Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

[Mathias Baumann]

15 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Mathias,

When Gary Patrick Hemming was a member of this Forum back at the turn of the century, he was often just as cryptic as he was during most of his interviews -- but he once shed a bright light on the reason he was so cryptic.

He told us that in the Radical Right underground, so many people had swindled rich people by promising to kill JFK and taking money, that when JFK was finally killed, these swindlers returned to their rich prey, and blackmailed them, demanding more money or they would tell the police that these rich folks gave money to kill JFK.

So -- after the JFK assassination, a lot of rich people hired mafia hit-men to kill these Radical Right blackmailers!   There were so many of these cases, said Garry Patrick Hemming, that anytime anybody seemed too talkative about the JFK assassination, these rich folks would just hire another mafia hit-man to kill them!

It was a regular cottage industry!

That is why Gerry Patrick Hemming said he would never tell the truth -- there were too many people who were now paranoid that THEY were going to be fingered for giving money to this or that person who promised to kill JFK -- and nobody really knew WHICH money went to the real killers!   So, mafia hit-men were having a field day!

Hemming said he was truly afraid of being targeted by some paranoid rich idiot who had nothing to do with the JFK assassination, but thought he might because he once gave a Radical Right boaster some money.  There were HUNDREDS of these people, he implied.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul,

I remember reading that Hemming once was a weapons salesman for WerBell, a former OSS agent who was involved in various clandestine CIA operations. Some of his weapons would later turn up in the hands of terrorists. What do you know about WerBell and his relationship to Hemming?

[Paul Trejo]

7 hours ago, Mathias Baumann said:

Paul,

I remember reading that Hemming once was a weapons salesman for WerBell, a former OSS agent who was involved in various clandestine CIA operations. Some of his weapons would later turn up in the hands of terrorists. What do you know about WerBell and his relationship to Hemming?

Mathias,

I'm not familiar with the story of WerBell.   Does it seem relevant to the thesis of a Radical Right plot to assassinate JFK?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

On 10/10/2017 at 8:54 AM, David Andrews said:

Jason - you have no idea of the entitlement felt and fostered at CIA.  Ted Shackley is quoted as sneering at JFK after his death because JFK - who was only the POTUS - demanded photographic proof that there were Russian missiles in Cuba.  Dulles, who as an attorney worked for the Eastern money establishment, and for corporations like United Fruit that overthrew Central American republics, was not going to be dissuaded by a firing, when he could run an assassination plot from his home and from access permitted him to The Farm.  No one at CIA shut him out.  And the assassination was in the interests of the money powers Dulles had worked for since his youth.

David,

In my opinion you are accidentally omitting the fact that JFK himself came from a supremely wealthy family, and that all these moneyed interests were also line items in his family's financial portfolio.

To imagine that JFK was a "friend of the people" is to take a one-sided view of the politics of 1963.   JFK was a shrewd operator.  But nobody had expected the rage of General Edwin Walker, in my opinion.   Not even the Secret Service PRS.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Michael Clark]

5 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

David,

............

To imagine that JFK was a "friend of the people" is to take a one-sided view of the politics of 1963.   

.............

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

JFK had a true "World View" and was a friend of the world. If that excluded Texas Titans, selfish MIC Oligarchs and Old Money, who had in-mind the "enslavement of half the world" (JFK's words), then yes, Paul Trejo, JFK's view was one-sided, ignoring a handful of bastards whom you appear to admire.

Edited October 15, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Michael Clark]

"Texas Titans, selfish MIC Oligarchs and Old Money," = the Bush "Dynasty".

[Michael Clark]

38 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Mathias,

I'm not familiar with the story of WerBell.   Does it seem relevant to the thesis of a Radical Right plot to assassinate JFK?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

The question is, is your thesis relevant? So yes, if it disspells your myth, Paul Trejo, it is relevant. You seem to think that your myth has become fact.

Edited October 14, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Mathias Baumann]

13 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Mathias,

I'm not familiar with the story of WerBell.   Does it seem relevant to the thesis of a Radical Right plot to assassinate JFK?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul,

 in the 1980s members of the far-right LaRouche group were trained in WerBell's anti-terror training camps. I was hoping you had some more detailed information about WerBell's political leanings and affiliations.

Rumor has it that WerBell's "silent kill devices" were used to kill JFK.

Quote

Roy Hargraves told Noel Twyman that WerBell supplied silencers used by the gunmen in Dallas. Another source said that WerBell was involved with Jack Ruby.

--> http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKwerbell.htm

[Paul Brancato]

19 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

David,

In my opinion you are accidentally omitting the fact that JFK himself came from a supremely wealthy family, and that all these moneyed interests were also line items in his family's financial portfolio.

To imagine that JFK was a "friend of the people" is to take a one-sided view of the politics of 1963.   JFK was a shrewd operator.  But nobody had expected the rage of General Edwin Walker, in my opinion.   Not even the Secret Service PRS.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul - that is such a wantonly ignorant post. 

[Paul Brancato]

19 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

"Texas Titans, selfish MIC Oligarchs and Old Money," = the Bush "Dynasty".

Agree with that completely.

[Paul Brancato]

On 10/10/2017 at 6:54 AM, David Andrews said:

Jason - you have no idea of the entitlement felt and fostered at CIA.  Ted Shackley is quoted as sneering at JFK after his death because JFK - who was only the POTUS - demanded photographic proof that there were Russian missiles in Cuba.  Dulles, who as an attorney worked for the Eastern money establishment, and for corporations like United Fruit that overthrew Central American republics, was not going to be dissuaded by a firing, when he could run an assassination plot from his home and from access permitted him to The Farm.  No one at CIA shut him out.  And the assassination was in the interests of the money powers Dulles had worked for since his youth.

David - since Paul T decided a few hours ago to respond to your post I dug back 5 pages to find and repost it, as I think it was in support of something I posted. Jason Ward also chimed in at some point to challenge the idea that Dulles might have ordered anyone's death, much less JFK's. I can't figure out why these two would feel so secure in their ignorance of Dulles. Paul T knows I am very willing to entertain the possibility of Walker's involvement in the assassination. The problem I have with him is in the cherry picking, and the willingness to overlook historical realities as if a broader view would somehow weaken his theory. It wouldn't do that at all, but it would put it in a bigger context. Example of cherry picking is his use of Hemming as a source. When Mathias Baumann asked him whether he knew about ties between Hemming and Mitch Werbell he said he wasn't aware of it. Seems to me that Hemming's statements about arranging for Oswald to bring his Carcano to the tsbd is a major part of his working hypothesis. You would think it necessary to know everything you can about Hemming before judging his reliability as a source. Example of overlooking history are his past statements in support of Dulles regarding his enlistment of Nazi criminals, which he claims was historically necessary. Paul T simply can't imagine a world in which leaders of CIA, FBI, or military could be so brazen as to take part in the assassination. So he draws imaginary lines between rightists in government or military and rightists outside. Walker could have done it, but not Lemnitzer, the guy who tried to push JFK into Operation Northwoods. Maybe if he would really try to see who JFK was, and what world JFK wanted to inhabit, he would wake up. Instead, he equates JFK and Dulles because they both came from money. In my view, one of the pillars of the media refusal to honestly examine the assassination is painting JFK as just another entitled rich Cold warrior, as if to lessen the public interest in why he died. This ignores real history. 

 

Edited October 15, 2017 by Paul Brancato

[David Andrews]

On 10/14/2017 at 4:01 PM, Michael Clark said:

JFK had a true "World View" and was a friend of the world. If that excluded Texas Titans, selfish MIC Oligarchs and Old Money, who had in-mind the "enslavement of half the world" (JFK's words), then yes, Paul Trejo, JFK's view was one-sided, ignoring a handful of bastards whom you appear to admire.

 

On 10/14/2017 at 3:29 PM, Paul Trejo said:

David,

In my opinion you are accidentally omitting the fact that JFK himself came from a supremely wealthy family, and that all these moneyed interests were also line items in his family's financial portfolio.

To imagine that JFK was a "friend of the people" is to take a one-sided view of the politics of 1963.   JFK was a shrewd operator.  But nobody had expected the rage of General Edwin Walker, in my opinion.   Not even the Secret Service PRS.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

JFK wanted to be an intellectual.  He wanted, in his way, to become a World Historical Figure.  He also wanted to navigate and master the American political system, and alter foreign affairs in a benign, progressive and humane way, in a USA that was only recently internationalist.  Politically internationalist, I mean.  Its money powers had been internationalist since the Civil War.

Was he as good as his ideals?  Not always, and not at first as President.  In his private morals, he exercised the prerogatives assumed among his moneyed class and among common politicians. 

Did his family buy his way to the top?  Yes, definitely.  How else make the leap from a lackluster Senate career to the Executive, without tarrying for the hardscrabble villainy that got Nixon to the V-P slot.

He was punished and vilified for both his caution and his audacity.  He dallied on racial politics and civil rights, and then alienated many when he made hard challenges to his opponents' assumptions of impunity..

He opposed colonialism, nuclear war, needless land war.  He pursued, for a time, plans created by a less forgiving administration to rid the hemisphere of the rival political system.  Yet when he chose not to invade Cuba, he also rejected the military desire to conquer Southeast Asia, and the desire of the Eastern Establishment to profit from it

He betrayed his class and his backers by refusing to bend to the powers of the steel industry, the oil industry, and the Federal Reserve.  He betrayed the gangsters his father employed to get out the vote for him.

In the end, he refused war, for the sake of humanity, for the sake of this country’s honor.  He wanted to set an example, and he distrusted the influences that argued for setting a different example.  In the end, his accumulated enemies killed him for it, and those enemies were among his class, among his advisors, and among those who should have been subordinate to the powers of the presidency.

Edited October 15, 2017 by David Andrews

[Paul Trejo]

16 hours ago, Mathias Baumann said:

Paul,

 in the 1980s members of the far-right LaRouche group were trained in WerBell's anti-terror training camps. I was hoping you had some more detailed information about WerBell's political leanings and affiliations.

Rumor has it that WerBell's "silent kill devices" were used to kill JFK.

--> http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKwerbell.htm

Mathias,

Aha -- you triggered my memory when you mentioned the LaRouche group.

LaRouche had a very vivid imagination, and he tried to connect historical dots by using his imagination.

For Lyndon LaRouche, the Queen of England was a heroin pusher (and his followers believe she still is).   His erudition in some areas cannot make up for his ridiculous exclamations in other areas.  LaRouche lacks credibility with me.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited October 16, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

9 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

On 10/14/2017 at 3:02 PM, Michael Clark said:

"Texas Titans, selfish MIC Oligarchs and Old Money," = the Bush "Dynasty".

 

Agree with that completely.

Paul B.,

You also agree with Peter Dale Scott and his so-called Deep Politics.   This English professor attempts to connect the dots of the JFK assassination at the abstract level -- the ivory tower level -- of hazy concepts like 'deep politics.'

It's easy to stay at the abstract level, and to notice who is rich and famous -- but it takes real work to get down to the street level to try to identify the JFK Kill Team Street Crew.

That is too far below Peter Dale Scott and his so-called Deep Politics.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

2 hours ago, David Andrews said:

JFK wanted to be an intellectual.  He wanted, in his way, to become a World Historical Figure.  He also wanted to navigate and master the American political system, and alter foreign affairs in a benign, progressive and humane way, in a USA that was only recently internationalist.  Politically internationalist, I mean.  Its money powers had been internationalist since the Civil War.

Was he as good as his ideals?  Not always, and not at first as President.  In his private morals, he exercised the prerogatives assumed among his moneyed class and among common politicians. 

Did his family buy his way to the top?  Yes, definitely.  How else make the leap from a lackluster Senate career to the Executive, without tarrying for the hardscrabble villainy that got Nixon to the V-P slot.

He was punished and vilified for both his caution and his audacity.  He dallied on racial politics and civil rights, and then alienated many when he made hard challenges to his opponents' assumptions of impunity..

He opposed colonialism, nuclear war, needless land war.  He pursued, for a time, plans created by a less forgiving administration to rid the hemisphere of the rival political system.  Yet when he chose not to invade Cuba, he also rejected the military desire to conquer Southeast Asia, and the desire of the Eastern Establishment to profit from it

He betrayed his class and his backers by refusing to bend to the powers of the steel industry, the oil industry, and the Federal Reserve.  He betrayed the gangsters his father employed to get out the vote for him.

In the end, he refused war, for the sake of humanity, for the sake of this country’s honor.  He wanted to set an example, and he distrusted the influences that argued for setting a different example.  In the end, his accumulated enemies killed him for it, and those enemies were among his class, among his advisors, and among those who should have been subordinate to the powers of the presidency.

David,

Yes, very good -- JFK did want to be an intellectual.  I also agree that in his own way he wanted to be a Hegelian "World Historical" figure.

I agree that JFK had a more Internationalist policy than many of his peers in the Senate and House -- yet perhaps not so different from FDR.  Yet FDR was another very rich US President.   The Internationalism of FDR and JFK was also slanted toward Big Money -- because they themselves came from money and held very large stock portfolios.

Anybody who won't agree with that scenario can't understand the basics of the JFK assassination.   JFK wanted what was best for Big Business -- and in his intellectual, political opinion, an Internationalist foreign policy was best for World Capitalism -- and for the Kennedy Family.

I'm glad, David, that you recognize the way that the Kennedy family used money to push its way into political power in the 1960's.  It was too fast -- some say -- it was the nouveau riche phenomenon.   Many "old money" interests were suspicious of these Catholics in high places.

It was a shock to Washington DC, I believe, to see the first non-WASP in the White House.  A Catholic behaved much differently as President than any other US President.   The Secret Service saw this first hand.

I think that JFK's decision to support the Civil Rights movement in the 1960's was also motivated by his desire to make American Capitalism greater and stronger -- for the benefit of all Americans, and ultimately the whole world.  Yet without the perception of the equality of the races (as even Harry Truman saw) this was going to be a hard sell -- Internationally.

I think JFK's decisions were largely based on his commitment to Capitalism.   He was a conservative in Economics -- and for that reason (and his intellect) he realized that the situation in Vietnam was virtually hopeless.   He didn't want the USA to put her finger into the Asian finger-trap -- but then he was smarter than the average POTUS.

I think that if JFK had lived, he would have conducted the Vietnam episode far more gracefully than LBJ did.  The main problem with Vietnam was its powerful Catholic minority -- and JFK would have been able to navigate that with great intelligence and sensitivity.  LBJ didn't even guess that it was an issue -- he just started bombing.

Yes, JFK opposed Colonialism -- but again, this was like FDR.   FDR -- if he had lived -- would have kicked the French out of Vietnam, he would have kicked the British out of Hong Kong and Kuwait -- and established a Colony-free planet -- USA style.  That was his dream.  Sadly, he died, and Truman had less than half the intellect of FDR.   I think JFK had an intellect equal to FDR -- but we only saw a small bit of it.  In his second term he would have revolutionized America -- not in any socialist style -- but in true Capitalist form.

Capitalism would have flourished under JFK -- worldwide -- as International Capital had taken a giant step forward.   Lacking his vision, the USA settled for a few bucks in Vietnam.   Really dumb.

In my reading, there is no way that JFK betrayed his class.  He did his class proud.   No way JFK betrayed his Capitalist backers -- he was about to make them even richer by liberating Capitalism.  There is no way that JFK was a Left-wing Socialist type.  That is the fantasy of Left-wing Socialist types.

JFK was a Super-Capitalist in the grand, FDR style.

The people who killed JFK were small-minded, small-businessmen level, jealous-of-the-Eastern-Establishment, Southern John Bircher types.  Their main hatred of JFK was spiked with the Ole Miss riots of 1962, and by his Civil Rights Speech of June 1963.

THAT is why JFK was killed.   Deep Politics my eye.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited October 16, 2017 by Paul Trejo
typos

[David Andrews]

Paul, I doubt that backing down the oil and steel interests, and the Fed, plus - the ne plus ultra - refusing war in Laos and Vietnam, were in the interests of assuaging big business.  JFK did what he had to do to preserve peace and equity, and might have done more for those denied those luxuries in a second term.  He was the most capital-P Progressive POTUS since FDR, and a far cry from con-men Progressives Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, who served the industrialists and the bankers.  (Insert Barrack Obama's name here.)  He was a Progressive for the internationalist age ushered in by FDR, and on that battlefield he opposed big business where the lives of its victims could be spared.

Edited October 16, 2017 by David Andrews