Jim Marrs "Rule by Secrecy" and the Kennedy Assassination
By Author and Philosopher Victor Thorn of Babel Magazine
March 3, 2003
NOTE: Jim Marrs website can be found at: http://www.jimmarrs.com His book, Rule by Secrecy, is available from Perennial, which is an imprint of Harper-Collins
On the surface, the JFK assassination seems fairly cut-and-dried. On November 22, 1963 in Dallas, Texas, our 35th president was gunned-down in broad daylight while riding in his limousine through Dealey Plaza. But once we start digging a little deeper we realize that this “killing of the king” nearly forty years ago was one of the most complex events ever facing this nation. To show how complicated this matter has truly become, one needs to only look at how many pages have been devoted to this subject. Other than Jesus Christ and Adolf Hitler, there are probably more books about John F. Kennedy than any other figure in recent history. I have even dedicated a few sections of this book to that fateful day in Dallas.
Thus, in a sea of so multiple theories and explanations, one needs to find a steady harbor to lay their anchor. Over the years I’ve found one of the most reliable sources of information was journalist Jim Marrs, author of the highly-touted book, Crossfire. Lisa Guliani and I had the privilege of interviewing Mr. Marrs on April 7, 2002, and we asked him point-blank about the Kennedy assassination. Jim replied, “The shortest answer as to who killed JFK is that, as president, he was shaking up the status quo, and the status quo struck back. This resulted in elements belonging to “Operation Mongoose,” the secret war against Castro, sending their Mafia/CIA/military operatives to Dallas in November, 1963. The cover-up, if not the assassination itself, carried the approval of the Council on Foreign Relations, as many of the CFR members participated in suppressing the truth.”
One of the most crucial decisions Kennedy made during his short-lived presidency was to pull out of Vietnam. In his seminal work, Rule by Secrecy, Jim Marrs shows how the United States became interested in Southeast Asia in 1951 when the Rockefeller Foundation created a study group comprised of members from the Council on Foreign Relations and England’s Royal Institute on International Affairs. This panel concluded that there should be a British-American takeover of this area. Soon, these goals were being forwarded by John Foster Dulles (one of the CFR founders and Eisenhower’s Secretary of State), and his brother, CIA Director Allen Dulles.
To understand how our global power structure operates, we need to know that the people who funded David Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan were members of Britain’s “Roundtable” founded by Cecil Rhodes, and later headed by Lord Alfred Milner. And who directed the Roundtable? Answer: the notorious Rothschild family. In addition, the CFR is a direct American descendent of the Roundtable, which posed some serious problems for President Kennedy. Aware of how prevalent this organization was in every administration prior to his own, he stated at one point, “I’d like to have some new faces here, but all I get is the same old ones.” Notice how President Kennedy crafted his words – he didn’t say that HE selected them, but who he GETS … in other words, those who were already CHOSEN for him!
Who, you may wonder, comprised the CFR in the early 1960’s? Answer: the New York banking establishment, which wasn’t particularly pleased with the way Kennedy was pushing to break the Federal Reserve’s power base. He did this by urging businesses to deposit, invest, and borrow from non-Federal Reserve banks! He also encouraged these non-Fed banks to deal directly with and underwrite state and local financial matters. By taking this leverage away from the Federal Reserve, Kennedy could ultimately return the power to coin money to Congress, which was how our Founding Fathers originally established it in our Constitution. If this happened, we could become fiscally sound once again by not being forced to pay inordinate amounts of interest to the international bankers. The President’s plan was quite ingenious, and he knew what he was talking about, for economist Seymour Harris said that Kennedy was “by far the most knowledgeable president of all time in the general area of economics.”
So, what we had at that time in regard to the CFR/banking establishment was a slew of individuals very upset by what JFK was trying to do. And who specifically were these people and institutions? Well, take a look at this list of heavy-hitters that had aligned themselves against President Kennedy:
- Nelson Rockefeller – New York Governor
- David Rockefeller – Chase Manhattan Bank president, co-founder of the Trilateral Commission
- Douglas Dillon – Kennedy’s Treasury Secretary & CFR member
- The Wall Street Journal
- Fortune Magazine editor Charles J. V. Murphy
- Dean Rusk – Secretary of State – Iron Mountain panel member
- Robert McNamara – Secretary of Defense until 1968, later President of the World Bank (an adjunct of the United Nations and CFR)
- McGeorge Bundy – National Security Advisor – Iron Mountain panel member
- William Bundy – editor of the CFR’s Foreign Affairs
- Averill Harriman – instrumental in promoting Communism in the Soviet Union
- Henry Cabot Lodge – U.S. Ambassador to Saigon
- TheJoint Chiefs of Staff
- John J. McCloy – Assistant Secretary of War (WWII), Kennedy advisor
- Cyrus Vance – Secretary of the Army
- Walt Rostow – State Department’s Policy Planning Council, LBJ’s National Security Advisor
- Dean Acheson – Truman Secretary of State, Democratic foreign policy advisor
As you can see, this was quite a formidable list of opponents, and not one to be taken lightly. Donald Gibson, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh, wrote in 1994’s Battling Wall Street: the Kennedy Presidency, “The Establishment’s rejection of Kennedy became increasingly intense during his time in office.” He continued, “Many of the most important advocates of U.S. involvement in Vietnam, both within and OUTSIDE the government, were members of the Board of Directors of the CFR.” Gibson concludes this thought by adding, “By the early 1960’s, the Council on Foreign Relations, Morgan and Rockefeller interests and the intelligence community were so extensively inbred as to be virtually a single entity.”
The above words are important to understand for we are now clearly able to see that there were extremely powerful forces at work in the American financial, military, and intelligence communities (among others) who had a vested interest in promoting their business, banking, and Vietnam policies.
And what were the motives of those who wanted us to remain in Vietnam? Well, beyond the obvious profits to be made from war, the interest to be derived by bankers off of huge loans made to the U.S., and the opium market that would be cornered in the Golden Triangle, Vietnam came to epitomize a sinister Hegelian Dialectic at work. Here is the way it operated. First of all a PROBLEM was created where the Communist faction of the global elite’s power structure took control of North Vietnam, thus “creating” a ‘domino theory’ scenario that could be used as an excuse for the anti-communists. A supposed SOLUTION offered to the American people as a reason to draw them into a war was to provide financial and military aid to South Vietnam. The resulting SYNTHESIS came about when the Controllers expanded their influence into Southeast Asia and exploited the area economically while at the same time transporting tons of heroin into the United States and around the world.
So, on one side we have the CIA backing South Vietnam, while the Communists supported the North Vietnamese. And everyone (see the above list of names) was telling President Kennedy to send more troops into the area to carry out the Controllers goals. But Kennedy, unlike Harry Truman and Dwight David Eisenhower before him, wanted no part of this fiasco. In fact, on October 11, 1963, a little over a month before being assassinated, Kennedy approved of National Security Action Memorandum 263 which stated that the U.S. would pull-out of Vietnam by 1965. To prevent this from happening, the powers-that-be orchestrated a scenario where bullets rang out in Dallas on November 22, 1963, and less than two years later we had over 100,000 combat troops in Vietnam under code name “Rolling Thunder.”
To show how prevalent the elitists were in this decision, President Kennedy’s successor, LBJ, met on an almost daily basis with 14 of his Vietnam advisors, (nicknamed the “Wise Men”). Of these 14 men, 12 were members of the CFR, and all were either bankers or lawyers! Yes, you read correctly – bankers and lawyers were making President Johnson’s decisions in regard to Vietnam!
Worse, as Jim Marrs points out in Rule by Secrecy, in 1985, a 26 page declassified Congressional Record report outlined the “rules of engagement” that were placed on our troops in Vietnam. As you read these restrictions, please hearken back to the military men who’ve said for years that they couldn’t put their finger on it, but somehow felt as if they were being deliberately set-up to lose the war. Now you know which forces were calling the shots and implementing this defeatist policy. It was the CFR-led bankers and lawyers working through LBJ, who knew virtually nothing about foreign policy or war.
1985 Congressional Record – rules of engagement and restrictions
- The Air Force could not attack prime targets which were determined by the military brass.
- We could not fire upon the Viet Con unless we were shot at first.
- If a tank or truck was more than 200 yards off of the Ho Chi Minh Trail, they could not be attacked.
-A North Vietnamese plane could not be shot at unless it was in the air and overtly offensive in nature.
-Enemy missile sites being built could not be bombed.
-Vietnamese troops could not be tracked if they went into Laos or Cambodia.
-The North Vietnamese were told that we could not attack certain installations, so guess what. That’s where they put their anti-aircraft artillery to keep it safe!
- Finally, arms and supplies that were necessary to perpetuate the war were permitted to go through the Port of Haiphone – 80% of which came from the USSR and China.
While the Vietnam War was still being waged, Louisiana Congressman John R. Rarick asked in no uncertain terms why the mainstream media was not telling us the truth about what was going on. “Why doesn’t CBS tell the American people about the CFR and let the people decide whom to blame for the Vietnam fiasco – the planners and top decision makers of a closely knit financial-industrial-intellectual aristocracy or the military leaders under CIVILIAN CONTROL …” Did you read the final two words – CIVILIAN CONTROL – not governmental control. Congressman Rarick was telling the American people that forces OUTSIDE the government were pursuing an agenda contrary to what was in the best interests of the United States. He continued, “Who will tell the people the truth of those who control ‘the right to know machinery’ also control the government?”
Folks, this isn’t a conspiracy theory; these are the FACTS from a U.S. Congressman in the know. People always ask: why doesn’t anyone ever come forward with information that exposes the truth? Well, they do all the time, as I’ve repeatedly shown throughout this book. The only problem is; those who call the shots from behind-the-scenes are also the same ones who own the mainstream media outlets and conceal this same information.
Someone could then ask: what about all the various theories as to who killed John F. Kennedy? Some people say it was the Masons, the Jesuits, the Israeli’s, the CIA, Mob, or Russians. Who was actually behind the assassination?
(more to follow)
No comments:
Post a Comment