the torchlight marcher, the foot soldier, the worshipper at the foot of the Leader. For a sense of existance they congreagate visibly. Behind the scene are Funders, Think Tanks, Alliances ad infinitum which one is not readily, if at all, privy to.

Exactly how many "General Grade" Officer's is it that have died in Iraq?

How About Afghanistan?

There are definitive reasons as to why it was often referred to as the "Invisible Empire".

Not unlike military service, there are many "dumb-XXXXX" out there who are willing to "die for the cause".

Merely because someone else told them what the cause was and they do not have adequate sense to figure our for themselves exactly who's "cause" it is that they are getting killed for.

Edited language.

Edited May 21, 2007 by Antti Hynonen

[David G. Healy]

Kathy, the KKK is a multi flavoured multi layered cake ever shifting, splintering and regrouping. 'The Inner Sanctum' or the true invisible empire is a domain not on display on moon lit nights by the lake. It is a dedicated, educated, elite. They have an agenda that historically can be traced back over a hundred years. Some (perhaps mythologically, 'romantically') date it to the Germanic-Roman wars.

The original Klan in question here, dates to the Civil War. It's multi layered structure allows for 'non-membership' as a strategy. Visibility is a strategy.

What it does do is provide a repository of what Marx's terminology would call an aspect of the 'Lumpen proletariat'. This is a grouping that is dependent on ignorace of self, and the world as it is, and motivated by base human reaction. This is the malleable Einsatzgruppen member, the torchlight marcher, the foot soldier, the worshipper at the foot of the Leader. For a sense of existance they congreagate visibly. Behind the scene are Funders, Think Tanks, Alliances ad infinitum which one is not readily, if at all, privy to.

Exactly how many "General Grade" Officer's is it that have died in Iraq?

How About Afghanistan?

There are definitive reasons as to why it was often referred to as the "Invisible Empire".

Not unlike military service, there are many "dumb-XXXXX" out there who are willing to "die for the cause".

Merely because someone else told them what the cause was and they do not have adequate sense to figure our for themselves exactly who's "cause" it is that they are getting killed for.

Edited language.

wouldn't want to offend late high-school and college/university age students who are certainly old enough to die in uniform, with a few choice swear words that rise to the occasion, eh?

[Myra Bronstein]

Kathy, the KKK is a multi flavoured multi layered cake ever shifting, splintering and regrouping. 'The Inner Sanctum' or the true invisible empire is a domain not on display on moon lit nights by the lake. It is a dedicated, educated, elite. They have an agenda that historically can be traced back over a hundred years. Some (perhaps mythologically, 'romantically') date it to the Germanic-Roman wars.

The original Klan in question here, dates to the Civil War. It's multi layered structure allows for 'non-membership' as a strategy. Visibility is a strategy.

What it does do is provide a repository of what Marx's terminology would call an aspect of the 'Lumpen proletariat'. This is a grouping that is dependent on ignorace of self, and the world as it is, and motivated by base human reaction. This is the malleable Einsatzgruppen member, the torchlight marcher, the foot soldier, the worshipper at the foot of the Leader. For a sense of existance they congreagate visibly. Behind the scene are Funders, Think Tanks, Alliances ad infinitum which one is not readily, if at all, privy to.

Exactly how many "General Grade" Officer's is it that have died in Iraq?

How About Afghanistan?

There are definitive reasons as to why it was often referred to as the "Invisible Empire".

Not unlike military service, there are many "dumb-XXXXX" out there who are willing to "die for the cause".

Merely because someone else told them what the cause was and they do not have adequate sense to figure our for themselves exactly who's "cause" it is that they are getting killed for.

Edited language.

wouldn't want to offend late high-school and college/university age students who are certainly old enough to die in uniform, with a few choice swear words that rise to the occasion, eh?

Ah, the rare person with perspective.

[Myra Bronstein]

And this thread speculates that William Pawley financed the assassination.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5068

I guess I'm more inclined to assume that multiple people financed it, though HL Hunt was almost certainly one.

And Pawley I agree was involved, maybe as a funder.

I suppose that a fundamental question would be: what funding strategy would best serve a plot of this scale?

The need to keep the secret would have to be balanced against the need for leverage against participants should they later be compelled to speak, and for money of course.

Which is more desirable: one funder for maximum discretion or multiple funders so that more people have a vested interest in perpetuating the cover up? More funders would also provide a safety net; if something happened to one money supply the plot

could be sustained.

[Charles Black]

I feel that a small consortium of "real wealth" (and Eaterners should not be excluded) were of course able to "vastly overfund" the mission.

The cosortium was not to secure enough funding, as with any of those involved, the $$ needed was but a drop in the bucket. The consortium was to insure that the direction of the future was comfortable to the several interests.

First priority and an easy one...Secure Lyndon and Edgar ! Then THE PLANNER !

None, above or below THE PLANNER, would be able to "map" anything but "small segments" of the PLAN!

And still cannot !

Untraceable for 43 years except in our conjectures!

Charles Black

Edited May 21, 2007 by Charles Black

[Robert Howard]

As far as H.L. Hunt goes, he is one of the obvious figures, as far as what people in 1963 were thinking, his Life-Line radio broadcasts had been cited immediately after the assassination by some in the the national media as contributing to the hate-filled atmosphere supposedly brewing in Dallas, the big question about Hunt is his alleged connections to Ruby, [some smoke, can't find the fire?] and his circle of friends in Dallas, the most compelling would be D.H. Byrd and Dad Joiner.......Byrd definitely knew Hunt from the 1930's oil well bonanza day's later on.......?

[Terry Mauro]

And this thread speculates that William Pawley financed the assassination.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5068

I guess I'm more inclined to assume that multiple people financed it, though HL Hunt was almost certainly one.

And Pawley I agree was involved, maybe as a funder.

I suppose that a fundamental question would be: what funding strategy would best serve a plot of this scale?

The need to keep the secret would have to be balanced against the need for leverage against participants should they later be compelled to speak, and for money of course.

Which is more desirable: one funder for maximum discretion or multiple funders so that more people have a vested interest in perpetuating the cover up? More funders would also provide a safety net; if something happened to one money supply the plot

could be sustained.

************************************************************

"I suppose that a fundamental question would be: what funding strategy would best serve a plot of this scale?

The need to keep the secret would have to be balanced against the need for leverage against participants should they later be compelled to speak, and for money of course."

This is why I would venture to say that the Wall Street financial houses, including the banks and quite possibly, the Security and Exchange Commission under whose auspices the oil industry is allowed to flourish and thrive. Throw in a Wall Street corporate law firm of prestigious holdings and vested interests, such as Sullivan and Cromwell, who had situated themselves so strategically and advantageously as to provide a protective umbrella from which to launch, "The Plan," [thank you, Charles Black]. There would be no question of anything ever happening to a money supply vast enough to be needed to sustain a plot of this magnitude. Funding the "money" would be no object to these people.

[Myra Bronstein]

And this thread speculates that William Pawley financed the assassination.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5068

I guess I'm more inclined to assume that multiple people financed it, though HL Hunt was almost certainly one.

And Pawley I agree was involved, maybe as a funder.

I suppose that a fundamental question would be: what funding strategy would best serve a plot of this scale?

The need to keep the secret would have to be balanced against the need for leverage against participants should they later be compelled to speak, and for money of course.

Which is more desirable: one funder for maximum discretion or multiple funders so that more people have a vested interest in perpetuating the cover up? More funders would also provide a safety net; if something happened to one money supply the plot

could be sustained.

************************************************************

"I suppose that a fundamental question would be: what funding strategy would best serve a plot of this scale?

The need to keep the secret would have to be balanced against the need for leverage against participants should they later be compelled to speak, and for money of course."

This is why I would venture to say that the Wall Street financial houses, including the banks and quite possibly, the Security and Exchange Commission under whose auspices the oil industry is allowed to flourish and thrive. Throw in a Wall Street corporate law firm of prestigious holdings and vested interests, such as Sullivan and Cromwell, who had situated themselves so strategically and advantageously as to provide a protective umbrella from which to launch, "The Plan," [thank you, Charles Black]. There would be no question of anything ever happening to a money supply vast enough to be needed to sustain a plot of this magnitude. Funding the "money" would be no object to these people.

"Farewell America," an old book that most have probably read, is one of the few bold enough to name names.

I'm in the midst of reading it, but so far it comes out and points a finger at HL Hunt and Edwin Walker.

I agree with them.

And given that Hunt was Mr Moneybags, his participation likely involved funding.

I also find it endlessly fascinating that Hunt's office was on the deadly Dallas motorcade route,

making him one of the last people who could have seen President Kennedy alive.

I appreciate the specificity of "Farewell America" and would like to emulate that.

(I assume that defamation laws have deterred many authors from specificity.)

[Michael Hogan]

"Farewell America," an old book that most have probably read, is one of the few bold enough to name names....

....I appreciate the specificity of "Farewell America" and would like to emulate that.

(I assume that defamation laws have deterred many authors from specificity.)

Nomenclature of an Assassination Cabal by William Torbitt (David Copeland) and The Taking of America 1-2-3 by Richard E. Sprague named names. Although discredited in many circles, I always liked the fact that the authors did so.

[Myra Bronstein]

Well, FWIW, this is what the 1968 book Farewell America has to say about the funding:

"1. We estimate the cost of the preparation, the assassination itself and the post-assassination clean-up at between $5 and $10 million. Contributions varied between $10,000 and $500,000, and there were about 100 beneficiaries."

http://www.jfk-online.com/farewell14.html