Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 22:14:21 -0700
Subject: Life, the Gold Standard, and Everything: a view of the mystery behind JFK

Batesfam expresses his opinions on Kennedy, and reviews a book by Professor Gibson on Kennedy's political career: "Battling Wall Street", the title of a book on JFK by Prof. Donald Gibson on his view of the true allegiance of the late, great president.

Was JFK a tool of the establishment, or a knight of justice who would challenge the evil kings of high finance? This was truly a ground-breaking book, which shows Kennedy as a staunch modernist who was opposed every step of the way by aristocratic anti-growth conservative financiers and Old Orderists. The book was a tad simplistic in some ways, seemingly coming from a "left" perspective in which a populist Kennedy (a view not shared by all progressives, by any means) squares off against rapacious capitalists, greedy imperialists, and a government which just does not care about the little guy. He explores the role of the Anglo-American establishment and goes "behind the scenes" to expose the Anglo-American connections, the linkage between Eastern financiers and the British aristocracy, and Kennedy's pro-growth, low interest rate policy.

Kennedy was fundamentally a modernist who favored industrial progress and a degree of egalitarianism. Professor Gibson shows him in this light, and exposes a view of Kennedy which few have portrayed, and a view of which forces would have had the most to gain from his removal which was vivid (no accusations were made in the book, from what I read). The book goes far, but I think that there are aspects to the Kennedy mystery which he does not cover, not through fault, but through a world-view, or a paradigm, which would not allow the professor to go too far in to "conspiracy" in a radical way, although he delves in to it to an extent which few academics dare. Professor Gibson presents a bit of evidence which is interesting, and troubling.

Apparently David Rockefeller publicly challenged Kennedy over Kennedy's "anti-business" economic policies, particularly his standing up to the Fed and high interest rates. This presents a troubling piece of evidence since it has long been my contention that Kennedy and Rockefeller were basically both modernists aligned against the Old Order and the rule of the old-style finance aristocrats. It would also challenge those who see the Rockefellers and the Kennedys as both Vatican aligned.

It may be that there would need to be some revision in some deeply held theories on these matters (Professor Gibson seems to hold a view of David Rockefeller as British Old Orderist aligned, which presents a challenge to say the least for both my views and those of A-Albionic Research). It is interesting to see David Rockefeller taking a PUBLIC opinion on anything, as opposed to staying behind the scenes, and that is highly curious. One almost wonders, David Rockefeller opposing someone would certainly make that person seem a real populist. Evidence seems to suggest that Rockefeller supported policies which challenged Old Order British finance, as did Kennedy.

It may be that Rockefeller opposed Kennedy's attempts at social-credit, but then again, looks may be deceiving. Were Kennedy to have crossed Rockefeller, on the other hand, he would have lost a substantial friend should any Old Orderist forces turn against him. Once again, no accusations as to Kennedy's assassination were made in this book, as far as I could tell.

Years after Kennedy's death, questions linger (that sentence being an example of original prose, if there ever is such a thing). But the professor's book sheds some light. If Kennedy crossed the Old Order oligarchy, on questions of currency, on questions of imperialism and Third World economic growth, and if Oswald could be linked to the Old Order network (the White Russians, General Walker, and rebel Cubans being strong suspects) then we have strong reason to put this group on the "suspect list".

Once again, no accusations are made in this book. Kennedy met a fate which another anti-establishment president met 98 years before. Both opposed imperial aggression, helped to emancipate minorities, and favored industrial policies which were intended to move the nation beyond feudal oligarchicalism (the slave-holders under Lincoln, the finance oligarchy under Kennedy). They were not perfect men, and they both may well have crossed powerful people within the modernist camp for whose protection would have been necessary to avoid the ultimate fate. The assassination of Kennedy may still be a mystery, but rare finds like "Battling Wall Street" by Professor Gibson help to shed light. I highly recommend it.

Return to Lincoln, Taylor, Kennedy Page