Government? Coup d'etat? Definitions, please.

[Charles Drago]

Bill Kelly, in one of his typically thought-provoking recent posts (on the "JFK Assassination Hypothesis, Research Methodology" thread), elicited from me the following propositions:

It was JFK and RFK who hijacked the visible government and threatened the deep political hegemony of the assassination's "responsible parties."

The Kennedys were in the midst of conducting their own de facto coup d'etat against the deep political state -- a self-correcting system that did just that on 11/22/63.

We must have the courage to understand that the government was NOT overthrown when JFK was murdered.

The government was restored.

What we [should be] about is what JFK and RFK were about: its overthrow.

Agreed? How do you define "government" and "coup d'etat" within the context of JFK's murder?

Charles Drago

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

government- the National Security State as formalized in 1947-49 period

Kennedy's Coup-- the failure to see how profound this change was, and the belief that some key aspects of the 1776 and 1787 survived this change.

This does NOT imply an ignorance of 1947, nordoes it exclude its opportunistic use by the Kennedy's themselves. Rather it involved a misundertanding

of the National Security State as a new organ of the state, as opposed to the brain, heart, or some other inoperable Kennedy

metaphor of the state,i.e. THE ESSENCE OF THE STATE.

Edited August 16, 2007 by Nathaniel Heidenheimer

[Cliff Varnell]

How do you define "government" and "coup d'etat" within the context of JFK's murder?

The Kennedy brothers attempted to overthrow the "shadow government" created

by the National Security Act of 1947 & the formation of "Capitalism's Invisible Army."

[Harry J.Dean]

Bill Kelly, in one of his typically thought-provoking recent posts (on the "JFK Assassination Hypothesis, Research Methodology" thread), elicited from me the following propositions:

It was JFK and RFK who hijacked the visible government and threatened the deep political hegemony of the assassination's "responsible parties."

The Kennedys were in the midst of conducting their own de facto coup d'etat against the deep political state -- a self-correcting system that did just that on 11/22/63.

We must have the courage to understand that the government was NOT overthrown when JFK was murdered.

The government was restored.

What we [should be] about is what JFK and RFK were about: its overthrow.

Agreed? How do you define "government" and "coup d'etat" within the context of JFK's murder?

Charles Drago

Charles

While agreeing with your points via an earlier e-mail today,

it is true that government was restored not overthrown, and

was quickly seized by the authors of JFK's assassination and

their since immovable and continuing political descendent

followers since 22 November 1963. They, under various titles

having an iron like grip and guaranteed perpetual control over

all US politics, intended to survive without effective opposition

for hundreds of years.

Harry

[Ron Ecker]

The Kennedy brothers attempted to overthrow the "shadow government" created

by the National Security Act of 1947 & the formation of "Capitalism's Invisible Army."

I thought that the CIA acronym stood for "Centrally Involved Assassins."

I don't think the Kennedys were attempting to overthrow the shadow government. They were simply at cross purposes with the shadow government. It was JFK, not the shadow government, who feared losing control of the military in the Cuban missile crisis. But JFK's big mistake in general was acting like he was in charge of things, just because he was president.

As far as I know, the talk about JFK wanting to "scatter the CIA to the winds" is apocryphal, based entirely on a statement said to have been made by JFK to Mike Mansfield. I believe there is some documentation that JFK wanted to reorganize or reform the CIA (as I recall, there was a meeting on that subject taking place on the day of the assassination, same time as the hearing on Capitol Hill about LBJ). But that's not the same as doing away with the CIA. I used to think it would make the CIA very angry, however, to have its power or organization messed with. I'm still bumfuzzled by the CIA letting Bush and the Congress demote it in favor of a national intelligence director, based on, of all things, a recommendation of the 9/11 whitewash commission. I thought that the spooks had more control over presidents and other politicians than that, and that they looked at sham commissions as nothing but pests.

Edited August 16, 2007 by Ron Ecker

[Charles Drago]

Ron,

You write, "I don't think the Kennedys were attempting to overthrow the shadow government."

Neither do I. But such was the anticipated -- by the deep political power structure -- consequence of the deeper political (my term; refers to the spiritual underpinnings of society) changes JFK would have wrought -- knowingly or not.

You write, "But JFK's big mistake in general was acting like he was in charge of things[.]"

Absolutely. But he may be excused his ignorance. What was it that RFK said with hard-earned, post-Dallas wisdom (I paraphrase): "I used to think I knew how the world operated."

Finally, you write, "I'm still bumfuzzled by the CIA letting Bush and the Congress demote it in favor of a national intelligence director ... I thought that the spooks had more control over presidents and other politicians than that[.]"

Presidents and politicians, like spooks, do not call the shots. Rather, they were and are instruments -- as opposed to originators -- of deep political power.

Roles change. Power remains constant.

Charles

[Cliff Varnell]

Ron,

You write, "I don't think the Kennedys were attempting to overthrow the shadow government."

Neither do I.

Allow me to put a finer point on it -- in order for JFK's policies of detente with

the Communist world to succeed, he and his brother would had to have overthrown

the "Shadow Government."

Edited August 17, 2007 by Cliff Varnell

[Myra Bronstein]

Bill Kelly, in one of his typically thought-provoking recent posts (on the "JFK Assassination Hypothesis, Research Methodology" thread), elicited from me the following propositions:

It was JFK and RFK who hijacked the visible government and threatened the deep political hegemony of the assassination's "responsible parties."

The Kennedys were in the midst of conducting their own de facto coup d'etat against the deep political state -- a self-correcting system that did just that on 11/22/63.

We must have the courage to understand that the government was NOT overthrown when JFK was murdered.

The government was restored.

What we [should be] about is what JFK and RFK were about: its overthrow.

Agreed? How do you define "government" and "coup d'etat" within the context of JFK's murder?

Charles Drago

Er, the legit gov't of the US is supposed to be voted in (with the safety net of the electoral college protecting the ruling class against the election of candidates that are considered unacceptable). President Kennedy was voted in. Maybe with a little vote hijinks in Illinois, but probably just enough to offset any voting hijinks of Nixon's. President Kennedy was the legit head of gov't, the last of that kind.

[Charles Drago]

Am I all about semantics, or is there meat to my motion?

The overworld, to use Professor Scott's apt terminology, governs. Albeit from the shadows.

Legitimacy is a sop.

The Kennedys never got it. Until they got it.

Charles

[Myra Bronstein]

Am I all about semantics, or is there meat to my motion?

The overworld, to use Professor Scott's apt terminology, governs. Albeit from the shadows.

Legitimacy is a sop.

The Kennedys never got it. Until they got it.

Charles

Following the procedure in the constitution and bill of rights is legitimate.

The overworld is outside of that scope.

Just because they're a reality doesn't mean they're legitimate.

[Charles Drago]

Am I all about semantics, or is there meat to my motion?

The overworld, to use Professor Scott's apt terminology, governs. Albeit from the shadows.

Legitimacy is a sop.

The Kennedys never got it. Until they got it.

Charles

Following the procedure in the constitution and bill of rights is legitimate.

The overworld is outside of that scope.

Just because they're a reality doesn't mean they're legitimate.

Myra, we are in total agreement on your ultimate point.

Charles

[Paul Rigby]

How do you define..."coup d'etat" within the context of JFK's murder?

A revolution under the guise of a covert restoration of the status quo ante.

[Harry J.Dean]

How do you define..."coup d'etat" within the context of JFK's murder?

A revolution under the guise of a covert restoration of the status quo ante.

Hi, Paul

Extremely well stated.

Here are quotes from the founding leader I once followed, until others

of his adherents brought the death of JFK,

"...unless we can have enough of an awakening in this

country, and enough of a rebellion against the appeasement

policies of our government outside, and it's communizing

policies inside America, the communists are going to succeed"

"...we are opposing a conspiracy.....our determination

to overthrow an entrenched tyranny is the very stuff

of which revolutions are made"

Robert Welch, John Birch Society

Harry

[Peter McGuire]

Bill Kelly, in one of his typically thought-provoking recent posts (on the "JFK Assassination Hypothesis, Research Methodology" thread), elicited from me the following propositions:

It was JFK and RFK who hijacked the visible government and threatened the deep political hegemony of the assassination's "responsible parties."

The Kennedys were in the midst of conducting their own de facto coup d'etat against the deep political state -- a self-correcting system that did just that on 11/22/63.

We must have the courage to understand that the government was NOT overthrown when JFK was murdered.

The government was restored.

What we [should be] about is what JFK and RFK were about: its overthrow.

Agreed? How do you define "government" and "coup d'etat" within the context of JFK's murder?

Charles Drago

Scary stuff. And well thought out and stated.

And it fits into my feeling that in the minds of the "responsible parties" the Kennedys were unfit Presidents

( potential in the case of RFK) and were quite possible deemed enemies of the state.

Thus , the public, state executions of the two brothers. Public and brutal in the case of JFK.

Edited August 19, 2007 by Peter McGuire