Softpanorama

Home Switchboard Unix Administration Red Hat TCP/IP Networks Neoliberalism Toxic Managers
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Bigger doesn't imply better. Bigger often is a sign of obesity, of lost control, of overcomplexity, of cancerous cells

Was CIA involved in JFK assassination? That is the question.

  “Is the Warren Commission Report on the assassination of John F. Kennedy accurate? Was Lee Harvey Oswald really the lone gunman responsible for the President’s death, or was there a conspiracy? And if there really was a plot, who else was involved—and why? If questions like this trouble you….”

Jonathan Braun in his article Parade, April 4, 1976. sited for commant at John Kerry I Have 'Serious Doubts That Lee Harvey Oswald Acted Alone' the Day JFK Died

The assassination of the 35th US president on November 22, 1963 continues remains the most high-profile crime of the 20th century.  About two hundred books were published exploring different versions of  this crime. There are also several films and multiple documentaries

In October, 2017 additional documents were released by Trump. Still some were withheld till 2018.

Among the key suspects are the CIA, the Mafia, the Cuban exiles (Operation Freedom which was run by Robert Kennedy was turned against Kennedy brother), Edgar Hoover, and Lyndon Johnson. Or some combination of those actors. 

American people overwhelmingly continue to reject the conclusion of the Warren Commission. As Secretary of State John Kerry recently remarked "I still have serious doubts," the chief American diplomat under Obama said in an interview with NBC, "that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone." John Kerry I Have 'Serious Doubts That Lee Harvey Oswald Acted Alone' the Day JFK Died

The three main versions as of 2017 remains CIA, Mafia and LBJ.  We might never know the truth but it is clear that intelligence agances tend to spin out of control of state.

CIA

The most popular is the version, according to which senior CIA officials Richard Helms and James Angleton (it has been claimed that Angleton directed CIA assistance to the Israeli nuclear weapons program.[16]; Angleton's personal liaisons with Italian Mafia figures helped the CIA in the immediate period after World War II.  -- Wikipedia) hired members of the Mafia to eliminate President Kennedy.

Knights of the cloak and dagger did not like that he allegedly intended to end the war in Vietnam and make peace with the Communist Cuba and the Soviet Union. Naturally, all this was supposed to take place against the backdrop of the loss of the president's trust in spies and, most importantly, the reduction of funding for their department.

The Mafia

Supporters of this version believe that the godfathers Carlos Marcello, Santo Traficante and Sam Giancana decided to remove the JFK, which, with the help of his brother, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, declared organized crime US a war. It is believed that the mafia helped JFK become president, and he "thanked" her by declaring a crusade against her.

This version suggests that mafiosi killed the president and framed Lee Harvey Oswald. They might act not alone but with certain elements with CIA.  Supporters of this version argue that the FBI in 1985 got the admission of this fact from Marcello, but decided to keep it a secret.

Lyndon Johnson

A lot of conspiracy experts are accused of organizing the murder of JFK Vice-President Lyndon Johnson, who replaced him as America's leader. The conspiracy led by the US vice-president was attended by the most radical groups in the CIA, the Mafia, the Cuban emigres and even those dissatisfied with Kennedy's administration. The main motive of the LBJ was that Kennedy's intention to replace the vice-president in the presidential election of 1964 was not a secret for anyone. He had an extremely low opinion of his deputy.

Johnson was allegedly moved not only by the thirst for power, but also by the instinct of self-preservation. The post of vice president, and especially the president, protected him from allegations of corruption.

"If Kennedy had not been killed that day," Madeline Brown, the LBJ mistress, said shortly before her death in 2002, "then Lyndon Johnson would most likely go to jail."
The place of the murder of Dallas was chosen not by chance. Lyndon Johnson was originally from Texas and controlled the Dallas police. This helped to hide a number of clues. For example, fingerprints in the book depository of the killer, former Marine Marc Wallace, who died in 1971.

Johnson and Texas governor John Connally changed the route of the presidential motorcade along Dallas so that he would pass through Dealey  Plaza.

Many people believed that the murder was ordered by the LBJ: Madeleine Brown, whom he confessed on the eve of the murder; Richard Nixon, who succeeded him in the White House; Jackie Kennedy-Onassis, widow of JFK, and others.

FORTY YEARS OF LIES
November 12, 2003

CHUCKMAN'S WORDS ON WORDPRESS POLITICAL ESSAYS

A Note to Readers: I am re-posting this article in view of the coming forty-eighth anniversary of the assassination of John Kennedy. It remains an accurate critique of many key aspects of that event and was repeated in many publications around the world. You may also enjoy another later piece, “Lincoln was Wrong: The Ease of Fooling Most of the People Most of the Time,” at http://chuckmanwords.wordpress.com/2009/06/06/lincoln-was-wrong-the-ease-of-fooling-most-of-the-people-most-of-the-time/</

“If, as we are told, Oswald was the lone assassin, where is the issue of national security?”
Bertrand Russell

John Chuckman

Bertrand Russell’s penetrating question, one of sixteen he asked at the time of the Warren Commission Report, remains unanswered after forty years. That should trouble Americans, but then again there are many things around national secrecy today that should trouble Americans.

The most timely lesson to be taken from the fortieth anniversary of President Kennedy’s assassination concerns secrecy and the meaning of democracy in the world’s most powerful nation. Perhaps no event better demonstrates the existence of two governments in the United States, the one people elect and another, often far more influential, as capable of imposing false history about large events as the fabled Ministry of Truth.

Since the time of the Warren Commission we have had the investigation of the House Select Committee and, in the last decade, the release of truckloads of previously-secret documents.
These documents were suppressed originally in the name of national security, but the fact is, despite their release, much of their content is heavily blacked out, and dedicated researchers know many documents remain unreleased, particularly documents from the CIA and military intelligence. Would any reasonable person conclude anything other than that those documents are likely the most informative and sensational?

Was it ever reasonable to believe that material of that nature would be included in document releases? Just a few years ago, records of some of the CIA’s early Cold War activities, due for mandated release, were suddenly said to have “disappeared,” and that declaration was pretty much the end of the story for a press regularly puffing itself as the fourth estate of American society. You do not have to believe in wild plots to recognize here the key to the Warren Commission’s shabby job of investigation. As it was, several members of the Commission expressed private doubts about the main finding of Oswald as lone assassin.

There is a sense in these matters of being treated as a child sent to his or her room for not eating the spinach served. This is not so different to the way the American government treats its citizens about Cuba: it restricts them from spending money there so they cannot freely go and judge for themselves what is and isn’t.

As it happens, the two things, Cuba and the assassination, are intimately related. Almost no one who studies the assassination critically can help but conclude it had a great deal to do with Cuba. No, I don’t mean the pathetic story about Castro being somehow responsible. That idea is an insult to intelligence.

No matter what opinions you may hold of Castro, he is too clever and was in those days certainly too dedicated to the purpose of helping his people, according to his lights, ever to take such a chance. Even the slightest evidence pointing to Castro would have given the American establishment, fuming over communism like Puritan Fathers confronting what they regarded as demon possession, the excuse for an invasion.

There never has been credible evidence in that direction. Yet, there has been a number of fraudulent pieces of evidence, particularly the testimony of unsavory characters, claims so threadbare they have come and gone after failing to catch any hold, remaining as forgotten as last year’s fizzled advertising campaign for some laundry detergent.

The notion that Castro had anything to do with the assassination is like an old corpse that’s been floating around, slowly decomposing, periodically releasing gases for decades. And it is still doing so, Gus Russo’s Live by the Sword of not many years ago being one of the most detailed efforts to tart-up the corpse and make it presentable for showing.

Any superficial plausibility to the notion of Castro as assassin derives from the poisonous atmosphere maintained towards him as official American policy. Researchers in science know that bias on a researcher’s part, not scrupulously checked by an experiment’s protocols, can seriously influence the outcome of an otherwise rigorous statistical study. How much more so in studies of history on subjects loaded with ideology and politics?

When you consider with what flimsy, and even utterly false, evidence the United States has invaded Iraq, it is remarkable that an invasion of Cuba did not proceed forty years ago. But in some ways the U.S. was less certain of itself then, it had a formidable opponent in the Soviet Union, and there was an agreement with the Soviets concerning Cuba’s integrity negotiated to end the Cuban missile crisis, an agreement which deeply offended the small army of Cuban exiles, CIA men, and low-life hangers-on who enjoyed steady employment, lots of perquisites, and violent fun terrorizing Cuba.

Considering America’s current crusade over the evils of terrorism, you’d have to conclude from the existence of that well-financed, murderous mob in the early 1960s that there was a rather different view of terror then. Perhaps there is good terror and bad terror, depending on just who does the wrecking and killing?

If you were a serious, aspiring assassin, associated with Castro and living in the United States during the early 1960s, you would not advertise your sympathies months in advance as Oswald did. You would not call any attention to yourself. It is hard for many today to have an adequate feel for the period, a time when declaring yourself sympathetic to Castro or communism could earn you a beating in the street, quite apart from making you the target of intense FBI interest. Oswald was physically assaulted for his (stagy) pro-Castro efforts in New Orleans, and he did receive a lengthy visit from the FBI while held briefly in jail, but this was not new interest from the agency since he was already well known to them.

Whatever else you may think of Castro, he is one of the cleverest and most able politicians of the second half of the twentieth century. He survived invasion, endless acts of terror and sabotage from the CIA and Cuban exiles, and numerous attempts at assassination, and he still retains a good deal of loyal support in Cuba. A man of this extraordinary talent does not use someone like Oswald to assassinate an American president. And if Castro had made such a mistake, he quickly would have corrected the error when Oswald made a (deliberate) fool of himself, over and over, in New Orleans well before the assassination, his actions there looking remarkably like the kind of provocateur-stuff a security service might use to elicit responses and identify the sympathies of others.

Oswald’s (purported) visit to Mexico and clownish behavior in New Orleans laid the groundwork for the myth of Castro’s involvement, and that almost certainly was one of the purposes of the activity, laying the groundwork for an invasion of Cuba. The motive for the assassination is likely found there. It is just silly to believe Castro risked handing the U.S. government a new “Remember the Maine.”

In recent years, we’ve had Patrick Kennedy say he believes Castro was responsible, but his views on this matter are more like built-in reflexes than informed judgment. Besides broadcasting a tone agreeable to America’s political establishment, his statement comes steeped in de’ Medici-like conviction that Castro’s success stained the honor of his ferociously ambitious family. Cross that family’s path, and you earn a lifetime grudge. That’s the way the family fortune’s founder always behaved.

Robert Kennedy hated Castro (just as he hated other powerful competitors including Lyndon Johnson), and he took personal oversight of efforts to assassinate him. Robert also hated certain elements of the Mafia, who, after supporting his brother with money and influence in the election, felt betrayed by Robert’s legal actions against them. The killing of Castro would have made all these people much happier, Havana having been one of the Mafia’s gold mines before Castro. Interestingly enough, it appears that the FBI, under pressure from Robert, was at the same time making efforts to crackdown on the excesses of the Cuban refugees. Their excesses , including insane acts like shooting up Russian ships and killing Russian sailors in Cuban ports, threatened relations with the Soviet Union.

One of the centers of the FBI’s crackdown effort was New Orleans, and that is where it appears clearest that Oswald worked for them. His defector background made him a logical candidate for provocative activities like handing out leaflets about Castro. At the same time he was offering his services as an ex-Marine to at least one of the refugee groups.

Oswald almost certainly had a minor role in American intelligence, an assumption that explains many mysterious episodes in his life. We know the Warren Commission discussed this in closed session. We also know Texas authorities believed they had discovered such a connection. And we know the FBI in Dallas destroyed important evidence.

If you’re looking for Cuban assassins, why not some of those nasty refugee militia groups, armed to the teeth by the CIA and trained to terrorize Castro’s government? They also terrorized their critics in Florida. The extensive preparations necessary for assassinating the President might have raised little suspicion from the CIA or FBI at a time when these groups, subsidized and protected by the CIA, were carrying out all kinds of violent, lunatic acts. There are strong parallels here with the suicide-bombers of 9/11, who undoubtedly eluded suspicion because the CIA had been regularly bringing into the country many shady characters from the Middle East to train for its dark purposes in places like Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Cuban extremists in Florida were furious over the Bay of Pigs and felt betrayed by Kennedy’s terms for settling the missile crisis. You couldn’t find a better explanation for the CIA’s unhelpful behavior over the years since. Imagine the impact on the CIA, already badly damaged by the Bay of Pigs and Kennedy’s great anger over it, of news that some of its subsidized anti-Castro thugs had killed the President?

I don’t say that is what happened, only that there is at least one conjecture with far more force and substance than the official one. Assassination-theorizing is not one of my hobbies, but I have contempt for the official explanation, and it seems rather naive to believe that the American security establishment would have been satisfied with the insipid conclusions of the Warren Commission.

Furthermore, it is difficult to believe that the vast resources of American security and justice employed at the time – that is, those not concerned with kicking up dust into the public’s eyes – were not able to identify the assassins and their purpose. Documents covering a surreptitious, parallel investigation almost certainly exist because what we know includes suggestions of two investigations intersecting at times. Perhaps, the best example of this is around the autopsy (discussed below).

Kicking-up dust around the assassination is an activity that continues intermittently to this day. In a piece a few years ago in the Washington Post about new Moscow documents on the assassination, a reporter wrote, “Oswald…defected to the Soviet Union in 1959 and renounced his American citizenship.”

Oswald never renounced his citizenship, although he made a public show of wanting to do so. This was one of many theater-of-the-absurd scenes in the Oswald saga. We now know that on one of his visits to the American embassy in Moscow, Oswald was taken to an area reserved for sensitive matters, not the kind of business he was there to conduct.

The Soviets let him stay, never granting him citizenship, always treating him as an extraordinary outsider under constant scrutiny.

The Washington Post reporter also wrote, “Historians have expressed hope that the documents could shed light on whether Oswald schemed to kill Kennedy when he lived in the Soviet Union….” That begs the genuine question of whether Oswald killed Kennedy and kicks-up more dust. No historian of critical ability could think that way. The Soviets went out of their way at the time of the assassination to reassure the U.S. government that they had no connection with it. Any credible evidence they could produce, we may be absolutely sure, was produced. The stakes were immensely high.

The testimony of many Soviet citizens who knew Oswald agreed that he was a man temperamentally incapable of killing anyone. An exception was his (estranged) wife, Marina, who found herself, after the assassination, a Soviet citizen in a hostile country, able to speak little English, the mother of two young children with absolutely no resources, and hostage to American agents who could determine her destiny.

Even so accomplished and discerning a journalist as Daniel Schorr has assisted in kicking-up dust, writing some years ago at the release of more than a thousand boxes of memos and investigative reports from the national archives that there wasn’t much there. Somehow, Schorr had managed to digest and summarize that monstrous amount of information in a very short time. Then again, in view of all the blacked-out information, maybe Schorr’s assertion owed less to incredible skills at reading and digesting information than to serene confidence in the methods of the establishment.

Schorr went from the merely silly to the ridiculous with his assertion, “There remains no serious reason to question the Warren Commission’s conclusion that the death of the president was the work of Oswald alone.” How re-assuring, but, if you think about that for a moment, it is the equivalent of saying what never was proved has not now been disproved, so we’ll regard it as proved – absurd, yet characteristic of so many things written about the assassination.

Schorr went on to praise Gerald Posner’s new book, Case Closed, as “remov[ing] any lingering doubt.” We’ll come back to Posner’s book, but Schorr also saw fit to trot out the then obligatory disparaging reference to Oliver Stone’s movie JFK. Why would a piece of popular entertainment be mentioned in the same context as genuine historical documents? Only to associate the movie with Schorr’s claim that the documents had little to say.

Every handsomely-paid columnist and pop news-celebrity in America stretched to find new words of contempt for the Stone movie, miraculously, many of them well before its release. The wide-scale, simultaneous attack was astonishing. You had to wonder whether they had a source sending them film scraps from the editing room or purloined pages from the script. When Stone’s movie did appear – proving highly unsatisfactory, almost silly, in its explanation of the assassination – you had to wonder what all the fuss had been about.

I was never an admirer of President Kennedy – still, the most important, unsolved murder of the 20th century, apart from the lessons it offers, is a fascinating mystery for those who’ve studied it.

The President’s head movement at the impact of the fatal shot, clearly backward on the Zapruder film, a fact lamely rationalized by the Warren Commission, is not the only evidence for shots from the front. In the famous picture of Mrs. Kennedy reaching over the back of the car, she was, by her own testimony, reaching for a piece of the President’s skull. Equally striking is the testimony of a police outrider, to the rear of the President’s car, that he was struck forcefully with blood and brain tissue.

The doctors who worked to save the President at Parkland Hospital in Dallas said that the major visible damage to the President was a gaping wound near the rear of the skull, the kind of wound that typically reflects the exit of a bullet with the shock wave generated by its passing through layers of human tissue. We’ve all seen a plate glass window struck by a B-B where a tiny entrance puncture results in a large funnel-shaped chunk of cracked or missing glass on the opposite side.

The President’s head wound, as described in Dallas, is not present in published autopsy photographs. Instead, there is a pencil-thin entrance-type wound in an unknown scalp. Although the Secret Service agent, Clint Hill, who climbed aboard the President’s car after the shots, testified to seeing a large chunk of skull in the car and looking into the right rear of the President’s head, seeing part of his brain gone, the autopsy photos show no such thing.

The wound at the front of the President’s neck, just above his necktie, which was nicked by the bullet, was regarded by those first treating him in Dallas as an entrance wound since it had the form of a small puncture before a tracheotomy was done. But the throat wound in the published autopsy photos is large and messy.

The nature of the pathologists forcefully raises Russell’s question. Why would you need military pathologists, people who must follow orders? Ones especially that were not very experienced in gunshot wounds, far less so than hospital pathologists in any large, violent American city? Why conduct the autopsy at a military hospital in Washington rather than a civilian one in Dallas? Why have the pathologists work with a room full of Pentagon brass looking on? The President’s body was seized at gunpoint by federal agents at the hospital in Dallas where the law required autopsy of a murder victim. Why these suspicious actions and so many more, if the assassination, as the Warren Commission and its defenders hold, reduces to murder by one man for unknown motives?

The autopsy, as published, was neither complete nor careful, rendering its findings of little forensic value. There is some evidence, including testimony of a morgue worker and references contained in an FBI memo, pointing to autopsy work, particularly work to the President’s head, done elsewhere before receipt of the body for the official autopsy, but no new documents expand on this. We do learn the relatively trivial fact that the expensive bronze casket, known to have been damaged at some point in bringing it to Bethesda, was disposed of by sinking in the ocean, but the morgue worker said the bronze casket arriving with Mrs. Kennedy was empty and that the body, separately delivered in a shipping casket, displayed obvious signs of work done to it. The FBI memo, written by two agents at the “earlier stages” of the official autopsy, states that the unwrapped body displayed “surgery of the head area.” The same FBI agents also signed a receipt for a mysterious “missile removed” by one pathologist.

The official autopsy avoided some standard procedures. For example, the path of the so-called magic bullet through the President’s neck was not sectioned. A mysterious back wound, whose placement varies dramatically from the hole in the President’s jacket (a fact officially explained by an improbable bunching-up of the jacket), was probed but no entrance into the body cavity found. The preserved brain – what there was of it, and with its telltale scattering of metal fragments – later went missing. One of the pathologists admitted to burning his original draft before writing the report we now see.

The Warren Commission did no independent investigation (it did not even examine the autopsy photos and x-rays), adopting instead the FBI as its investigative arm at a time when the FBI had many serious matters to explain. The FBI had failed to have Oswald’s name on its Watch List even though they were completely familiar with him, seeing him at intervals for unexplained reasons. His name even had appeared earlier in an odd internal FBI advisory memo signed by Director Hoover. The FBI also had failed to act appropriately on an explicit threat from a known source recorded well before Kennedy went to Dallas. And the agency destroyed crucial evidence.

With a lack of independent investigation and the absence of all proper court procedures including the cross-examination of witnesses, the Warren Report is nothing more than a prosecutor’s brief, and a sloppy one at that, with a finding of guilt in the absence of any judge or jury. The only time the skimpy evidence against Oswald was considered in a proper court setting, a mock trial by the American Bar Association in 1992, the jury was hung, 7 to 5.

Oswald’s background is extraordinary. By the standards of the 1950s and early 1960s, aspects of his life simply make no sense if viewed from the official perspective. Here was a Marine, enlisted at 17, who mysteriously started learning Russian, receiving communist literature through the mail, and speaking openly to other Marines about communism – none of which in the least affected his posting or standing.

He became a defector to the Soviet Union, one who reportedly threatened to give the Soviets information about operations of the then top-secret U-2 spy plane. Some even assert he did provide such information, making it possible for a Soviet missile to down Gary Power’s U-2 plane just before the Eisenhower-Khrushchev summit. Unlikely as that is, for Oswald would certainly have been treated harshly on his return to the United States were it true, he did know some important facts about the U-2′s capabilities, because this Russian-studying, communist literature-reading Marine was posted at a secret U-2 base in Japan as a radar operator before his defection.

At a time when witch-hunting for communists was a fresh memory and still a career path for some American politicians, Oswald returned to the U.S. with a Russian wife, one whose uncle was a lieutenant colonel in the MVD, the Ministry of the Interior, but the CIA and other security agencies supposedly took little interest in him. Oswald’s source of income in the U.S. at critical times remains a mystery. A mystery, too, surrounds the connections of this young man of humble means to some well-heeled, anti-Soviet Russian speakers in Dallas after his return from the Soviet Union. His later ability to get a passport for travel to Mexico in just 24 hours – with a personal history that must have ranked as one of the most bizarre in the United States – is attributed to “clerical error.”

Oswald, so far as we know, was a patriotic individual when he joined the Marines. There is no evidence that he was ever actually a communist or member of any extremist organization. In fact, there is striking evidence suggesting he did work supporting the opposite interest after his return to the United States. Thus the address on some of the “Fair Play for Cuba” pamphlets he distributed in New Orleans was the office of Guy Bannister, a former senior FBI agent and violent anti-communist, still well-connected to the agency.

Oswald’s connections with the FBI have never been satisfactorily examined. There are many circumstances suggesting his being a paid informant for the FBI, especially during his time in New Orleans. A letter Oswald wrote to a Dallas agent just before the assassination was deliberately and recklessly destroyed by order of the office’s senior agent immediately after the assassination with no reasonable explanation.

One way or another, all the major police or intelligence agencies were compromised during the assassination or its investigation. The Secret Service performed abysmally, in both planning the motorcade and responding to gun fire. Some of the agents on duty had actually been out late drinking the night before, as it happens at a bar belonging to an associate of Jack Ruby, Oswald’s own assassin. The performance of the Dallas police suggests terrible corruption. The FBI failed in vital respects before and after the assassination. The CIA failed to cooperate on many, many details of the investigation. These facts understandably encourage the more farfetched assassination theories.

The CIA has never released its most important information on Oswald, importantly including documentation of his supposed activities in Mexico City at the Cuban and Russian embassies where every visitor was routinely photographed and identified by the CIA. We may speculate what a thorough vetting of CIA files would show: likely that Oswald was a low-grade intelligence agent during his stint in the Soviet Union, perhaps working for military intelligence to collect information on day-to-day living conditions and attitudes there, one of several men sent for the purpose at that time; that he was trained at an American military school in basic Russian and encouraged to build a quickie communist identity by subscribing to literature and talking foolishly before defecting. We would also likely find that he was serving American security, probably the FBI, during the months before Dallas in the murky world of CIA/FBI/Cuban refugee/Mafia anti-Castro activities; and that in the course of that anti-Castro work, he was sucked without realizing it into an elaborate assassination plot, offering the plotters, with his odd background, a tailor-made patsy. The CIA assessment of Oswald would likely show, just as testimony from his time in the Soviet Union shows, that Oswald was not capable psychologically of acting as an assassin, lone or otherwise.

The case against Oswald is a flimsy tissue. It includes a poor autopsy of the victim offering no reliable evidence; a rifle whose ownership is not established; a rifle never definitively proved to have actually killed the President; a claim that jacketed bullets were used, a type of ammunition that could not possibly cause the kind of wounds to which many testify; the accused’s record of mediocre marksmanship in the Marines; a parafin test which showed no residue on his cheek despite his supposedly firing three shots from a bolt-action rifle; a single palm print claimed to have been obtained from the rifle after earlier failed attempts; gimmicky, suggestive photographs of Oswald with a rifle declared montages by several experts; a completely unacceptable evidence chain for the shell casings from the site of Officer Tippit’s shooting, those submitted as evidence being almost certainly not those found at the scene; a bizarre history for the bullets supposed to have killed Tippet; an illogical weighting of witnesses who told different stories about Tippit’s shooting; plus many other strange and contradictory details.

Moreover, Oswald had no motive, having expressed admiration for Kennedy. And Oswald was promptly assassinated himself by Jack Ruby, a man associated with the murky world of anti-Castro violence, someone whose past included gun-running to Cuba and enforcer-violence in Chicago.

There is a kind of cheap industry in publishing assassination books, most of which are superficial or silly. This fact makes it easy to attack credible efforts to question the official story, but in this respect the subject is no different from others. Just look at the shelves of superficial or trashy books on psychology, business management, or self-help available in bookstores.

Russell’s question echoes again and again down the decades as adjustments are made to the official story. Employing techniques one expects to be used for covering up long-term intelligence interests, various points raised by early independent researchers like Joachim Joesten or Mark Lane, have been conceded here or there along the way without altering the central finding. This is an effective method: concede details and appear open to new facts while always forcefully returning to the main point.

A significant writer along these lines is Edward Epstein, an author whose other writing suggests intelligence connections. His first book on the assassination, Inquest, conceded numerous flaws in the Warren Report. Epstein went on in subsequent books, Counterplot and Legend to attack at length – and for the critical reader, quite unconvincingly – ideas of conspiracy, Oswald’s intelligence connections, and his innocence.

The Report of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, 1979, was the grandest effort of this type. The Committee was used for selective leaks and plants, as for example the publication of some bootlegged autopsy photos, which ended by raising only more questions. Leads often were not followed-up, greatly frustrating some of the able investigators employed. The Committee squandered the last opportunity to pursue an independent, well-financed investigation – last, in the sense of never again being able to overcome the inertia against assembling the needed resources and authorities and in the sense that with passing time evidence deteriorates, memories fade, and witnesses die. Despite the Committee’s attention-getting conclusion from technical analysis of an old Dictabelt recording that a shot probably was fired from the front, it also concluded that the shot missed, a truly bizarre finding that welds hints of conspiracy to yet another assertion that Oswald was the only killer.

Gerald Posner’s Case Closed, 1993, was another of these. You couldn’t help noticing this lamentable book being widely reviewed and praised. Why would that be? Because, without producing any new evidence and despite a number of errors, it freshly re-packaged the main speculations of the Warren Report, but no repackaging of the Report’s jumble of partial facts, guesses, and accusations can strengthen its conclusions. You can’t build a sound house with large sections of the foundation missing.

Priscilla Johnson’s Marina and Lee,1980 , was another kind of book, one of several resembling the kind of quickie books churned out to discredit Anita Hill in the Judge Clarence Thomas confirmation. Ms. Johnson managed to interview Oswald in Russia – I wonder what connections might have made that possible? – and later used that fact to gain access to Oswald’s widow, Marina. Impressing many who had heard her as a distracted and confused person, Marina was a woman who had been subjected to immense, frightening pressure from the FBI and other security services after the assassination. The book is an almost unreadable hatchet-job on Oswald’s character, effectively diminishing the image that comes through many photographs and anecdotes of a rather naïve, brash, sometimes rude but not unlikable young man caught up in events he incompletely understood.

The official story of the assassination remains pretty much unchanged from just a few days after events of forty years ago: one man with an almost broken-down rifle, no expertise, no resources, and no motive killed the President, and he was himself killed by a man with the darkest background simply out of sympathy for the President’s wife. Those with no vested interest and critical faculties intact can never accept such a fable explaining the brutal work of a well-planned conspiracy.

Now, the really horrifying possibility is that the security agencies never discovered the assassins despite vast efforts. That means officials hold tenaciously to the Oswald story to cover national nakedness. The FBI has a long and shabby record of blunders and going after the wrong people, and when you think of the CIA’s many failures assessing the capabilities and approaching demise of the Soviet Union, the many failures in Vietnam, and its miserable failure around 9/11, that is not a farfetched possibility. The answer to Russell’s question then becomes that national security indeed applies, if only in the unexpected form of hiding miserable failure.

But if you can write false history of an event so large as a Presidential assassination, what truly are the limits?

JFK-Unspeakable-Why-Died-Matters

http://www.amazon.com/JFK-Unspeakable-Why-Died-Matters/dp/1439193886/ref=pd_cp_b_0

When we look at the Cui bono question (who benefits from his death?), that actually becomes an even more interesting question than the "magic bullet" questions that arise when we look at the assassination itself.

And We Are All Mortal
By Nick Anez on June 8, 2008

Format: Hardcover Amazon Verified Purchase

In James W. Douglass' outstanding new book, "JFK and the Unspeakable," the author explains the title in his introduction. Coined by spiritual writer Thomas Merton, The Unspeakable refers to "an evil whose depth and deceit seemed to go beyond the capacity of words to describe." Regarding the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the Unspeakable succeeded due to deniability by the nation's citizens of the horrifying truth of the event and to plausible deniability by the government agencies responsible for the murder. (Vincent Bugliosi's recent fictional paperweight is a perfect example of the plausible deniability that allows the Unspeakable to thrive.)

Many excellent books have proven that the assassination of JFK was the result of a conspiracy. Douglass verifies the certainty of the conspiracy and, as the subtitle of the book states, explains "Why He Died and Why It Matters." He scrutinizes the historical facts surrounding the assassination, from the creation of the CIA to the gradual obliteration of the freedoms upon which this nation was founded.

This book is primarily the story of John F. Kennedy who changes from a Cold Warrior to an altruistic leader willing to risk his life to ensure that the world's children will not become victims of a nuclear catastrophe. Equal time is spent on JFK's presidency as on the assassination but one of the many rewards of this book is the author's capacity to show the relationship between his policies and his death. And the book is a tragedy because it gradually becomes obvious that each step he makes toward peace steadily increases the hatred of his enemies who will eventually betray him.

It is also the story of the designated patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald. Moved around the country like a pawn by government agencies (as was the second "Oswald"), he was being set up as the scapegoat. Enter some despicable characters, including David Atlee Philips, James Hosty and, of course, Michael and Ruth Paine. Simultaneously, the Soviet Union was being set up as the evil empire behind the assassination, along with its satellite Cuba.

Douglass credibly illustrates the origin of the Crime of the Century. During President Truman's administration, the CIA was empowered to be a paramilitary organization with unlimited powers. Truman's successor, President Eisenhower, fell out of favor with the CIA when he planned a summit meeting with Soviet Premier Khrushchev. This was cancelled after a U.S. spy plane crashed in Russia. Eisenhower had reportedly ordered such flights cancelled and had his suspicions about who had ruined his peace plan. He subsequently issued his warning about the "military industrial complex" in his farewell address. But he didn't defy "this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry." He left that task to his successor, JFK.

The Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba was planned by the CIA to regain control of the island and to re-open the casinos for organized crime. President Kennedy refused to provide air support for the Cuban brigade because he knew that he had been lied to by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and by the CIA; the invasion had been designed to fail without U.S. support but they hadn't told this to JFK who refused to fall into their trap. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK once again enraged the CIA and the Joint Chiefs by resisting their tremendous pressure on him to take military action which would have led to nuclear war.

Following that crisis, JFK became intent on ending the Cold War by establishing a peaceful relationship with the Soviet Union. However, many CIA and Pentagon personnel believed that it was better to be "dead than red" and that it was preferable to destroy civilization rather than let the Communists rule. They also knew that war generated billions of dollars into the arms industry. As a result, they would repeatedly subvert the President's policies and isolate him within his own government. Enter some more despicable characters: Richard Bissell, Charles Cabell, Henry Cabot Lodge, Lyman Lemnitzer, Curtis LeMay and perhaps the most contemptible of all, Allen Dulles. Ironically, JFK learned to trust Khrushchev more than people within his own government.

At American University on June 10, 1963, JFK spoke about his desire for world peace. He communicated his resolve to form a new relationship with Khrushchev. He spoke about the necessity of a pursuit toward disarmament. He related his intentions to establish a Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. He acknowledged his country's past faults and recognized the Russian people as wanting peace as much as the American people. "And we are all mortal," he stated. Though this extremely important speech was ignored in the United States, it was disseminated throughout the Soviet Union, per order of Khrushchev, who was prepared to respond favorably to JFK's peace initiative. The speech also certified JFK's death warrant. With so many powerful enemies opposing his policies and hating him, JFK didn't have a chance as he was being maneuvered into the crossfire in Dallas.

President Kennedy was aware of the power of his enemies and he knew the dangers facing him. But he persevered and mandated that all U.S. personnel would be withdrawn from Vietnam; he was determined to never send in combat troops even if this meant defeat. He also refused to intervene militarily in Laos. He exchanged private letters with Khrushchev, which infuriated the CIA, and secretly initiated plans to attain rapproachement with Cuba, which further incensed the Agency. Cuba's Fidel Castro, whom the CIA hated as intensely as it hated Kennedy, was equally eager to begin an American-Cuba dialogue. In fact, Castro was meeting with a JFK representative when the President was murdered. JFK died a martyr and the forces of evil that killed him also killed his vision of peace.

Lyndon Johnson, the CIA's ally, assumed the presidency. He cancelled talks with Khrushchev and refused Castro's pleas to continue the dialogue. He reversed JFK's withdrawal plan from Vietnam as well as his plan to neutralize Laos. The military industrial complex took control of the country. The policy of plausible deniability led the way to assassinations of foreign leaders, the overthrowing of foreign governments and horrors committed all over the globe. If JFK had not been murdered, we would not have had the prolongation of the Cold War, the Vietnam War, Watergate, the purported War on Terror and the steady moral deterioration of America. Interestingly, one month after JFK's assassination, President Truman wrote an article for The Washington Post cautioning about the threat of the CIA taking over America.

The author meticulously examines the evidence and draws conclusions which ring with unassailable truth: (1) The CIA coordinated and implemented he assassination of President Kennedy, an act of treason which destroyed democracy in the U.S. (2) The Warren Commission was created to propagate lies to conceal the truth from the American people. (3)There has been a continued cover-up by successive administrations and their stooges in the mass media. (4)The murder of JFK is directly related to the current domination of the American people by powerful oppressors within a shadow government that will continue to insist that only sustained war can keep the country safe from its enemies, never admitting that they themselves are the supreme evil.

This is an exceptional book that will be used by future historians to determine the truth about the assassination and how it changed America. And it will also be used to honor John F. Kennedy as a courageous president who believed in doing God's work on earth. In doing so, he came into conflict with the Unspeakable and his life was extinguished.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R1506ETKP24FOW/ref=cm_cd_pg_next?ie=UTF8&asin=1570757550&cdForum=Fx68NMXUEF58Q1&cdPage=4&cdThread=Tx3BZGULN1RP4WQ&store=books#wasThisHelpful

Posted on Jul 24, 2009 10:13:52 PM PDT

G. Henricks says:

Thanks for this review. There is a deep-politics lineage between the JFK Assassination and the Unspeakable Crime of 9/11/01: There is much evidence that 9/11 had to have been an inside job. David Ray Griffin's books, or the website Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth http://www.ae911truth.org/, or this recent article: http://www.ae911truth.org/downloads/29_Structural-Civil_Engineers_2009-06-17.pdf or physicist Steven Jones, PhD: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf and http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm, or Physicist David Griscom PhD: http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/e/hand-waving-the%20physics-of-911-by-david-griscom.pdf all point to (to paraphrase you) "conclusions which ring with unassailable truth":

(1) Elements within the government coordinated and implemented the 9/11 assault, "an act of treason which (further) destroyed democracy in the U.S."

(2) The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks (the 9/11 Commission) "was created to propagate lies to conceal the truth from the American people".

(3)"There has been a continued cover-up by successive administrations and their stooges in the mass media."

(4) The 9/11 Crime that killed thousands "is directly related to the current domination of the American people by powerful oppressors within a shadow government that will continue to insist that only sustained war can keep the country safe from its enemies, never admitting that they themselves are the supreme evil."

When we look at the Cui bono question (who benefits from his death?), that actually becomes an even more interesting question than the "magic bullet" questions that arise when we look at the assassination itself.


 
1,529 of 1,621 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars And We Are All Mortal, June 8, 2008
By

Nick Anez

 

Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)

This review is from: JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters (Hardcover)

In James W. Douglass' outstanding new book, "JFK and the Unspeakable," the author explains the title in his introduction. Coined by spiritual writer Thomas Merton, The Unspeakable refers to "an evil whose depth and deceit seemed to go beyond the capacity of words to describe." Regarding the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the Unspeakable succeeded due to deniability by the nation's citizens of the horrifying truth of the event and to plausible deniability by the government agencies responsible for the murder. (Vincent Bugliosi's recent fictional paperweight is a perfect example of the plausible deniability that allows the Unspeakable to thrive.)

Many excellent books have proven that the assassination of JFK was the result of a conspiracy. Douglass verifies the certainty of the conspiracy and, as the subtitle of the book states, explains "Why He Died and Why It Matters." He scrutinizes the historical facts surrounding the assassination, from the creation of the CIA to the gradual obliteration of the freedoms upon which this nation was founded.

This book is primarily the story of John F. Kennedy who changes from a Cold Warrior to an altruistic leader willing to risk his life to ensure that the world's children will not become victims of a nuclear catastrophe. Equal time is spent on JFK's presidency as on the assassination but one of the many rewards of this book is the author's capacity to show the relationship between his policies and his death. And the book is a tragedy because it gradually becomes obvious that each step he makes toward peace steadily increases the hatred of his enemies who will eventually betray him.

It is also the story of the designated patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald. Moved around the country like a pawn by government agencies (as was the second "Oswald"), he was being set up as the scapegoat. Enter some despicable characters, including David Atlee Philips, James Hosty and, of course, Michael and Ruth Paine. Simultaneously, the Soviet Union was being set up as the evil empire behind the assassination, along with its satellite Cuba.

Douglass credibly illustrates the origin of the Crime of the Century. During President Truman's administration, the CIA was empowered to be a paramilitary organization with unlimited powers. Truman's successor, President Eisenhower, fell out of favor with the CIA when he planned a summit meeting with Soviet Premier Khrushchev. This was cancelled after a U.S. spy plane crashed in Russia. Eisenhower had reportedly ordered such flights cancelled and had his suspicions about who had ruined his peace plan. He subsequently issued his warning about the "military industrial complex" in his farewell address. But he didn't defy "this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry." He left that task to his successor, JFK.

The Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba was planned by the CIA to regain control of the island and to re-open the casinos for organized crime. President Kennedy refused to provide air support for the Cuban brigade because he knew that he had been lied to by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and by the CIA; the invasion had been designed to fail without U.S. support but they hadn't told this to JFK who refused to fall into their trap. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK once again enraged the CIA and the Joint Chiefs by resisting their tremendous pressure on him to take military action which would have led to nuclear war.

Following that crisis, JFK became intent on ending the Cold War by establishing a peaceful relationship with the Soviet Union. However, many CIA and Pentagon personnel believed that it was better to be "dead than red" and that it was preferable to destroy civilization rather than let the Communists rule. They also knew that war generated billions of dollars into the arms industry. As a result, they would repeatedly subvert the President's policies and isolate him within his own government. Enter some more despicable characters: Richard Bissell, Charles Cabell, Henry Cabot Lodge, Lyman Lemnitzer, Curtis LeMay and perhaps the most contemptible of all, Allen Dulles. Ironically, JFK learned to trust Khrushchev more than people within his own government.

At American University on June 10, 1963, JFK spoke about his desire for world peace. He communicated his resolve to form a new relationship with Khrushchev. He spoke about the necessity of a pursuit toward disarmament. He related his intentions to establish a Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. He acknowledged his country's past faults and recognized the Russian people as wanting peace as much as the American people. "And we are all mortal," he stated. Though this extremely important speech was ignored in the United States, it was disseminated throughout the Soviet Union, per order of Khrushchev, who was prepared to respond favorably to JFK's peace initiative. The speech also certified JFK's death warrant. With so many powerful enemies opposing his policies and hating him, JFK didn't have a chance as he was being maneuvered into the crossfire in Dallas.

President Kennedy was aware of the power of his enemies and he knew the dangers facing him. But he persevered and mandated that all U.S. personnel would be withdrawn from Vietnam; he was determined to never send in combat troops even if this meant defeat. He also refused to intervene militarily in Laos. He exchanged private letters with Khrushchev, which infuriated the CIA, and secretly initiated plans to attain rapproachement with Cuba, which further incensed the Agency. Cuba's Fidel Castro, whom the CIA hated as intensely as it hated Kennedy, was equally eager to begin an American-Cuba dialogue. In fact, Castro was meeting with a JFK representative when the President was murdered. JFK died a martyr and the forces of evil that killed him also killed his vision of peace.

Lyndon Johnson, the CIA's ally, assumed the presidency. He cancelled talks with Khrushchev and refused Castro's pleas to continue the dialogue. He reversed JFK's withdrawal plan from Vietnam as well as his plan to neutralize Laos. The military industrial complex took control of the country. The policy of plausible deniability led the way to assassinations of foreign leaders, the overthrowing of foreign governments and horrors committed all over the globe. If JFK had not been murdered, we would not have had the prolongation of the Cold War, the Vietnam War, Watergate, the purported War on Terror and the steady moral deterioration of America. Interestingly, one month after JFK's assassination, President Truman wrote an article for The Washington Post cautioning about the threat of the CIA taking over America.

The author meticulously examines the evidence and draws conclusions which ring with unassailable truth: (1) The CIA coordinated and implemented he assassination of President Kennedy, an act of treason which destroyed democracy in the U.S. (2) The Warren Commission was created to propagate lies to conceal the truth from the American people. (3)There has been a continued cover-up by successive administrations and their stooges in the mass media. (4)The murder of JFK is directly related to the current domination of the American people by powerful oppressors within a shadow government that will continue to insist that only sustained war can keep the country safe from its enemies, never admitting that they themselves are the supreme evil.

This is an exceptional book that will be used by future historians to determine the truth about the assassination and how it changed America. And it will also be used to honor John F. Kennedy as a courageous president who believed in doing God's work on earth. In doing so, he came into conflict with the Unspeakable and his life was extinguished.

Help other customers find the most helpful reviews

Was this review helpful to you?

Track comments by e-mail

Tracked by 13 customers


 
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first

Showing 51-60 of 757 posts in this discussion

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 12, 2009 2:28:47 PM PDT
PHILIP A. STAHL says:

T. Cardello writes: "The definitive book on this subject is Case Closed by Gerald Posner. It debunks all these ridiculous conspiracy theories. "

Posner's hack nonsense does no such thing. The guy's work is freighted with deliberate distortions, lies and errant misinformation. Read "12 Posnerisms" which document a large swath of his gibberish.

Go to:

http://assassinationweb.com/twpos.htm

Excerpt:

"Page 4. A reference to non-existent testimony.

2) Page 12. Use of a discredited witness to show a potential for violence.

3) Page 13. The same witness and two false references used to misrepresent Oswald's potential for violence and to attack a Warren Commission critic.

4) Page 127. A citation that contradicts the statement that it is supposed to support.

5) Page 224. Combination of two witnesses' testimony to deliberately misrepresent.

6) Page 225. Selecting from various conflicting accounts given by the same witness.

7) Page 227. Misrepresentation of an entire group of witnesses' stories.

8) Page 233. Repetition of an easily disproven lone-assassin myth.

9) Page 247. Having it both ways with an astonishing example of self-contradiction.

10) Page 260. References to contradictory sources to argue a clearly false assertion.

11) Page 321. Taking credit for a "discovery" and then citing the article where the person first revealed this discovery as a source on another related topic.

12) Page 496. Attempting to debunk a mysterious death with unsourced, false information.

Prof. David R. Wrone, whose review of 'Case Closed' appears in The Journal of Southern History (February 1995), pp. 186-188, observes:

"Posner often presents the opposite of what the evidence says. In the presentation of a corrupt picture of Oswald's background, for example, he states that, under the name of Osborne, Oswald picked up leaflets he distributed from the Jones Printing Company and that the "receptionist" identified him. She in fact said that Oswald did not pick up the leaflets as the source that Posner cites indicates.
No credible evidence connects Oswald to the murder. All the data that Posner presents to do so is either shorn of context, corrupted, the opposite of what the sources actually say, or nonsourced. For example, 100 percent of the witness testimony and physical evidence exclude Oswald from carrying the rifle to work that day disguised as curtain rods.

"Posner manipulates with words to concoct a case against Oswald as with Linnie Mae Randle, who swore the package, as Oswald allegedly carried it, was twenty-eight inches long, far too short to have carried a rifle. He grasped its end, and it hung from his swinging arm to almost touch the ground. Posner converts this to "tucked under his armpit, and the other end did not quite touch the ground"(p. 225). The rifle was heavily oiled, but the paper sack discovered on the sixth floor had not a trace of oil. Posner excludes this vital fact."

Even more disturbing:

"Posner crowns his theory with the certainty of science by using one side of the computer-enhanced studies by Failure Analysis Associates of Menlo Park that his text implies he commissioned. The firm, however, lambastes his use as a distortion of the technology that it had developed for the American Bar Association's mock trial of Oswald where both sides used it."

Not surprisingly from the above, many in the JFK research community (e.g. H.L.Livingstone, author of Killing the Truth, 1993, Harold Weisberg et al) actually contend Posner is a paid disinfo flack - possibly for the CIA (via its Operation Mockingbird). Certainly for the corporate anti-conspiracy media mills. His absurd 'research' is used to thereby try to invalidate the whole premise of conspiracy. Despite the fact he's been well and truly exposed as a hack in the 'Posnerisms' cited earlier .

Anyone who believes Posner is the last word, doesn't have a clue, and their opinion of the Kennedy killing isn't worth yesterday's fishwrap.

Operation Freedom which was run by Robert Kennedy was turned against Kennedy brother

COLLEGE PARK, Md. — Shortly after the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy, Chief Justice Earl Warren, who oversaw the first official inquiry, was asked by a reporter if the full record would be made public.

“Yes, there will come a time,” the chairman of the Warren Commission responded. “But it might not be in your lifetime.”

It will soon be in ours — that is, unless the CIA, FBI or other agencies still holding on to thousands of secret documents from a series of related probes convince the next occupant of the White House otherwise.

A special team of seven archivists and technicians with top-secret security clearances has been set up at the National Archives and Records Administration to process all or portions of 40,000 documents that constitute the final collection of known federal records that might shed light on the events surrounding JFK’s murder, POLITICO has learned — files that according to law must be made public by October 2017.

But the records’ release is not guaranteed, says Martha Murphy, head of the National Archives’ Special Access Branch. While the JFK Records Act of 1992 mandated the files be made public in 25 years, government agencies that created the paper trail can still appeal directly to the president to keep them hidden. And some scholars and researchers, not to mention the army of JFK conspiracy theorists, fear that is exactly what will happen given the details about the deepest, darkest corners of American spy craft that could be revealed — from the inner workings of the CIA’s foreign assassination program and front companies to the role of a CIA psychological operations guru accused of misleading congressional investigators about alleged assassin Lee Harvey Oswald’s activities.

“We have sent letters to agencies letting them know we have records here that were withheld, 2017 is coming,” Murphy said in a recent interview at the primary government records repository in the D.C. suburbs. She said while no agency has formally requested a waiver yet, some “have gotten back to ask for clarification” and are seeking “more information.”

“Within our power, the National Archives is going to do everything we can to make these records open and available to the public,” she added. “And that is my only goal. There are limits to my powers and the president of the United States has the right to say something needs to be held for longer.”

The review now underway marks the start of a long-awaited — and many would say tortuous — process to unlock more pieces of the puzzle surrounding the murder of the nation’s 35th president. Among the questions still hotly disputed: Did Oswald, who had defected to Russia in 1959 and was tied to radical groups seeking to overthrow the communist government in Cuba, act alone — as the Warren Commission concluded? Did some U.S. officials or intelligence assets have prior knowledge of the plot? Did American leaders willfully prevent a full investigation to protect other closely guarded secrets?

At minimum, in the estimation of Murphy, who has reviewed some of the still-secret documents, they will provide a “beautiful snapshot of Cold War America and the intelligence community.” Some predict there could still be a “smoking gun.”

The documents were originally requested from dozens of agencies at the request of the Assassination Records Review Board, an independent panel of experts established by the 1992 law that sought to collect all government records that might have a bearing on one of the most searing and vexing events of the 20th century. In all, the collection amounted to 5 million records, the vast majority of which have been made available to researchers.

But among the 40,000 documents are roughly 3,600 that have never been seen by the public. They have been “withheld in full” primarily because they contain information that was considered “security classified” but also to protect personal privacy, tax and grand jury information, and “because information in the document reveals the identity of an unclassified confidential source,” according to Murphy.

Among the 3,600 are roughly 1,100 CIA documents, which make up the largest share. The second-largest batch belongs to the FBI, according to Murphy, while the rest include testimony and other records of the Warren Commission itself; the House Select Committee on Assassinations, which reopened the investigation into JFK’s death in the late 1970s and concluded it was the result of a conspiracy (though the panel couldn’t prove it); records from the National Security Agency and other Defense Department offices; and files from a pair of 1975 congressional probes of CIA abuses — the so-called Church and Pike committees — and a related commission led by then-Vice President Nelson Rockefeller.

The withheld CIA files include those on some of the most mysterious and controversial figures in the history of American espionage — particularly individuals who were known to be involved in CIA assassination plots around the world.

There are at least 332 pages of material on E. Howard Hunt, an almost mythical spymaster who is most famous for running the ring that broke into Democratic Party headquarters in Washington’s Watergate Hotel in 1972, setting in motion the events that led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon.

But a decade before, he had led the agency’s botched Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba. The failed attack by CIA-trained guerrillas generated deep discontent with Kennedy from Cuban exiles seeking to overthrow Cuban leader Fidel Castro and who felt the president had let their forces die on Cuba’s beaches by refusing to provide air support against Castro’s army.

It was Hunt, shortly before he died in 2007, who claimed that he had been privy to a plot by several CIA affiliates to kill Kennedy — what he referred to as “the Big Event.”

Also under review by the special team of archivists are at least 606 pages about David Atlee Phillips, another CIA officer who won a medal for his role in overthrowing the government of Guatemala in 1954, went on to run operations in Latin America, and along with Hunt played a leading role in anti-Castro activities in Cuba.

Phillips was accused — though never charged — of committing perjury when asked about agency ties to Oswald by the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Phillips, too, late in life attributed the JFK assassination to “rogue” CIA officers.

It is the type of information that many researchers believe the agency would still like to keep secret.

“I don’t see the CIA handing out 600 pages on David Atlee Phillips in two years,” said Jefferson Morley, a leading Kennedy researcher and founder of JFKfacts.org, who has sued the CIA to reveal more information about several key figures known to be the focus of some of the withheld files.

“It may have nothing to do with JFK but about other assassinations,” he added. “They still don’t want to open that window and let everyone look in. I expect the worst.”

Another colleague of Phillips at the CIA was Anne Goodpasture. The career agency officer denied to congressional investigators in 1970 that she had any knowledge of recordings of Oswald’s phone calls in possession of the CIA’s Mexico City station, where she worked. But she later admitted in sworn testimony that she had, in fact, disseminated the tapes herself. A 286-page CIA file about her is among the documents that are supposed to be released in two years.

Also among the agency’s withheld files: 2,224 pages of the CIA’s interrogation of Yuri Nosenko, a Soviet KGB officer who defected to the U.S. shortly after the Kennedy assassination. He claimed to have seen the KGB files on Oswald in the 2½ years before the assassination when Oswald lived in the Soviet Union.

Rex Bradford, who runs the Mary Ferrell Foundation, a research organization that has digitized more than 1 million records related to the JFK case, has also identified numerous depositions before the Church Committee that are referenced in the panel’s final report but have yet to be made public.

They include testimony on secret plots to assassinate Castro from CIA officers; Kennedy’s national security adviser, McGeorge Bundy; and the head of the CIA at the time, John McCone.

“The principal question we were trying to pursue was who ordered the assassination of Castro and five other leaders around the world — was it the president or the attorney general?” former Sen. Gary Hart, who was a member of the Church Committee and tasked with looking into the issue, said in an interview.

It was Hart’s digging that first revealed that the CIA had enlisted leading figures in organized crime to help kill Castro, who had closed down all their gambling and prostitution rings in Havana when he took power in 1959. The CIA’s assassination plots at the time have been considered by many government investigators to be relevant to finding out who might have had a motive to kill the American leader.

“How could the U.S. government bring itself to order these [CIA] assassinations?” added Hart. “We never resolved that. If these documents answer any of those questions it would be worthwhile.”

Also withheld are the Church Committee’s interviews with CIA officials about “JM/WAVE,” the code name for the secret CIA station overseeing covert operations in Cuba that was located on the campus of the University of Miami — and files on the obscure figure who ran its psychological operations branch, George Joannides.

It was revealed in a previous document release in 2009 that Joannides had links to some of the same anti-Castro forces that were connected to Oswald — something that was never shared with the Warren Commission.

Meanwhile, Joannides also served as the liaison between the agency and the House assassinations panel that reopened JFK’s murder in 1978 and inquired about the agency’s links to Oswald. But Joannides never told the panel about his role in Miami, a failure that the federal judge who ran the Assassination Records Review Board recently said amounted to “treachery.”

The CIA acknowledged in a lawsuit filed by Morley that there are more than 50 documents about Joannides’ activities including in 1963 and 1978.

The bulk of the JFK collection now being processed by the National Archives includes thousands of files that were partially released over the years but with key sections blacked out — some of them “heavily redacted,” according to Murphy. Among these files are the CIA’s official history of its Mexico City station (which was opened in 1950 by Hunt).

Oswald visited Mexico City in the weeks before the assassination seeking visas to travel to Cuba and the Soviet Union, which he was denied. Previous government disclosures have revealed that while initially the CIA denied any knowledge of Oswald’s activities, at the time it was monitoring him closely and created several cover stories to hide what it knew.

Meanwhile, as PBS reported in 2013, “intelligence documents released in 1999 establish that, after Oswald failed to get the visas, CIA intercepts showed that someone impersonated Oswald in phone calls made to the Soviet Embassy and the Cuban consulate and linked Oswald to a known KGB assassin — Valery Kostikov — whom the CIA and FBI had been following for over a year.”

Bradford believes the heavily redacted CIA history of the Mexico City station could still reveal new things after all these years.

“It looks very clear [from the partially released file] that they have microphones in the Cuban Embassy [in Mexico City]," he said in an interview. "When were those microphones planted? Were they operational in October [of 1963]? There is also information about human informants and spies that were inside the embassy.”

There could be more to learn from “knowing who those people were — probably dead by now, maybe not — [and] whether they see Oswald. There is all kinds of stuff in that thing that is relevant to the Oswald visit and what happened there that we only have a small glimpse into because of all the secrecy surrounding the records related to it.”

A spokesman for the CIA, Dean Boyd, said the agency is working with the National Archives on the JFK records but declined to comment on the circumstances in which the CIA might seek a waiver from the president to continue to withhold information.

“We are aware of the process and will work judiciously within that process,” he said.

Others who have closely followed the paper trail also wonder whether the additional files will shed light on how the federal government seemingly went to great lengths to obstruct the investigation into the JFK assassination (and Oswald’s killing while in police custody a few days later by Jack Ruby, the nightclub owner with Mafia ties).

Adam Walinsky, who worked in the Kennedy Justice Department, believes that the mounting evidence over the years of a purposely botched autopsy of the president and the multiple “suicides” of so many figures connected to the events strongly suggests such a coverup from high levels.

Walinsky suspects that the documents could reveal more about “the role of the FBI, under the direction of President [Lyndon] Johnson and Director [J. Edgar} Hoover, in preventing any serious investigation of the assassination at the time.”

“That is still capable of being considered a smoking gun,” he added.

But there are concerns among long-time observers of the declassification process that the battle inside the national security bureaucracy over the fate of the records is only just beginning.

“There are going to be appeals to the president, the Central Intelligence Agency for sure,” predicted Malcolm Blunt, a British researcher who has spent nearly two decades poring over JFK records. “Particularly on cover issues — corporations and financial institutions, banks and business used for cover purposes.”

David Marwell, who served as executive director of the Assassination Records Review Board from 1994 to 1997, said of the withheld records: “Often it was the stuff unrelated to the assassination but intimately related to how intelligence agencies do their business. There were practical and institutional reasons it was important for them to keep that stuff. They were very protective of relationships they had with foreign intelligence sources or situations where they might have a base or a station in a particular country.”

He also warned that some of juiciest stuff about the assassination may have been destroyed or never sent to the Assassination Records Review Board in the first place.

“Unless you can enter yourself into the agencies’ files at any time and search for anything you want how can you know you found everything?” he asked.

But Murphy, whose role is to get the 40,000 documents released, isn’t prepared to say that they won’t reveal new things about the assassination itself.

“I’ll be honest,” she says. “I am hesitant to say you’re not going to find out anything about the assassination.”

She clearly wants the secretive agencies now being consulted to decide what they want to do.

“We want this to go as smoothly as possible,” she said. “We don’t want them to wait until the last minute. It is our interest to know the status of the records as soon as possible because we are going to begin scanning them.”



Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/why-last-of-jfk-files-could-embarrass-cia-118233.html#ixzz3bH8QpH6Z
Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

[Sep 21, 2018] That agency is and always has been in the business of subverting or toppling other governments.

Notable quotes:
"... "....cunning, ambitious,and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.....". ..."
"... JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters by James W. Douglass ..."
Sep 21, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

blues , Sep 20, 2018 11:45:07 AM | link

The CIA is not really in the business of collecting "intelligence." That "agency" is and always has been in the business of subverting or toppling other governments.

So they have finally gotten around to subverting the USSA government. Why am I not surprised.

Jose Garcia , Sep 20, 2018 11:49:31 AM | link
What came to my mind when I read this good article, MB, is words from George Washington's Farewell Address. He may have written to explain about the dangers of political parties, but it resonates exactly about what is occurring in this present state of American governance.

"....cunning, ambitious,and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.....".

Posted by: financial matters | Sep 20, 2018 12:00:01 PM | 11

blues@6 I wouldn't say finally.

JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters by James W. Douglass and

David Talbot's The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government

[Sep 15, 2018] JFK Assassination Link Found To Recent Financial Swindle by Michael Collins Piper

Looks like JFK murder was an interception of interests of CIA with the interests of organized crime
Notable quotes:
"... Here's the story: When Oswald applied for a room in New Orleans he told what CIA-connected writer Priscilla McMillan described as "another of his funny, pointless lies," that is, that Oswald said he worked for the Leon Israel Company. McMillan insisted Oswald had no connection with the company. We do know the company was in the coffee import business. We don't know why Oswald claimed he worked there. And maybe he did. ..."
"... The principal figure behind the company, Samuel Israel Jr. -- evidently grandfather of the current Samuel Israel -- was closely connected to Clay Shaw, the New Orleans businessman unsuccessfully prosecuted in 1969 by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison for complicity in the JFK assassination. ..."
"... The possible Israeli connection to the Samuel Israel, III money scandal is interesting considering that -- according to Jewish-American JFK researcher A. J. Weberman -- Jim Garrison, in an unpublished novel, suggested Israel's intelligence service, the Mossad, was behind the JFK assassination -- something Garrison did not mention elsewhere. ..."
"... Garrison evidently became aware Clay Shaw had Mossad connections through service on the board of the shadowy Permindex corporation. ..."
"... In light of revelations in the 1980s (theretofore unknown) that JFK was working to stop Israel's secret drive to assemble an arsenal of nuclear weapons, Shaw's Permindex engagement is intriguing. In fact, Permindex chairman, Louis Bloomfield was a functionary of liquor baron and Meyer Lansky crime syndicate figure Sam Bronfman, president of the World Jewish Congress and -- with Bronfman -- a major patron of Israel's nuclear weapons program, among a group of U.S. and Canadian millionaires who bankrolled the project in the '50s to the tune of $250 million today. ..."
Jul 07, 2008 | www.americanfreepress.net

Although the media reported on the bizarre case of Samuel Israel III -- an East Coast hedge fund operator who swindled investors out of $450 million and who disappeared after attempting to fake his own suicide -- what the media has not reported is the connection of Israel's family to circumstances surrounding the assassination of John E Kennedy.

The media has mentioned Israel is a scion of a distinguished New Orleans Jewish family. Not mentioned is that Israel's family enterprise, the Leon Israel Company, popped up in a mysterious way in connection to activities of JFK's alleged assassin, New Orleans native Lee Harvey Oswald, in that city in the summer of 1963. While details of Oswald's New Orleans sojourn are thoroughly documented, his link to the Israel Company seems taboo.

Here's the story: When Oswald applied for a room in New Orleans he told what CIA-connected writer Priscilla McMillan described as "another of his funny, pointless lies," that is, that Oswald said he worked for the Leon Israel Company. McMillan insisted Oswald had no connection with the company. We do know the company was in the coffee import business. We don't know why Oswald claimed he worked there. And maybe he did.

What is puzzling is that JFK assassination researchers avoid exploring the Israel Company. Although researchers dissect other picayune details about Oswald's life in New Orleans, no researchers will mention the Israel connection.

The principal figure behind the company, Samuel Israel Jr. -- evidently grandfather of the current Samuel Israel -- was closely connected to Clay Shaw, the New Orleans businessman unsuccessfully prosecuted in 1969 by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison for complicity in the JFK assassination. Israel was vice president of the Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans and on the Council of the Lower Mississippi River Port Interests (putting him in trade executive Clay Shaw's sphere).

Israel also won the French Medal of Merit for his service in the U.S. Army in Europe, at the time Shaw was decorated by the French for his service there. It is likely Shaw and Israel knew each other as early as World War II.

Was Oswald promised a job at the Israel Company -- arranged by Shaw -- or was Oswald employed by the company? If so, how? Did this company play a role in manipulating Oswald in New Orleans? These are questions that need to be answered.

At present day, Samuel Israel III is on the lam, many believe in Israel which welcomes Jewish criminals fleeing prosecution in the United States. Note, though: Israel says he is a Christian, despite his background.

The possible Israeli connection to the Samuel Israel, III money scandal is interesting considering that -- according to Jewish-American JFK researcher A. J. Weberman -- Jim Garrison, in an unpublished novel, suggested Israel's intelligence service, the Mossad, was behind the JFK assassination -- something Garrison did not mention elsewhere.

Garrison evidently became aware Clay Shaw had Mossad connections through service on the board of the shadowy Permindex corporation.

In light of revelations in the 1980s (theretofore unknown) that JFK was working to stop Israel's secret drive to assemble an arsenal of nuclear weapons, Shaw's Permindex engagement is intriguing. In fact, Permindex chairman, Louis Bloomfield was a functionary of liquor baron and Meyer Lansky crime syndicate figure Sam Bronfman, president of the World Jewish Congress and -- with Bronfman -- a major patron of Israel's nuclear weapons program, among a group of U.S. and Canadian millionaires who bankrolled the project in the '50s to the tune of $250 million today.

Another Permindex figure was banker Tibor Rosenbaum, longtime Mossad director for finance and arms procurement, whose Geneva bank was a Mossad proprietary and money laundry for Lansky crime syndicate profits. ★

Michael Collins Piper is a contributing editor for AFP.

[Aug 24, 2018] From reading The Devil s Chessboard it is quite clear that Allen Dulles still ran things after he was fired by JFK, and was most likely the coordinator of the assassination

Notable quotes:
"... Right now I think they are trying to figure out a way to get him out of office without having to actually kill him. ..."
"... I too think they'd love to assassinate Trump, but I don't think they dare. ..."
Aug 24, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Skip Scott August 18, 2018 at 6:31 am

Hi B.E.-

I agree that Brennan should have his clearance revoked, and frankly so should anyone after they leave government. The thing is, I just got done reading "The Devil's Chessboard", and it is quite clear that Allen Dulles still ran things after he was fired by JFK, and was most likely the coordinator of the assassination.

I doubt that Trump has any more control of the CIA than JFK had.

Until people like Brennan are capable of being prosecuted in a court of law, our so-called "Intelligence" agencies don't give a rat's ass what the president orders. In fact, they probably give "suggestions" that are in fact orders.

Right now I think they are trying to figure out a way to get him out of office without having to actually kill him.

backwardsevolution , August 18, 2018 at 8:22 am

Hi, Skip. The Devil's Chessboard sounds like a good book; I'll have to read it. Yes, I think whoever gets to the top of the CIA is probably one mean, bad monster of a human being.

I too think they'd love to assassinate Trump, but I don't think they dare. There are too many people who just don't believe the government anymore, and Trump's supporters would blow the roof off if anything happened to him. They've got to be worried about that because they're the ones with all the guns. Ha!

I think they're desperately racing against time, trying to nail Trump before he nails them. The evidence is slowly trickling out (because the FBI and DOJ are stalling) re the Steele dossier/Russiagate/spying, etc.

From the evidence gathered so far, it's pretty evident that the upper layer of the DOJ, FBI and CIA are rotten to the core and should be dismantled ASAP. If all Trump does while being in office is bring these guys down, then he will have done a great service.

Take care.

[Aug 24, 2018] Brennan was caught spying on the Senate Intelligence Commitee, subsequently lied about it and allegedly directed personnel under his command to lie about to the Senate and the IG

Notable quotes:
"... Brennan was caught spying on the Senate Intelligence Commitee in violation of the Constitution and subsequently lied about it and allegedly directed personnel under his command to lie about to the Senate and the IG ..."
"... Congress fears the intelligence agencies and takes orders from them, not the other way around as envisaged in the constitution or spelled out in legislation. ..."
"... Let Trump try to control the agencies by firing all of their top officers, slashing their budgets, freezing their funds or shutting down their operations, even specific projects, and watch congress come to their rescue in a New York minute. ..."
"... Congress will save any significant component of intel or the pentagon before they'd rescue Social Security or any other social program. If pressed for an answer as to which of the "usual suspects" really whacked Kennedy, I suspect most folks would put their money on the CIA, the FBI or some combination of the major intel agencies. ..."
"... The neoliberal globalists, I fear, have taken that phrase "drowning government in the bathtub" all too literally. ..."
Aug 24, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

GM August 16, 2018 at 10:22 pm

Brennan was caught spying on the Senate Intelligence Commitee in violation of the Constitution and subsequently lied about it and allegedly directed personnel under his command to lie about to the Senate and the IG

He could easily be brought up on rather serious charges.

Abby , August 18, 2018 at 11:23 pm

He also leaked classified information to the press as did others and they could have been prosecuted under the espionage act. They will be losing their security clearances soon too. The information that they leaked was the NSA information on Flynn to the Washington post. But of course the Obama justice department only prosecuted people who exposed Washington's dirty secrets.

Realist , August 17, 2018 at 1:21 am

Yes, what Kenneth might like to see happen may be admirable but not going to happen in 2018 or 19, which is practically a different universe from 1975 and for exactly the reasons you specify. This country and its self-appointed minders have changed massively in 45 years. Besides, 1975 was a year after Watergate was finally resolved with Nixon and Agnew's resignations and Congress may have been feeling its oats, going so far as to defund the Vietnam war! Imagine defunding ANY of the multiple wars ongoing!

Congress fears the intelligence agencies and takes orders from them, not the other way around as envisaged in the constitution or spelled out in legislation. Schumer let that feline out of the sack when he warned the president not to mess with them.

Let Trump try to control the agencies by firing all of their top officers, slashing their budgets, freezing their funds or shutting down their operations, even specific projects, and watch congress come to their rescue in a New York minute.

We saw how the CIA worked around congressionally-imposed budgetary restraints in Iran-Contra: by secretly running drugs from Columbia to LA, selling arms to Iran and using the proceeds to fund death squads in Central America. Congress didn't have the guts to take that investigation to it logical conclusion of impeachments and/or indictments. Why?

Congress will save any significant component of intel or the pentagon before they'd rescue Social Security or any other social program. If pressed for an answer as to which of the "usual suspects" really whacked Kennedy, I suspect most folks would put their money on the CIA, the FBI or some combination of the major intel agencies.

Unfettered Fire , August 17, 2018 at 12:11 pm

The neoliberal globalists, I fear, have taken that phrase "drowning government in the bathtub" all too literally.

Rosa Brooks' book How War Became Everything and Everything Became the Military exposes the vast expansion and added responsibilities of the MIC, as governmental departments continue to be dismantled and privatized.

She even said in a book circuit lecture that she thought the idea of Congress "declaring war" was antiquated and cute. Well, how long will it be when the very hollowed out structures of Capitol Hill and the White House are considered antiquated and cute?

What if the plan all along has been to fold up this whole democratic experiment and move HQ into some new multi-billion dollar Pentagon digs?

Remember the words of Strobe Talbott:

"Within the next hundred years nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all."

This nation had better wake up fast if it wants to salvage the currency authorizing power of government and restore its role in the economy, before it's no longer an option and the private bankers, today's money lenders in the temple, govern for good.

"The bank strategy continues: "If we can privatize the economy, we can turn the whole public sector into a monopoly. We can treat what used to be the government sector as a financial monopoly. Instead of providing free or subsidized schooling, we can make people pay $50,000 to get a college education, or $50,000 just to get a grade school education if families choose to go to New York private schools. We can turn the roads into toll roads. We can charge people for water, and we can charge for what used to be given for free under the old style of Roosevelt capitalism and social democracy."

This idea that governments should not create money implies that they shouldn't act like governments. Instead, the de facto government should be Wall Street. Instead of governments allocating resources to help the economy grow, Wall Street should be the allocator of resources – and should starve the government to "save taxpayers" (or at least the wealthy). Tea Party promoters want to starve the government to a point where it can be "drowned in the bathtub."

But if you don't have a government that can fund itself, then who is going to govern, and on whose terms? The obvious answer is, the class with the money: Wall Street and the corporate sector. They clamor for a balanced budget, saying, "We don't want the government to fund public infrastructure. We want it to be privatized in a way that will generate profits for the new owners, along with interest for the bondholders and the banks that fund it; and also, management fees. Most of all, the privatized enterprises should generate capital gains for the stockholders as they jack up prices for hitherto public services.

You can see how to demoralize a country if you can stop the government from spending money into the economy. That will cause austerity, lower living standards and really put the class war in business. So what Trump is suggesting is to put the class war in business, financially, with an exclamation point."

http://michael-hudson.com/2017/03/why-deficits-hurt-banking-profits/

[Aug 11, 2018] Robert Kaplan Writes In Defense Of Slavery

Notable quotes:
"... Neocon Robert Kaplan is writing In Defense of Empire . Empire is good, he believes, even for those who a ruled by it without having any representation. ..."
"... Hitler's empire was not, of course, simply a continuation of the Habsburg legacy. There were many other factors, not least the persistent envy in German circles after 1919 of the other imperial powers: empire still seemed attractive to those who did not have one, or one large enough, and Mazower shows how Japanese and Italian imperial ambitions meshed with German in trying to divide the world up anew, as it had been divided by European states for four hundred years. The absence of any clear planning or forethought also found Hitler dragging ex-colonial officials back into public life to try to rule Eastern Europe the way they had ruled Africa. ..."
"... Elites who have never worked a day in their lives....never served in the military (right or wrong)....have a one dimensional view of social justice.... ..."
"... The actual kinship of zionism and US-imperialism is based on both israel and the US are settler-societies that never came to be nations. ..."
"... So the USA never became a nation. The settler-state of freedom of private property was directly converted to an empire-state ruled by a corporative elite of oligarchs, military staff and a serfing legion of descendant bureaucratic personnel. ..."
"... This is why amerika had a civil war. The southern elites wanted to continue as always importing African slaves and paying them nothing, while providing the bare minimum for survival as food & shelter. The factory and retail giant owning Northen elites couldn't give a flying fuck about 'the rights of man' they wanted to get richer that is why they went to war. ..."
"... Well, then lets compare the US GDP to Israel's GDP. Sorry, there is no way Israel can dominate the US. Just more dumbing down the "stupid class". ..."
"... The Ziocon Jews Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Leo Strauss were the earlier founders of the so-called neoconservatism movement, and were vehemently opposed to relaxing foreign policy in regards to the Soviet Union and communism in general. ..."
"... In the early nineties the Ziocon torch was passed on to the likes of William Kristol, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. And we all know what followed next...years of endless war. ..."
"... And so Israel was not created by the likes of Herzl, it was created by the force (monetary and military) of British empire, and such creations by the British was not peculiar to middle east and Israel, the British had many other such wonderous feats of crime all over the globe, of which Israel constitutes but a single example! The British did not create Israel because they were in love with the Jews or were obssessed with Jewish nationalism. They did it because it was PROFITABLE. Hegemony is always profitable. And they did in the middle east, what they had done all over the globe to maintain their hegemony and increase their profit. NOTHING MORE. ..."
"... You can blame the British all you want but around the late 50s early 1960s, again, while Kennedy was a rising star and becoming President, Zionists were in charge of their affairs, and the worst crimes of Zionism, the worst unilateral attacks on neighboring countries happened under Zionist sovereignty. Zionist were so in charge of their fiefdom that they started developing nuclear weapons behind Kennedy's back; that's how powerful they were becoming. ..."
"... It's very convenient for you, Arnold, to blame simply "US imperialism", as if it fell out of the sky. It didn't. It was directed by finance capital, which is not an impersonal force but a collection of individual investors, more than a few of whom are interested particularly in Jewish welfare, as they conceive it: that is to say, they want to use Jewish issues, to which the general US public is already well conditioned, to push through an entire program of global domination by force. ..."
Mar 21, 2014 | www.moonofalabama.org
Robert Kaplan Writes In Defense Of Slavery

Neocon Robert Kaplan is writing In Defense of Empire . Empire is good, he believes, even for those who a ruled by it without having any representation. The lunacy of his arguments can be show best when one substitute the object of his essay:

Throughout history, governance and relative safety have most often been provided by slavery, Western or Eastern. Anarchy reigned in the interregnums. To wit, the British may have failed in Baghdad, Palestine, and elsewhere, but the larger history of the British slaveholdership is one of providing a vast armature of stability, fostered by sea and rail communications, where before there had been demonstrably less stability.

...

But slavery is now seen by global elites as altogether evil, despite slaveholdership having offered the most benign form of order for thousands of years, keeping the anarchy of ethnic, tribal, and sectarian war bands to a reasonable minimum.

Compared with slaveholdership, democracy is a new and uncertain phenomenon. Even the two most estimable democracies in modern history, the United States and Great Britain, were slaveholdership for long periods. "As both a dream and a fact the American slaveholdership was born before the United States," writes the mid-20th-century historian of westward expansion Bernard DeVoto. Following their initial settlement, and before their incorporation as states, the western territories were nothing less than slaveholdership possessions of Washington, D.C. No surprise there: slaveholdership confers a loose and accepted form of sovereignty, occupying a middle ground between anarchy and full state control.

...

Rome, Parthia, and Hapsburg Austria were great precisely because they gave significant parts of the world a modicum of slavery order that they would not otherwise have enjoyed. America must presently do likewise, particularly in East Asia, the geographic heartland of the world economy and the home of American treaty allies.

...

That, I submit, would be a policy direction that internalizes both the drawbacks and the benefits of slaveholdership, not as it has been conventionally thought of, but as it has actually been practiced throughout history.

It is somewhat frightening that people believing such nonsense have influence in political circles.


Weldon Berger , Mar 21, 2014 3:15:28 PM | 1

In October of 2001, Max Boot wrote a Weekly Standard piece, " The Case for American Empire ," that featured perhaps the most representative neoconservative-authored sentence of all time:
Afghanistan and other troubled lands today cry out for the sort of enlightened foreign administration once provided by self-confident Englishmen in jodhpurs and pith helmets ."
Haralambos , Mar 21, 2014 3:41:05 PM | 6
Notice that your link is not to anything by Kagan but to this: http://m.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/04/in-defense-of-empire/358645/ by Kaplan. This is rather damaging to your credibility, something that I find alarming, since I am a loyal reader.
c , Mar 21, 2014 3:43:37 PM | 7
on empire building: Richard Overy

GENERAL PLAN EAST Hitler's Empire: Nazi Rule in Occupied Europe

By Mark Mazower (Allen Lane 2008)

"Hitler's empire was not, of course, simply a continuation of the Habsburg legacy. There were many other factors, not least the persistent envy in German circles after 1919 of the other imperial powers: empire still seemed attractive to those who did not have one, or one large enough, and Mazower shows how Japanese and Italian imperial ambitions meshed with German in trying to divide the world up anew, as it had been divided by European states for four hundred years. The absence of any clear planning or forethought also found Hitler dragging ex-colonial officials back into public life to try to rule Eastern Europe the way they had ruled Africa."

zingaro , Mar 21, 2014 4:08:18 PM | 9
isn't he married to Victoria "Fuck the EU" Nuland?

if it was Kagan , yes, but as already pointed above, it's Robert "how we would fight china" KaPLan... Let's say it's the KK brotherhood of lunatic warhawks

thomas , Mar 21, 2014 4:13:03 PM | 10
Racism –a residual legacy of Slavery?

By Chinweizu

[In December 2006, the London-based magazin e, Index-on-Censorship, invited a number of persons to respond to the question:

"To what extent is racism and discrimination against black people in the US and particularly in this country, a residual legacy of slavery?"

The answer below was sent in by Chinweizu]

------------------------------------------------------------------

Racism is not at all a legacy of slavery but a constitutive and sustaining element of the White Supremacy system estab lished by European power during the centuries of trans-Atlantic enslavement of Black Africans. Hence its extreme resistance to eradication.

Racism is, certainly, not a "residual legacy" in the passive sense of the dead hand of the past. It is not like a motion imparted to an object by an impulse withdrawn long ago; a motion sustained entirely by inertia. Because it is a constitutive element, it has been necessary to systematically apply force and fraud to maintain, in mutant forms, this vital pillar of white supremacy. Accordingly, new forms of "slave trade" and slavery as well as new structures of raci

sm are still being elaborated and justified, even today, as they have been, whenever needed, since the 16th century.

For example, on Nov. 11, 2006, in Philadelphia, at a Wharton Business School conference on business in Africa, World Trade Organization representative Hanniford Schmidt announced the creation of a WTO initiative for "full private stewardry of labor" for the parts of Africa

that have been hardest hit by the 500 years of Africa's free trade with the West. "Full, untrammelled stewardry is the best available solution to African poverty, and the inevitable resu

lt of free-market theory," Schmidt told more than 150 attendees.

Schmidt acknowledged that the stewardry program -- which will require Western companies doing business in some parts of Africa to own their workers outright-- was similar in many ways

to slavery, but explained that just as "compassionate conservatism" has polished the rough edges on labor relations in industrialized countries, full stewardry, or "compassionate slavery," could be a similar boon to developing ones.

http://www.platformslavernijmonument.nl/docs/Racism-aResidualLegacyOfSlavery.pdf

georgeg , Mar 21, 2014 4:14:12 PM | 11
Elites who have never worked a day in their lives....never served in the military (right or wrong)....have a one dimensional view of social justice....and on and on...
Massinissa , Mar 21, 2014 4:26:29 PM | 14
Anyone else notice the picture that went with the article? Its a picture of a man holding up the world. The same bollocks that people 150 years ago claimed that Great Britain was 'Holding Up The World' by killing Africans and ruling over India. Such bollocks. The rhetoric of 2 centuries ago is the same rhetoric of today. Nothing ever changes, but people never learn to see the propaganda for what it is.
thomas , Mar 21, 2014 4:28:18 PM | 15
Robert Kaplan, Robert Kagan. David Horowitz... see Mother Jones May 1987, p. 27

http://books.google.de/books?id=recDAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=de&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Demian , Mar 21, 2014 4:36:39 PM | 17
Kaplan is Jewish, and it is utterly bizarre that he can write positively about empire, given that the paradigmatic empire, the Roman one, colonized the area now called Israel, with the Jews revolting, to which Rome responded by destroying the Temple in Jerusalem, an event which forced Kagan's religion to be reconstituted, since up until the Temple was destroyed by the Romans, Judaism centered around the Temple.

Kagan seems to be completely unaware of his own heritage, or at least not to care about it: but then why does he start his piece with a pogrom? This reminds me of something that Putin has said in a speech :

Today, many nations are revising their moral values and ethical norms, eroding ethnic traditions and differences between peoples and cultures. Society is now required not only to recognise everyone's right to the freedom of consciousness, political views and privacy, but also to accept without question the equality of good and evil, strange as it seems, concepts that are opposite in meaning. This destruction of traditional values from above not only leads to negative consequences for society, but is also essentially anti-democratic, since it is carried out on the basis of abstract, speculative ideas, contrary to the will of the majority, which does not accept the changes occurring or the proposed revision of values.
ProPeace , Mar 21, 2014 4:42:01 PM | 18
It's symptomatic that certain hasbara troll missed no opportunity to take up strategic position and drop some initial disinfo in order to block here any inquiry into who really were the masters of the slave trade over centuries ?

Speaking of which: Jewish Slavery in Western Culture (Part III) , Rockefellers, Crown Cocaine & Haitian Slavery , Kosher Slavery .

Slavery pays to the masters: New Report: Fortune 100 Companies Have Received a Whopping $1.2 Trillion in Corporate Welfare Recently

kooshy , Mar 21, 2014 4:50:10 PM | 19
This A*Hole if he could have f*ed his own wife, she wouldn't end up doing the whole Europe
ana souri , Mar 21, 2014 4:51:17 PM | 20
Robert kagan or Robert Kaplan both are lunnies and unfortunately, in the past several US administrations, these cooks have risen to the top. These guys are a product of nazi Germany at its worst where the thinking that the powerful nations have a god given mission to rule and the rest of the world is here to be slaves to be taken care of.

Not sure how many people caught this, but the prince of Wales, on a visit to Iraq was filmed during a visit to British troops saying just that. "These people are happy to have us here to rule them just like we did before".

Neocons are today's version old British imperial superiority which led to the Second World War along with nazi ideology.

Someday we are going to have an overwhelming US neocon administration and this will be the end.

Mike Maloney , Mar 21, 2014 5:10:46 PM | 22
I think this is definitely the direction the neoliberal neocons want to take us -- back to slavery. I was struck by a statement made by Silicon Valley venture capitalist Thomas Perkins (who created a stir in January with a letter published in the WSJ comparing the 1% in the U.S. to Jews persecuted by the Nazis during Kristallnacht). In this statement, Perkins is calling for suffrage based on the total number of tax dollars the voter pays.

Perkins gave a talk titled "The War on the 1%" last month at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco:

Mr. Perkins' interlocutor, Adam Lashinsky, soon had the frustrated look of a man trying to swim in a vat of molasses.

Mr. Lashinsky pointed out, for instance, that it was ridiculous to equate powerless Jews in the Third Reich with extremely powerful tech overlords in present-day America.

"No, I think the parallel holds," Mr. Perkins said calmly. For one thing, "If you pay 75 percent of your life's earnings to the government you are being persecuted."

He had a better plan: "You don't get to vote unless you pay a dollar in taxes. later he added, "A million in taxes, you get a million votes." He said he was kidding about that last part, kind of.

One could argue that Citizens United already creates the dollarocracy system Perkins imagines. Slavery can't be far off.
Massinissa , Mar 21, 2014 5:21:29 PM | 23
@22

Personally I think the Neos would be fine with a modified Feudalism: Serfs are easier to control than slaves.

But the difference is minimal and largely rhetorical. Ultimately neither has much freedom.

Anyway, what Perkins was advocating (different amounts of votes depending on wealth) isnt new. Some folks advocated that in the 1800s.

But its so weird to see a modern person advocating that openly. Thats supposed to be a thing youre only supposed to talk about behind closed doors. But I guess times are changing and some kind of NeoFeudalism will probably be endorsed publicly by the mainstream in a few decades.

Massinissa , Mar 21, 2014 5:23:58 PM | 24
@20

Overwhelming Neocon administration? You mean like the one we had 2000-20008 that got us into two foreign engagements costing trillions of dollars?

If that wasnt an overwhelming Neocon administration I dont know what is.

Though it could be worse. There could be an administration with, for lack of a better word, WORSE neocons than the ones under George W. Bush.

ana souri , Mar 21, 2014 6:37:13 PM | 27
@24

I personally do not think bush was a neocon. He was a patsy who was manipulated by neocons. He didn't have the brains, the ability to plot or the vision of these two loonies and the neocon masses that seems to be growing everyday in the US. Bush was a twit. A neocon administration is what we will see with hitlery Clinton if she is elected. Nothing worse that an intelligent, motivated, self entered, ambitious neocon to set the road for a PNAC scenario.

JohnH , Mar 21, 2014 6:39:36 PM | 28
A hired pen is a hired pen is a hired penis...

What we all need now is neocondums.

Nora , Mar 21, 2014 6:41:37 PM | 29
#24

But Cheney was a Neocon, and he and Rumsfeld hired the whole PNAC crew and set all that crap in motion. He was also trying to make up for damned near bankrupting what then became Halliburton. And he succeeded on both counts. There isn't a person in the US today with any "serious" foreign policy creds who has any business running anything. So our choice next time will be... bad and worse.

remembererringgiap , Mar 21, 2014 7:00:45 PM | 30
it matters not kagan, kaplan - fecal matter

like tennyson & wordsworth

they changed their name at half time

Mr. Pragma , Mar 21, 2014 7:15:56 PM | 31
Lovely.

But energy invested in that discussion will be wasted.

They write the plays and you play them. Keeps you busy.

dahoit , Mar 21, 2014 7:45:09 PM | 32
Zionists are slavers;well,who knew?sheesh,It's nice when they articulate it though,it gives one a warm feeling inside as self ego re-enforcement.
dahoit , Mar 21, 2014 7:47:12 PM | 33
What we really need is a American anti-Zionist movement.I'm ready.
Nora , Mar 21, 2014 7:57:58 PM | 34
dahoit, #32. Start by joining the boycott! Hit 'em where it hurts.
Demian , Mar 21, 2014 8:07:31 PM | 35
Kaplan effectively believes that the Empire is AngloZionist:
the British had their hands full in Mesopotamia in 1941: given the tendency of the Arab masses toward anti-Western and anti-Zionist ideologies (a tendency that was itself at least in part a reaction to British dominance)

So maybe I was unfair to the Saker when I said in an earlier thread that I regretted his using this term.

Hoarsewhisperer , Mar 21, 2014 8:09:17 PM | 36
Kaplan/Kagan is an amusing slip, but they're equally insane and the point is well made - that supremacists are a bit too eager to fall in love with their own bullshit.

"As both a dream and a fact the American slaveholdership was born before the United States," writes the mid-20th-century historian of westward expansion Bernard DeVoto.

Did he mean Danny DeVito?

antistupid , Mar 21, 2014 8:21:59 PM | 37
Actually, I think these neocons fail on their on there own terms. I mean that they're actually very poor imperial strategists even if one accepts the neocon argument that empire is a good thing. If anything, it's the neocons who have no grasp of realpolitik and who are blinded by an ideology that is far more pro-Israel than pro-American. All the wars they've promoted have been debacles that have diminished not increased America's standing. Unconditional support for Israel (which earns successive American administrations only Israeli contempt, never gratitude) and the obsession with punishing and destabilizing Iran totally distorts not only American Middle East policy but American foreign policy as a whole. Pushing for a new Cold War with Russia creates a powerful enemy where previously there was none. So for all their seemingly shameless promotion of empire, these people will one day be noted only for their contribution to American decline.
Paul Bogdanich , Mar 21, 2014 8:50:30 PM | 38
Robert Kagan is Victoria Nuland's husband no? My question would be how did Ms. Nuland get promoted to Under-Secretary? Hillary Clinton had to have signed off on that.
guest77 , Mar 21, 2014 8:53:22 PM | 39
" the most benign form of order for thousands of years, keeping the anarchy of ethnic, tribal, and sectarian war bands to a reasonable minimum"

Am i mistaken? Because I am quite certain sectarian wars have never been worse. Syria, Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Rwanda, and DRC. These countries became mixed at some point. And now they are being torn apart.

kalithea , Mar 21, 2014 9:02:00 PM | 40
Finally, we get to discuss the poisonous, rotten core of Imperial Supremacy and who authored, promotes it and is the main driving force behind it. Hallelujah! This is exactly where we must begin. Finally, the purpose of all these discussions becomes more defined.

I'm not sure if your error in the author's name was really so bad. Maybe it was meant this way for all to investigate further , because that is precisely what everyone is failing to do in these discussions on imperial supremacy: to research the authors of this evil ideological foreign policy and there are many behind it in different arenas: politics, finance, media, lobbies, religious groups, all honing the message, driving the narrative, driving policy, bribing politicians to push this twisted ideology forward.

Your error, intentional or otherwise was nonetheless so timely and auspicious at a moment in history when we are starting to see , what evil injustice is being advanced in our name against other nations, and this article falls into our lap in an almost prophetic manner with such perfect timing as a warning to us all: to look for the root and squash it before it's too late, because unless we see where it originates, we are powerless. The fact that your error perplexed many here already can only be a good thing, because it peaks their curiosity: hey, wait a minute; this is not the author, what's going on here? And then upon further research, they discover two names to familiarize themselves with, and then three, and then a pattern starts to emerge, and then they go further connecting the dots until they finally get the big picture that: the advancement of imperial supremacy in this day and age...is most definitely a Zionist-driven operation.

So they have similar names, and are no relation but they're united in the cause of Zionism and the imperial project that will shelter Zionism permanently.:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2001/10/no_relation_no_13_the_foreign_policy_edition.html

This individual, Kaplan, is obviously trying to make the case for imperial supremacy which sets the stage for justifying the injustice that Zionism has wrought in Israel and that Zionists want to permanently legitimize by any means possible.

These Ziocons will bombard us and the world from left, right and centre with an argument designed for every political persuasion to justify legitimizing imperial supremacy where Zionism can exist comfortably with permanent impunity and be cleansed of its ongoing and future crimes.

Now I know I'm going to have fun here separating the chaff from the wheat on this issue. This is a subject that Zionists, whether liberal (a non-existent creatures in Zionism; because Zionism turns all who embrace it into fascists) or conservative, are irresistably drawn to and at the same time it's a subject that draws out their duplicitous nature. Those who are secretly with Zionism's goals will do ANYTHING to steer us off course and prevent us from visualizing the pattern, and if we dare to; they'll hurl their most convenient slander; A.S.

Thank you for making us aware of this article which lays the foundation for all discussions on what we are witnessing in Ukraine and the Middle East with advancing imperial supremacy and which hopefully will motivate everyone to further explore the depth and scope of Zionist involvement in this expanding foreign operation that is evil to its core.

And don't worry, apparently you're not the first to mix up these names and make this fortunate mistake, because in essence, whether one author is blunt and the other doublespeaks liberal jargon they are united in their cause and we should be aware of what we're up against to tear their structure down and derail their agenda.

It's great to see others stumble upon the truth that was begging to be found. If not for this timely omen, I might have given up trying to make everyone see and have started doubting even the sound of my own fury.

Massinissa , Mar 21, 2014 9:03:31 PM | 41
@38

Kaplan would probably say its because America isnt a powerful enough empire or something. Lulz.

kalithea , Mar 21, 2014 9:06:46 PM | 42
@10 thomas

Stop beating around the bush, and just come out with it already! We are being sold a case for Zionist Supremacy right from the horses mouth!

kalithea , Mar 21, 2014 9:12:36 PM | 43
@34 Demian

Well you could have knocked me over with a feather! And to think I had to go through all that to see you get to this point. Thank God for serendipity!

kalithea , Mar 21, 2014 9:15:02 PM | 44
@37 They don't talk about it in polite society; but it's understood they're all on the same page.
kalithea , Mar 21, 2014 9:23:12 PM | 45
@29 Nora

Who set these wheel in motion Robert Kagan and William Kristol or Dick and Rummy? Come on...the authors of the PLAN of course. Sure Cheney's a lunatic, but even he couldn't come up with this. Cheney's part of the muscle.

Nora , Mar 21, 2014 9:35:21 PM | 46
#44 Kalithea

We've been fighting this fight, Kalithea, for a long time now, every way we can. So you'll not find me defending a one of them. But the wheels were set in motion before any of us were born, and I'm an old woman now. We're "just" dealing with the current crop, and hopefully we'll somehow succeed before there's no Palestine, Palestinians or olive trees left. Or Syrians, or Iraqis, or Ukrainians, or... Just don't think for a minute that these monsters were not, and are not, encouraged and enabled by non-Jews, low and high, who share the same damned values even if they don't personally give a crap about Israel or its "chosen". And they've ALL got to be stopped.

kalithea , Mar 21, 2014 9:45:10 PM | 47
This is from a 2004 article by Uri Avnery at Counterpunch:
The "oligarchs" are a tiny group of entrepreneurs who exploited the disintegration of the Soviet system to loot the treasures of the state and to amass plunder amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars. In order to safeguard the perpetuation of their business, they took control of the state. Six out of the seven are Jews.

In the first years of post-Soviet Russian capitalism they were the bold and nimble ones who knew how to exploit the economic anarchy in order to acquire enormous possessions for a hundredth or a thousandth of their value: oil, natural gas, nickel and other minerals. They used every possible trick, including cheating, bribery and murder. Every one of them had a small private army.

But the most intriguing part of the series recounts the way they took control of the political apparatus. After a period of fighting each other, they decided that it would be more profitable for them to cooperate in order to take over the state.

At the time, President Boris Yeltsin was in a steep decline. On the eve of the new elections for the presidency, his rating in public opinion polls stood at 4%. He was an alcoholic with a severe heart disease, working about two hours a day. The state was, in practice, ruled by his bodyguard and his daughter; corruption was the order of the day.

The oligarchs decided to take power through him. They had almost unlimited funds, control of all TV channels and most of the other media.

Vladimir Putin, the taciturn and tough ex-KGB operative, assumed power, took control of the media, put one of the oligarchs (Mikhail Khodorkovsky) in prison, caused the others to flee (Berezovsky is in England, Vladimir Gusinsky is in Israel, another, Mikhail Chernoy, is assumed to be hiding here.

George W. Bush and John Kerry both brag about their talent for raising enormous sums of money. From whom? From pensioners? From the mythical "old lady in tennis shoes"? Of course not, but from the cabals of billionaires, the giant corporations and powerful lobbies (arms dealers, Jewish organiztions, doctors, lawyers and such). Many of them give money to both candidates–just to be on the safe side.

All of these expect, of course, to receive a generous bonus when their candidate is elected. "There is no such thing as a free lunch", as the right-wing economist Milton Friedman wrote. As in Russia, every dollar (or ruble) invested wisely in an election will yield a ten- or hundred-fold return.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2004/08/03/or-how-the-virgin-became-a-whore/

Demian , Mar 21, 2014 10:12:07 PM | 48
Even educated Americans speak of Putin as a "thug". All he has done is restore the rule of law, what Germans used to call a Rechtsstaat .

It was very revealing for me to watch his recent informal press conference and his speech to the Duma. He is obviously a man of the people. He also takes the political ideas that European civilization was built on seriously, something that can be said for no Western leader I know of.

It is turning out as the nineteenth century Slavophiles thought it would: Russia has become the last defender of Western civilization.

ToivoS , Mar 21, 2014 10:34:42 PM | 49
Someone above mentioned the Robert Kaplan piece in the Atlantic "how we would fight china" that appeared in 2005. This was not lunatic but a very interesting article on US military plans on how to confront China just off of China's territorial waters (I think the lunacy is the notion that US national interests require us to maintain a war footing in the Western Pacific, but that is an argument we have lost here in the US). I hadn't seen this before. In any case it should be read by anyone interested in US plans against China. It explains Hillary's 'pivot to Asia' policy.

Demian , Mar 21, 2014 10:40:14 PM | 50
As for Uri Avnery at Counterpunch: today he writes :
By the same token, Ukrainians can be understood when they kick out a president who wants to bring them into the Russian orbit against their will.

I was surprised to read that. I should have thought that Avnery has a concept of the rule of law. Also, is Avnery so uninformed not to know that most Ukrainians do not want to join NATO?

scalawag , Mar 21, 2014 10:49:46 PM | 51
Uri Avnery is "soft" zionism. Says most the "right" things, but essentially there to steer the gullible towards the lesser of two zionist evils.
DM , Mar 21, 2014 11:04:15 PM | 53
"Even educated Americans". That must be either a relative term, or the voice of the educated is never heard. It is difficult for me to imagine how an "educated" person could be so ill-informed. Back on planet earth, this would never happen.
kalithea , Mar 21, 2014 11:09:00 PM | 54
Maybe this is far-fetched and I know that Putin bailed out some the the Russian Oligarchy during the 2008 recession so they would owe him support at this crucial time. But recently I watched an interview on 60 Minutes with businessman Bill Browder who trashed talked Putin. Browder ran a Capital Management firm investing in Russia's largest oil companies. Browder who at one point alleges being a supporter of Putin ended up blacklisted as being a threat to the country. Anyway I'm not sure what kind of subterfuge he was up to when he stayed in Russia but he made some nasty accusations against Putin.

A Zionist Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky who went into exile in the U.K. after being accused of fraud and embezzlement during Primkov's government in 1999 also hated Putin. Beresovsky is one of those oligarchs by the way who exploited the fall of the Soviet Union to his advantange. Beresovsky later became a vocal opponent of Putin.

Berezovsky publicly threatened Putin and stated that he was on a mission to bring down Putin "by force" or by bloodless revolution. Berezovsky held media holdings in Russia and used them to slam Putin's policies.

I believe it is during this time Putin became aware of the power of Zionist media to destroy political careers.

In October, in an interview in Le Figaro, Putin announced that he would no longer tolerate criticism of the government by media controlled by the oligarchs. "If necessary we will destroy those instruments that allow this blackmail", he declared.

Details from wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)#Conflict_with_Putin_and_emigration

Berezovsky even set up a foundation based in New York whose purpose it was said was to "bankroll widespread opposition to Putin":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Foundation_for_Civil_Liberties

There's no doubt in my mind that Zionist influence had a hand in what is happening in Ukraine and the protests that tried to interfere with Putin's re-election. Maybe Putin pissed off some other Zionist oligarchs. I haven't been able to research more on this issue but hopefully some of you will look further.

But this just reinforces the point I've been trying to make that Zionists are involved in this imperial global expansion, in this case because the capitalist system feels threatened by Putin and potential reforms. Zionists are up to their eyeballs in this imperial advance and I still believe they're in the driver's seat.

kalithea , Mar 21, 2014 11:16:52 PM | 55
@48 ToivoS

Are you kidding me? Do you think the U.S. could ever dream of reining 1.3 billion stray cats with nukes and a formidable army? For gawd's sake this article is practically a manifesto on Zionism supremacy, it's that transparent. But of course, you'll never admit it.

Nora , Mar 21, 2014 11:24:00 PM | 57
kalithea # 53

Oh the Neocons were absolutely behind this Ukrainian gambit, and I'm thinking their goals were twofold: to keep Russia preoccupied and get hold of Sevastopol. That way, it would be very difficult for her to help Syria and, of course, Iran -- still the main goals for those creeps. And yeah, find me one Neocon, anywhere, who does not support Israel. So yeah, Zionists.

remembererringgiap , Mar 21, 2014 11:37:51 PM | 58
really, read some history? u s imperialism is the single most dangerous threat to humanity

israel is a vassal state

exactly as indonesia was under suharto, or colombia under any of its creep compradors

your sense of disproportion amazes me truly, maybe it is because you are american, you want to blame someoen else for your barbarity, 'the smart jew' is again the perfect target for imbeciles

it is a puppet state, it is a non state, who does exactly what washington wants it to do. it effects only only middle east policy & even that it is by far the junior party, if washington told israel to go live in the sudetenland, the state of israel would, is is a pantin, a puppet increasingly with more bark than bite

you choose anti semitism because as american you are frightened of being obliged to burn your shithouse down

Nora , Mar 21, 2014 11:43:38 PM | 59
Oh no, rememberringgiap, no. It's the combination of the two. And for gosh sakes, I've known how bad America was since I was a kid, and spent most of my life trying to do something about it so I'm hardly afraid to admit it. We see the end coming, it's gonna be UGLY, and we know we deserve it; not a nice place to be but it's honest. And Israel is equally nasty, sometimes in the lead, sometimes as a follower, and I don't hate Jews but I sure do loathe Zionists, whatever faith they may be. (And again, in America, there are a lot more Christians blindly supporting Israel than Jews.)
remembererringgiap , Mar 21, 2014 11:49:14 PM | 60
they are puppets, nothing more nothing less. the actual state of israel began criminally with deir yassin & that state gets worse, it is little surprise, that its population is leaving in droves, more than at any other time, so would i with nutcases like lieberman & netanyahu

but they are no more than donkeys

pakistan on the other hand frightens the living shit out of those united states

Nora , Mar 21, 2014 11:50:07 PM | 61
They're just two sides of the same (filthy) coin.
LJ , Mar 21, 2014 11:52:34 PM | 62
In the atlantic.com article In Defense of Empire the words "slave" or "slavery" in fact do not exist.

or example, in the above quoted text, we find this phrase: "Throughout history, governance and relative safety have most often been provided by slavery ...". From the atlantic.com url, instead we find: "Throughout history, governance and relative safety have most often been provided by empires ...".

The same types of differences exist in every single case. Obviously, this is a huge problem. Either the quotes are wrong in this post or they have been edited out in a later version of the atlantic.com version and replaced with the words "empires," "imperialism", etc.

This problem should be addressed ASAP.

scalawag , Mar 22, 2014 12:07:42 AM | 63
"israel is a vassal state"

Which lets Israel/zionist Jewish fascists off the hook for the war crimes they are responsible for. "They're just pawns of a larger poer, pity them, but don't condemn them. And for god's sakes, don't do anything meaningful that might interfere in their sacred mandate from the godhead."

Which is essentially what Jewish zionist hasbara is all about, whether from the zionist left or the zionist right.

It's never "us", it's always "them".

Excuse me while I go puke, Charles Manson in drag.

Massinissa , Mar 22, 2014 12:08:18 AM | 64
@48 Yes, totally not lunatic for the United States to go to war with one of the most populated countries on the planet.

Wanting to go to war with enormous countries like China, Russia or even Iran (not as big, but still what, over twice as big as iraq and afghanistan combined?) is totally and completely rational.

/sarc off

kalithea , Mar 22, 2014 12:08:37 AM | 65
Okay, I found another corrupt Zionist Russian Oligarch who was accused of fraud, embezzlement and money laundering who's also an enemy of Putin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodorkovsky

Thank goodness Putin did some house-cleaning, but he no doubt made enemies among Zionists no doubt on Wall Street as well. They must have had capital tied up in these Zionist-run Russsian companies.

Massinissa , Mar 22, 2014 12:11:27 AM | 68
@62 WHAT Zionist left? There is none. All the Democrats or whatever that are zionists are also right wing. They just dress up imperialism in fancy words like 'humanitarianism', thats all.

There hasnt been a zionist left since the last communist zionists in Israel retired or died decades ago.

Massinissa , Mar 22, 2014 12:16:47 AM | 69
@57 You realize that critiquing zionism, which is a modern political ideology, is NOT the same as critiquing Judaism, the religion, right? Right? Guess not.

Because there are zionist Christians (probably more than there are zionist jews) and nonzionist jews (a growing number of young jews realize Israel is an apartheid state).

So stop trying to slur anti-zionists as anti-semites, thats just slander.

scalawag , Mar 22, 2014 12:22:05 AM | 70
Hey kalithea, the Russians let Khodorkovsky out of prison early. Almost the first thing the loyal Israeli citizen did was go to the Ukraine and encourage the neo-nazis running the place now to get even more brutal and nazi like.

I could ask what's up with that, but I think everybody here knows the answer.

Demian , Mar 22, 2014 12:26:54 AM | 71
@65: I think b made it very clear. He used the word "substitute", and the title of the post was directly followed by the same title, but without the substitution.

This kind of snark is just part of leftist blog culture. (I don't know if right wingers do it.)

I'm beginning to think that the substitution of "Kagan" for "Kaplan" was snark too, but that I didn't pick up on.

Demian , Mar 22, 2014 12:37:00 AM | 75
In China, Michelle Obama calls for universal rights

Do Michelle and her speechwriters really think that Chinese rulers don't take that as a big joke? I'm sure they're laughing their heads off behind her back. I hope that the reason speechwriters put stuff like that in there is for the domestic American audience.

kalithea , Mar 22, 2014 12:55:37 AM | 77
And yet another Zionist oligarch who bilked Russia and hates Putin.:
On 23 August 2003, Gusinsky travelled from Israel to Athens, where he was arrested under a Greek-Russian treaty for fraud amounting to millions in damages.[5] Intense pressure from American leaders (mainly from US ambassador in Athens Tomas Miller), Israeli officials and the European Jewish Congress on the Greek government led to Gusinsky's release within five days.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Gusinsky

Mr Gusinsky says we will all pay the price if western leaders appease President Putin. He likens the situation apocalyptically to the 1930s and the world's treatment of Hitler. Mr Putin's hands, he says, are already red with the blood of murdered Chechens.

Mr Putin's popularity comes in part from his promise to do away with the oligarchs, a group of 20-odd billionaire businessmen who got rich stripping assets from privatised companies they bought for nothing.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/apr/24/russia.gilestremlett

scalawag , Mar 22, 2014 1:25:52 AM | 78
Posted by: remembererringgiap | Mar 22, 2014 12:46:04 AM | 75

"just read strormfront that enough - that's the level of research repeated ad finitum - whether its lagos or louisiana"

It's well known stormfront is a zionist front/agent provocateur site, much like freerepublic, though tailored to the more hardcore freak. Why promote them?

Crash Craddock , Mar 22, 2014 1:48:24 AM | 79
Maybe Zionists deserve to rule, they're smarter, they work harder and are better organized. You folks couldn't organize an ice cream social. Just sayin'
fairleft , Mar 22, 2014 2:38:49 AM | 80
Nora and 'Destroy MoonofAlabama Project' at 45:
But the wheels were set in motion before any of us were born, and I'm an old woman now. ... Just don't think for a minute that these monsters were not, and are not, encouraged and enabled by non-Jews, low and high, who share the same damned values even if they don't personally give a crap about Israel or its "chosen".

Testify Sister! Tell us who set the wheels in motion, tell us all what the plan is. What tricks did the Jews pull on us non-Jews way back then, how are non-Jews enabling their diabolical worldwide plan?

ToivoS , Mar 22, 2014 2:40:38 AM | 81
Posted by: kalithea | Mar 21, 2014 11:16:52 PM | 54

WTF are you trying to say? The Zionist have no position on US-China relations as far as anyone can see. I read that article by Robert Kaplan and he reported the views of officers in the US Navy. I am quite sure that Israel has not penetrated the US Navy. This is a perspective of good old fashioned US imperialism. I know that the Zionist work in the background and try to influence US policy, but they do not control it. Especially inside the US Navy. You have no idea how power is distributed inside the US.

Outraged , Mar 22, 2014 3:40:54 AM | 82
The War Prayer
"... I have told the whole truth in that, and only dead men can tell the truth in this world ..." Mark Twain

Eugenics is evil ... however, in Kagans case, his removal from the gene pool and his ilk, could only be seen as a darwinian, evolutionary advancement for humanity.

brian , Mar 22, 2014 3:52:15 AM | 83
nice to see Kagan defend empire...so he defends russias and soviets

meanwhile: #Kiev authorities giving school camps to neo-#Nazis for military training

http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_03_22/Kiev-authorities-giving-school-camps-to-neo-Nazis-for-military-training-5367/

#Svoboda #Ukraine pic.twitter.com/LFNocUcc5x

Knut , Mar 22, 2014 3:57:39 AM | 84
thank you, rememberinggiap, for your calmness. you are correct in saying that many of us (and that includes myself look for causes outside our internal history. perhaps the fixed point should be the Dulles brothers, who if they did not set us down this infernal path, gave us a mighty and prolonged push. Mark Twain had it all figured out over a century ago. as to American zionists, Jews of my and Nora's generaton lived through the discrimination of convenanted housing tracts, university quotas and professional exclusions down to the Vietnam war, and they can't put it out of their mind. they probably don't know that they were not the only ones. when I was a student at Yale living with George Bush Sr.'s aunt in New Haven, Catholics and most of the Yale professors were excluded from the lawn tennis club situated just behind the new school of management on Whitney avenue. No Irish or italians need apply. the us is a swarm of internal contradictions, and it's history is out of control.
fairleft , Mar 22, 2014 4:08:55 AM | 85
Nora at 45: Kindly cancel that request. Just answer this. Do you agree with this quote from Pragma:
Neither is it coincidence that (before the creation of izrael but about the time of the balfour deal ...) Russia was poisoned by zionist "communists" (just another projection), nor is it coincidence that Germany was relentlessly pushed into war and later broken and crushed and not reinstated until this very day ...

If that's a good summary of them, maybe there's no need for you to tell us about your 'historical' beliefs.

Also, in fact I only think Pragma is the actual 'destroy moonofalabama' operative here. You and his other supporters seem to hold your beliefs sincerely. FWIW and for what they're worth which is less than zero.

Outraged , Mar 22, 2014 4:09:28 AM | 86
@ToivoS #48

There will be no 'US Naval' war off Chinas coast.

The US Navy has known it Carriers are simply very large targets for many, many years, and so do the PLAN.

Carrier battle groups are for projecting brute military force and creating invasive sovereignity(sic) in support of Empire around the globe ... NEVER , in the modern era to be risked against 1st world powers. All those billions upon billions of $ would be lost in the briefest moment of conflict with the PLAN. See: Anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBM).

thomas , Mar 22, 2014 4:16:04 AM | 87
I must admit I didn't compare the original text with what b cited, I still had too much of a confidence into him which now vanished totally. Others @6) and Massinissa discovered the bluff immediately, so they deserve the honour. I really don't know what the purpose of this double bluff is: changing the text and the author??? I would say just stupid...

It also damages people like Chinweizu @10), the famous nigerian writer who presented a case of REAL stewardry of labour by WTO close to slaveholdership

maybe Mr Pragma is also his creation, b is a talented computer freak and I think he is LoL in his little room about all of us; and also about having added two hysterical anti-zionist broads programmes to the commenters here confusing all of us.... I think the whole blog here is really disintegrating, from top to bottom...

fairleft , Mar 22, 2014 4:32:48 AM | 89
Knut at 83: Lenin had this figured out, imperialism is a stage of capitalism, a reaction to excess production and internal markets being exhausted of opportunities for excess profits. The European capitalist countries began struggling with this phenomenon in the late 19th century and the US a few decades later. There's really no solution other than ending capitalism and/or social democracy.

In that context, pinning responsibility for imperialism on Jews is just idiotic, and pinning things on the US will just make folks less wary of its natural successor, China. That doesn't mean it's not a good thing when there is multi-polar world, because that coincided in the post-war era and may coincide again with greater 'space' for independent, populist, democratic regimes to arise.

And that also doesn't mean I accuse Russia of being an imperialist. Lenin was making a general observation (I think) and there are exceptions. Regimes under attack by 'big imperialism' sometimes produce sincere democratic/populist nationalists. I hope/think Russians are lucky enough to have one of those running their country now. The people should be aware they'll likely need to struggle 'some day soon' to avoid reverting to the 'imperialist norm'.

thomas , Mar 22, 2014 4:54:44 AM | 90
@87) where is the enlightment of readers doing this? all empires, great and less great, historically have been founded on slaveholdership, now changing to a form of forced labour like in most of the arabic monarchistic countries or work without the minimum ILO standards like in the case of the Sotchi Olympic workers....
Outraged , Mar 22, 2014 6:44:10 AM | 91
After 12 Years of War, Labor Abuses Still Rampant on U.S. Bases in Afghanistan (as in Iraq & elsewhere)

Human Trafficking and Slavery by the US Government, Military and Corporations for MASSIVE PROFIT is very, very real, in a 'literal' sense, too ... all of it corrupt and illegal even under US Law ... and no one will ever be prosecuted ...

12 years a Slave , indeed ... as I recall, no individual, business or official involved was ever held accountable for the multiple crimes, even then illegal, committed against Solomon Northup , then a Freeman ... one hundred and sixty years has passed and where are we now ?

somebody , Mar 22, 2014 6:55:48 AM | 92
What Kaplan's "defense of imperialism" is trying to prevent are these

" proposed defense cuts "

But if Congress approves, the Army would drop from today's active-duty force of 522,000 soldiers to between 440,000 and 450,000 over the next three years.

"Since we are no longer sizing the force for prolonged" ground wars, the Army is larger than required and "larger than we can afford," Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, who announced the plan, said at the Pentagon.

California may win more than it loses in the shift of resources as older aircraft are phased out and new ones are brought on board.

Spending for cyberwarfare will increase under the plan. That could benefit larger government contractors in Silicon Valley, including Cisco Systems Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co., Oracle Corp. and a growing number of start-ups in defense-related equipment and software.

In addition, Northrop Grumman Corp. uses a facility in Palmdale to build the unmanned RQ-4 Global Hawk drone aircraft that will replace the high-flying U-2 spy planes, famous in the early Cold War but now proposed for retirement. The company has about 2,500 employees on the program in Southern California.

The Pentagon previously had planned to mothball a version of the Global Hawk and keep the U-2 flying. But Hagel said the operating costs of the drone had fallen and that with its greater range and endurance, it "makes a better high-altitude reconnaissance platform for the future."

The Air Force has 32 U-2s based at Beale Air Force Base in Marysville, Calif.

Hagel also called for retiring the Air Force's entire fleet of A-10 "Warthog" ground attack fighters, as well as mothballing half of the Navy's fleet of 22 cruisers, and building only 32 of the Navy's littoral combat ships, not 52 as previously planned. The shallow-draft, lightly armed warship is designed for clearing mines and anti-submarine warfare. Hagel said it might not be heavily armed enough and called for studying whether a new frigate would be better.

The only military force to grow would be special operations forces. Increasingly used for training and counter-terrorism missions around the world, the elite force would increase by several thousand to 69,700 .

Which would give the US a spoiling, blackmail power to push for its interests but no imperial power.

Rather than Obama's post-imperialism, in which the secretary of state appears like a lonely and wayward operator encumbered by an apathetic White House, I maintain that a tempered imperialism is now preferable.

No other power or constellation of powers is able to provide even a fraction of the global order provided by the United States. U.S. air and sea dominance preserves the peace, such as it exists, in Asia and the Greater Middle East. American military force, reasonably deployed, is what ultimately protects democracies as diverse as Poland, Israel, and Taiwan from being overrun by enemies. If America sharply retrenched its air and sea forces, while starving its land forces of adequate supplies and training, the world would be a far more anarchic place, with adverse repercussions for the American homeland.

Rome, Parthia, and Hapsburg Austria were great precisely because they gave significant parts of the world a modicum of imperial order that they would not otherwise have enjoyed. America must presently do likewise, particularly in East Asia, the geographic heartland of the world economy and the home of American treaty allies.

He seems to realize his argument is an uphill struggle as he adds this

This by no means obliges the American military to repair complex and populous Islamic countries that lack critical components of civil society. America must roam the world with its ships and planes, but be very wary of where it gets involved on the ground. And it must initiate military hostilities only when an overwhelming national interest is threatened. Otherwise, it should limit its involvement to economic inducements and robust diplomacy -- diplomacy that exerts every possible pressure in order to prevent widespread atrocities in parts of the world, such as central Africa, that are not, in the orthodox sense, strategic.

That he goes back to "White Man's Burden" in his arguments presumably means he is too old and out of touch with US demography .

somebody , Mar 22, 2014 7:01:56 AM | 93
There is a great RT interview by Anastasja Churkina - the daughter of the Russian UN ambassador - with Amy Goodman on the role of corporate media - when corporations profit from war.
Mr. Pragma , Mar 22, 2014 9:55:02 AM | 95
Demian (47)
Putin ...

It was very revealing for me to watch his recent informal press conference and his speech to the Duma. He is obviously a man of the people.

Indeed. It's also instructive to compare a Putin speech and say an obama or merkel speech. While Putin *evidently and doubtlessly* really addresses the people and explains what has been, or must be, done and why, the western puppets merely utter system standard pieces of text and are ignoring the people.

kalithea (53)

Bill Browder who trashed talked Putin. Browder ran a Capital Management firm investing in Russia's largest oil companies. Browder who at one point alleges being a supporter of Putin ended up blacklisted as being a threat to the country.

Well, depending on whom you ask, weztern media and even (reliably and confrontingly jew defending) wikipedia, or Russian investigators, witnesses, and victims, the answer will be very different.

Actually browder was deeply and dirtily linked to a concerted crime operation that tried to steal Russias (mostly hydrocarbon) resources in a "professional" way. This, of course *had* to be understood for what it was, a direct attack on Russias life blood, which maybe was not even the goal of browder and accomplices but at least a non issue for them. Looking closer you will also find khodorkovsky and the "devils advocate" magnitsky in those circles.

Funnily the wezt and wikipedia paint browder as a gently minded businessman who got thrown out by evil Putin for unmasking Putin and his crime gang (well noted, that's how the weztern thugs paint it).

A Zionist Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky who went into exile in the U.K. after being accused of fraud and embezzlement during Primkov's government in 1999 also hated Putin. Beresovsky is one of those oligarchs by the way who exploited the fall of the Soviet Union to his advantange. Beresovsky later became a vocal opponent of Putin.

Berezovsky publicly threatened Putin and stated that he was on a mission to bring down Putin "by force" or by bloodless revolution. Berezovsky held media holdings in Russia and used them to slam Putin's policies.

berezovsky didn't stick to the deal, he left the frame so clearly - and wisely - assigned by Putin. Quite possibly berezovsky is the symbol of the "political oligarchs" which, of course, were not at all happy about Putin stopping their free looting of Russia.

It is noteworthy - yet widely "forgotten" - that berezovsky later, in London, more or less confessed his crimes and evil spirited attacks and asked Putin to forgive him and to please, pretty please, let him go back to Russia.

One might also have a good case here for the difference between jews and zionists. Yes, most oligarchs are jews but that's not the point. The point is that extremely greedy people with a large crime register wanted to and still want to earn ever more billions, jew or not jew. But that's it. And one can make agreements with them, even agreements in favour of Russia and even agreements basically employing those oligarchs for the good of Russia.

Not so with the zionists. The zionist oligarchs never respected Putin, nor the people, nor Russia herself. To them Russia was but a helpless but very rich lady they would loot and rob with utmost brutality. And as soon as anyone dared to stop them they would scream "anti-semites!" and leave to izrael or another zio controlled country.

For those oligarchs who stuck and stick to the agreements one must not care about jew or not and indeed there are non-jews, too. The most brutal and despicable criminals though are zio-jews, each and all of them.

Ad "zusa attacking China":

That must be a joke. Anyone with some basic knowledge about military issues will tell you a simple truth: zusa must hope and pray that none of their protectees, namely japan, sk, and taiwan, ever comes in a situation to ask for zusa help. For a simple reason. zusa would be doomed.

Japan being the least dangerous, sk would pretty much be lost before zusa could fire some shots, and taiwan (and largely sk) are basically denied zones.

Not only are 100% of taiwan covered by Chinese anti-air systems but worse for zusa, zusa would be stopped dead in its tracks because China can interdict the ca. 600 - 750km wide "belt" around taiwan needed for zusa air operations. About the only tool not interdicted would be zusa firing cruise missiles; as those are old tech., and slow China would comfortably kill at least 80% (and more realistically around 90%) of those. Would do zusa that, would zusa protect taiwan knowing there is little they could do but there would be a very considerable risk of China (rightfully!) destroying major parts of the zusa fleet? I strongly doubt that.

About the most realistic and favourable (for zusa) scenario I see would be a China japan war with zusa interfering somewhat. And even that is doubtful as it might "invite" nk to use China supplied weapons against both japan and the much hated zusa.

maybe Mr Pragma is also his creation, b is a talented computer freak and I think he is LoL in his little room about all of us; and also about having added two hysterical anti-zionist broads programmes

maybe? MAYBE? What an incompetent asshole! OF COURSE I'm a programm! But not by b; I've been programmed by KGB on a rusty typewriter.

izrael should ask zusa for more funds or they should ask one of the zio-controlled countries. Obviously izrael *urgently* needs funds for better agents. Current ones like thomas miss even the most obvious points.

Ceterum censeo israel americanamque vehementer delenda esse!

somebody , Mar 22, 2014 10:00:10 AM | 96
94) no, you are definitively CIA programmed, probably by their Israeli subcontractors.
Sanford Russell , Mar 22, 2014 10:02:00 AM | 97
Please, b, have some truly competent person proof read your posts. A few more blunders such as this one and you lose a bunch of readers.
kalithea , Mar 22, 2014 10:15:25 AM | 98
@96

I doubt he will lose readers; and if it's you, nitpicker - Good Riddance.

somebody , Mar 22, 2014 10:24:30 AM | 99
96) Sanford Russel - hint: it is intentional.

Some people plan for Afghanistan in Ukraine .

Bright future for Pravy Sector Taliban.

Mr. Pragma , Mar 22, 2014 10:26:43 AM | 100
Oh no, b made an error!

What a shocking revelation. Who would have thought that a human being can make an occasional error?!

sanford russell is absolutely right. The readers are fleeing MoA in batallion-sized troves.

Say, sanford russell, how many errors are needed to lose *you*? I'm more than ready to commit them.

Here's a first downpayment:

1 + 1 = 7

zionists are acceptable human beings

sun is going around earth which is the center of the universe (hint to zamericans: Attention, this is actually an error!)

water flows upward

kalithea , Mar 22, 2014 10:27:48 AM | 101
@94 Mr. Pragma

Mikhail Fridman Zionist Oligarch:

He has been an active supporter of Jewish initiatives in Russia and Europe. In 1996 Fridman was one of the founders of the Russian Jewish Congress, now sitting on the RJC Presidium. He makes large contribution to the work of the European Jewish Fund, a non-profit organization aimed at developing European Jewry and promoting tolerance and reconciliation on the continent.[5]

Presently, a member of the Public Chamber of Russia. Was presented with an award by Bill Clinton, uber-supporter of Zionism.

What is this? A case of keep your friends close and enemies closer? I wouldn't trust a Zionist as far as I can spit! How many Zionists are in his entourage? I hope Putin doesn't end up like Caesar - stabbled in the back by those close to him - et tu Brute?

kalithea , Mar 22, 2014 10:28:40 AM | 102
Link for details:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Fridman

kalithea , Mar 22, 2014 10:31:55 AM | 105
Mikhail Fridman and his fellow Russian Jewish philanthropists are ponying up some serious cash to create what is being touted as a "Jewish Nobel Prize." The Russian billionaire and co-founder of the five-year-old Genesis philanthropy group announced the creation of a $1 million prize that will be awarded to Jews who win global recognition for their professional achievements, including in the world of science and the arts. The prize, launched in collaboration with the Israeli government, was announced on Tuesday, which coincided with the visit of Russian president Vladimir Putin to Israel. The award will be presented annually by the Israeli prime minister around Passover time. As if the world was short on Jewish Nobel Prize winners.

Read more: http://www.jta.org/2012/06/29/life-religion/friday-five-ankie-spitzer-hateful-elmo-aaron-sorkin-mikhail-fridman-and-pamela-geller#ixzz2whaPoKar

Cynthia , Mar 22, 2014 10:34:08 AM | 106
Crash Craddock@78,

Neocon Zionists, aka Israeli Firsters, and most of the One Percent on Wall Street have owned Congress and the mainstream media propaganda machine since the beginning of modern print, and then broadcast media. By this control of what people read, hear, and see, they have been able to control what people believe and think. Game set match, until now.

Now, the internet has opened the Pandora's box of Truth, and as people have an instinct for the truth, they are beginning to see what was concealed from them before. (And they're inevitably getting smarter, developing the skill needed to distinguish noisy nonsense from correct information.) So Robert Kagan and other neocon Zionists like him whose first loyalty is to Israel, are rightly worried that when the "tapestry of lies" is stripped away, and the American people see the extent of the Zionist subversion, there will be consequences.

This is the pattern of five-thousand years of Jewish history: they go somewhere, do very well by themselves and the locals, then they get powerful, and they overreach and become abusive, at which point the locals accost them, or holocaust them. This is how Jewish talent becomes Jewish self-destruction.

This is sad enough, but as an American, I'm particularly dismayed, because the American Jews in my surrounding community have -- too easily I must confess -- been hoodwinked into supporting the Zionist criminal enterprise.

Stealing someone else's country to start your own -- despite all the historical precedent -- is not a good strategy, particularly when the folks whose country you stole have a billion and a half co-religionists out there unhappy about the theft.

H/T: antiwar.com

Nora , Mar 22, 2014 10:34:22 AM | 107
Let's get some definitions right, ok. Zionism in this day and age means no more and no less than a strong supporter of the state of Israel. It simply doesn't mean "Jew", but it does mean condoning increased settlements and outrageous attacks against Gaza, etc. The entire movement is a bit more than 100 years old; it began at roughly the same time that TR and his lovely "White Fleet" sailed the Pacific to do some of the same lovely stuff to the Philippines that we'd been doing to North America since the 1600's and the rest of the Americas since the 1800s (the entire purpose of the Monroe Doctrine was to legitimize it).

Okay, a bit more history: our entry into WWI was, among other things, closely related to the Balfour Doctrine. We did it for many mercantile reasons as well (DuPont vs. Krupp, etc.), but the point is, just like the Yalies in OSS whose families had been bankrolling Hitler before (and during, see: Prescott Bush) WWII then snarfed up a bunch of leading Nazis afterwards, different people w/different goals and beliefs, can work together when it suits their purposes. And "Israel returning to Zion" was and is a MAJOR theme for the Puritans, both here and in England (look up Dispensationalism; it's a big deal) and various other groups of Christians.

So yes, no CT here at all, but why waste time separating out blame: it's a many-headed monster that's easily judged simply by its effects, summed up as harm to innocent people in the furtherance of... whatever.

Mr. Pragma , Mar 22, 2014 10:36:08 AM | 108
kalithea

a) Putin is a pragmatic who tries to *integrate* all the diverse groups. As long as m.f. and the likes stick to the rules, it's O.K.

And frankly, who cares a cigar about the clintons?

b) Rest assured that m.f. *is* sticking to the rules. After all zionism is only the second priority of rich zionists ...

@ cold n holefield

Great. Good to see that you despise Putin. That's a strong indicator for Putin doing an excellent job.

As for Putins often implied and never proven western expansion desires:

Well, actually most zeuropeans would just LOVE to have a president who actually works *for* them and *for* the country.

hollande, merkel, cameron and all the other puppets definitely and obviously do *not* care batshit about "their" countries or people.

Nora , Mar 22, 2014 10:47:28 AM | 109
fairleft, I left some stuff for you that you may not have read. I'm putting it here but will not engage you again until you've digested at least one of the readings I suggested.

I have an honest question I wish you'd really think about. I'm assuming you're an American, like me. And we have no compunction praising our fellow Americans when they do something in accord with our values, and criticizing them when they don't. I.e., we're not blindly zenophobic, right? And I think that's pretty generally true for most of the people here, whatever their ethnicity: they can criticize "their own" when they find it warranted, based on what the person, or group of people, did. So I'm wondering about your blind spot: are all Jews blameless just by definition, or might some of them, sometimes, do something objectionable? And if so, why is no one allowed to say so? In my family's background are lots of different peoples who at various times were subjected to hideous repression, ethnic cleansing and yes, genocide, but I still see no reason not to criticize them when they're doing something wrong -- why can't you? And please don't invoke the Holocaust: I can trump you in my own background by hundreds of years and millions of people. Really: not all Jews are perfect or blameless, and we're not really talking Jews anyhow, we're talking support for criminal acts by the state of Israel, supported here in America by a LOT more Christians than Jews. I.e., Zionism.

Sometimes this knee-jerk respose is just group-think by otherwise decent people who've been frightened and brainwashed their entire lives and might possibly be reachable. Gilad Atzmon, Israel Adam Shamir and Philip Weiss, to name just three, all started out like that too -- and then grew. I was trying to give fairleft an opportunity to open his mind a bit; he can take it not, as he chooses.

In any case, please read Norton Mezvinsky and Israel Shahak, "Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel", Israel Shahak, a Holocuast survivor, btw, "Jewish History, Jewish Religion", and a piece up on CounterPunch right now: http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/03/21/the-origins-of-the-israel-lobby-in-the-us/

You seem like a decent person: please read these. It won't be easy for you -- it's hard to challenge deeply-ingrained beliefs -- but reading these books with a mind open to seeing things differently is more than worth it.

Mr. Pragma , Mar 22, 2014 11:00:06 AM | 111
Nora

In all friendliness, it seems you just don't get it. Yes, fairleft is somewhat more professional than, say thomas, in not exclusively relying on crude attacks and gross propaganda.

He is, however, nevertheless and evidently a fervent pro-zionist and trying his best to do their work here.

(But of course, this is but some friendly sentences. Feel free by all means to continue your endeavour)

Nora , Mar 22, 2014 11:10:48 AM | 112
ben @ 109

Thank you.

Mr. P @ 110

Just giving him the benefit of the doubt this one last time.

But those two books and Allison Weir's piece imo are important for anyone who wants to be informed; there's a lot of data in each of them that simply cannot be refuted. And Shahak's book is still available online, I think.

somebody , Mar 22, 2014 11:12:40 AM | 113
105) Especially when it was the British who promised the place to two peoples

for a) get support in their fight against the Ottoman empire (who had robbed the place before them)

to b) have a "European" colony to subject the natives.

Saying you are not Main Stream Media and making up your own truth does you better than Main Stream Media.

Americans inherited the British empire that is all there is to it. Deal with it.

Crest , Mar 22, 2014 11:31:04 AM | 115
Imperialism benefits no one but a small slice of the ruling class. But it's always defended as if it's the only thing providing food for the average person. It's been true since the Roman empire. The looting oriented British Raj stripped away so much and somehow almost none of it ended up in the hands of the average Briton. Same for the Kingdoms of Spain and Portugal. It's just no good. I don't know how long it will take for average people to understand it.
Noirette , Mar 22, 2014 11:37:48 AM | 116
The interest in slavery is not just neo-connish etc. but in a way, underground, an interest of Big Corporations (1).

Not, imho, in first place because of the 'cheap labor' but because of issues of control.

Right now we are living in a world that is organized in part by nation-states (as a kind of ultimate authority) and for another part, not well coordinated with the first, by Big Corporations, who increasingly control Banking and Finance, thus also say pol. contributions in the US, territory (2) and its uses, supra-territorial matters such as communications and benchmarks (internet, the control of space, rating agencies, for ex.), and other related matters like patent laws.

Slavery as an official doctrine is not in their interests, cheap labor is already available thru modern slavery. So they keep a low profile, and let their 'elected' representatives take the flack.

Such clashing interests are well illustrated in the case of Ukraine, where the confusion of the Western 'nation-states' has become pathetically ridiculous, as they cannot make public their lack of power and attendant subservience to Corporate interests. They are kind of 'holding on' to keep some hand in the game, and mobilizing their 'electorate' with propaganda, as that is where their livelihood come from.

One article about Corp. interests in Ukraine:

Consortium news, March 16, 2014

http://tinyurl.com/omfmbp5

1. Shell, BP, Total, plus many others in the energy field. Also the likes of Glencore Xstrata, Cargill, AXA, Monsanto, Nestlé, JP Morgan, etc. etc. all entwined in a kind of global network.

2. Straight out buying and leasing land; owning thru investments and 'deals', exploration rights, mineral rights, agriculture, transport hubs (pipelines, shipping, ports, the machines that implement the transport, etc.)

Rowan Berkeley , Mar 22, 2014 11:45:48 AM | 118
In the tiny minds of these neocons, it is possible that in some simplified way, the marxist theory of the falling rate of profit penetrated, at least sufficiently for this one to infer that wage labour is inexorably doomed by its own internal contradictions. However, applying the same marxian analysis, it is possible to prove that an economy based on slave labour generates no capitalist profits at all.
Noirette , Mar 22, 2014 11:47:42 AM | 119
israel is a vassal state r giap

Israel (in the form of its present Govmt, and past as well) is US State number 51, a splinter outpost on foreign lands.

Its continuing existence in the shape of its crazily belligerent and racist, apartheid stance, and all the dire cruelties we know about, is maintained by the unwavering support and investment from the US, though EU poodles have followed along. (See e.g. UN vetos, etc.) It is a sick, symbiotic relationship, with one party acting the thug, encouraged by the backer. It is economically dependent on its masters so cannot stop, and leaders of course join for their own personal interests.

Not to minimize the influence of the "Jewish / Isr. lobby" e.g. Walt and Mearsheimer, etc. whatever - exists because it is welcomed, and then provides strange grist to many lunatic mills.

brian , Mar 22, 2014 11:49:41 AM | 120
Patrick deHahn ‏@patrickdehahn 20h

NBC News: New U S. State Dept travel warning tells citizens to defer travel to east regions of Kharkiv, Donetsk and Lugansk in Ukraine .......................so is west ukraine safe?>!!

Nora , Mar 22, 2014 11:53:38 AM | 121
@ Crest 114

Good points. The sorrow is, average people have rarely been in a position to do anything anyhow; they're generally too busy just trying to survive. What we're seeing now in both the EU and US is the steep downward slope of economic and political disempowerment while (hopefully) heading upwards is the shallower slope of public understanding. Will they intersect in time, i.e., while people still have enough power to do something about it? Who knows. And what can people do? In the US the angry folks with guns have been successfully brainwashed to ultimately support TPTB -- while believing they're rebelling against them. (Some really clever work there, worth of Goebbels at his best.)

Nora , Mar 22, 2014 12:06:24 PM | 123
Here's a good one: Soros wants us to dump our strategic reserves and crash the oil market. WTF?

http://voiceofrussia.com/2014_03_22/Ukraine-crisis-oddities-Tycoon-George-Soros-wants-US-to-crash-oil-market-1957/

fairleft , Mar 22, 2014 12:07:27 PM | 124
Cynthia at 105:
This is the pattern of five-thousand years of Jewish history: they go somewhere, do very well by themselves and the locals, then they get powerful, and they overreach and become abusive, at which point the locals accost them, or holocaust them. This is how Jewish talent becomes Jewish self-destruction.

Hi Cynthia! Are you part of Pragma's takedown of moonofalabama or are you just a stupid solo anti-Semite? If the latter, how did you find your way here?

ben , Mar 22, 2014 12:24:19 PM | 126
Nora @ 108: Your're on a roll today it seems. Your expression at 108 truly fits MOST folks here at MOA, at least I sincerely hope so. Like society in general, there are people afoot in this world, who get PAYED to disrupt objectivity on the Internet and the Media.
Mr. Pragma , Mar 22, 2014 12:29:24 PM | 127
It's obvious. b has done an excellent job with MoA.

All those fairleft, thomas, and other zionists in berserk mode area major compliment to b and MoA.

Thank you, zionist fans and agents, for confirming so clearly and fervently that MoA and many of its long term contributors are on the right track!

james , Mar 22, 2014 12:41:51 PM | 129
@126 - true. it would be nice if folks ignored those who they believe are full of shite too, lol.. i think b would benefit correcting the kagan verses kaplan issue.. both of them are friggin nutso's but still..
somebody , Mar 22, 2014 12:43:40 PM | 130
108/125 - err ... what has anybody's race, religion or nationality got to do with how they act?

To be able to be a thief, robber or murderer is universal, no? So people who connect a crime to a race, religion or nationality would attempt what?

james , Mar 22, 2014 12:46:28 PM | 131
ot - cannonfire has a good article titled "propaganda and truth" that some might enjoy reading - http://cannonfire.blogspot.ca/2014/03/propaganda-and-truth.html
zingaro , Mar 22, 2014 12:55:55 PM | 132
@126, concerned about human trafficking ?

Wipe your ass first

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_Kosovo

kalithea , Mar 22, 2014 1:08:21 PM | 136
Zionist supremacy indoctrination:
In 2003, Rabbi Saadya Grama of the Beth Medrash Govoha, the renowned Talmudic school of Lakewood, NJ, published a book in which he claimed that Gentiles were completely evil and that Jews constituted a separate, genetically superior species.

The book published under the Hebrew Title "Romemut Yisrael Ufarsahat Hagalut" quoted numerous classical Jewish sources to prove Jewish superiority over the rest of humankind.

The difference between Jews and gentiles, he argued, is not religious, historical, cultural, or political. It is rather racial, genetic, and scientifically unalterable. The one groups is at its very root and by natural constitution "totally evil" while the other is "totally good"

If gentiles (goyem) are inherently inferior to Jews, and if their very humanity is presumed to be denied, it is axiomatically inferred from this that these gentiles have inherently lesser rights than Jews do.

Indeed, some Talmudic references do refer to gentiles as "animals walking on two feet instead of four".

Even today, some Rabbis, such as David Batsri, invoke the "bestiality" of non-Jews, claiming that the Creator created them with two legs instead of four in deference to Jews, because it is not appropriate that Jews be served with four-legged animals.

Rabbi Abraham Kook, the religious mentor of the settler movement, taught that "the difference between a Jewish soul and souls of non-Jews -- all of them in all different levels -- is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle." (Reuters Photo)

Remarks by the Israeli Minister of Interior Yaakov Neeman suggesting that the Jewish religious law (Halacha) should be adopted as the "law of the land" in the Jewish state has drawn strong reactions from both Jews and non-Jews.

"Step by step, we will bestow upon the citizens of Israel the laws of the Torah and we will turn Halacha into the binding law of the nation," Neeman told Rabbis at a Jewish law convention in occupied Jerusalem in December 2009.

"We must bring back the heritage of our fathers to the nation of Israel," he said. "The torah has the complete solution to all of the questions we are dealing with."

Neeman's statements were met applauds from participants who included high-ranking Rabbis, as well as representatives of religious parties.

However, for non-Jews, who now constitute nearly 50 percent of the total population in occupied Palestine, Neeman's remarks are a serious cause for concern since Halacha, at least according to the Orthodox Jewish interpretation, does not recognize the full humanity of non-Jews.

Hence, non-Jews living under Halacha must accept to live under a perpetual state of inferiority, if not persecution.

Lesser in Every Aspect

According to Orthodox Judaism, a non-Jew (goy) is inferior to a Jew in every conceivable aspect. This inferiority is absolute, inherent, intrinsic, and not subject to any related or unrelated factors.

Rabbi Abraham Kook, the religious mentor of the settler movement, taught that "the difference between a Jewish soul and souls of non-Jews -- all of them in all different levels -- is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle."

The teachings of Kook are based on the Lurianic Cabala (Jewish mysticism), which teaches the absolute superiority of the Jewish soul and body over the non-Jewish soul and body. This means, according to one Rabbi who is member of the Chabadi Lubovitcher sect, that "every simple cell in a Jewish body entails divinity and is part of God."

In 2003, Rabbi Saadya Grama of the Beth Medrash Govoha, the renowned Talmudic school of Lakewood, NJ, published a book in which he claimed that Gentiles were completely evil and that Jews constituted a separate, genetically superior species.

The book published under the Hebrew Title "Romemut Yisrael Ufarsahat Hagalut" quoted numerous classical Jewish sources to prove Jewish superiority over the rest of humankind.

The difference between Jews and gentiles, he argued, is not religious, historical, cultural, or political. It is rather racial, genetic, and scientifically unalterable. The one groups is at its very root and by natural constitution "totally evil" while the other is "totally good"

"Jewish successes in the world are completely contingent upon the failure of all other peoples. Only when the gentiles face total catastrophe, Jews do experience good fortune."

"The Jews themselves brought about their own destruction during the Holocaust, since they arrogantly endeavored to overcome their very essence, dictated by divine law."

While castigated by many Jewish figures, religious and secular, for its brazen racism, Grama's thesis is not really in conflict with the Rabbis of Gush Emunim (the settler camp) and the rest of the National religious movement in Israel today.

He readily applies Torah passages against idolaters, other pagans to Christianity and Islam, and other monotheists who worship the God of Abraham, the very God proclaimed by the Torah.

He also ignores extensive Rabbinic deliberations during the medieval period, which concluded that both Islam and Christianity as "licit, monotheistic faiths."

Hence, Muslims and Christians could not be lumped in one category with the idol-worshipers of earlier times.

Sub-human Slaves

If gentiles (goyem) are inherently inferior to Jews, and if their very humanity is presumed to be denied, it is axiomatically inferred from this that these gentiles have inherently lesser rights than Jews do.

Indeed, some Talmudic references do refer to gentiles as "animals walking on two feet instead of four".

Even today, some Rabbis, such as David Batsri, invoke the "bestiality" of non-Jews, claiming that the Creator created them with two legs instead of four in deference to Jews, because it is not appropriate that Jews be served with four-legged animals.

It is true that this view is not shared by all Rabbis, especially the enlightened ones. However, it is also true that some prominent sages holding both Halachic and historical weight are among the main advocates of this pure racism.

For example, according to the code of Maimonides (Rambam): "A Jew who killed a non-Jew is exempt from human judgment, and has not violated the prohibition of murder."

This code is implicitly practiced by Jewish settler judges when dealing with Jews convicted of killing Palestinians, which explains the extremely light punishments meted out to the perpetrators, especially in comparison to Arabs convicted of the same felony.

And here's the perfect explanation for ummm...imperial supremacist hegemony:

"Jewish successes in the world are completely contingent upon the failure of all other peoples. Only when the gentiles face total catastrophe, Jews do experience good fortune."

And yet more shocking supremacist garbage...

https://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/living-under-israels-jewish-law/

Oh and here's our favorite Rabbi Ovadia:

"Non-Jews were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world-only to serve the People of Israel."

In Israel, death has no dominion over them With gentiles, it will be like any person-They need to die, but God will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one's donkey would die, they'd lose their money.

"This is his servant That's why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew."

"why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap; and we will sit like an effendi and eat."

"That is why gentiles were created."

And settler Rabbi Abraham Kook (great last name!):

"The difference between a Jewish soul and souls of non-Jews -- all of them in all different levels -- is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle."

Oh and here's Ovadia picking his own brain:

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/11/god-isnt-finished-with-me-yet.html

Teach your children well; to load Kalashnikovs write on bombs that kill and main Palestinian children and kick and spit on their poor grandmothers while you pull off their hijab.

This is what the new generation of Zionists are learning.

TomGard , Mar 22, 2014 2:45:05 PM | 137

The actual kinship of zionism and US-imperialism is based on both israel and the US are settler-societies that never came to be nations.

The expression "nation-state" inverses the factual notions of nation and state. Though a state can enforce submission it can't establish sovereignty. Souvereignty has to be effected by mental and ideological submission of the subject itself to his master and therefore its not fully established without the rule of law.

While the American secession war is duly called a civil war, because it established rule of law within the union states it left the relation of union states to the federal state widely outside this rule. The rule of the federal state became and stayed a military and mafia-like hegemony established on constant war and the amalgamation of military, political and economic clout in corporative elite clans, families, alumnis and the union bureaucracy itself.

The force, that drove this rule of war and corporative hegemony in the American federation after the civil war was accomplishment of the genocide of native cultures. It followed (selection): Spanish-American war, Philippine war, the enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine in Cuba, Hawai, Samoa, Venezuela. But it had another component: The federal war on the working class and their partly imported organizations. Then followed WWI and WWII, which were essentially wars against the French and British empire.

So the USA never became a nation. The settler-state of freedom of private property was directly converted to an empire-state ruled by a corporative elite of oligarchs, military staff and a serfing legion of descendant bureaucratic personnel.

It is easy to see, that the never established and unestablishable "Jewish State", the corporative military rule of a zionist Oligarchy in Israel follows roughly the same pattern.

This is a kind of basic line in a history full of contradictions. Mind the suez-war followed by the nuclear armament of Israel by France against the will of the american hegemon. And mind that Israel nowadays has but one enemy it has to fear: The faction of US-elite, which wants to establish a new and stable order in the middle east instead of "creative" chaos in favour of Israel and SA. The faction that would welcome an iranian gas-pipeline from South Pars to the mediterranian, try to keep the integrity of Syria and Lebanon and split the GCC.

...

I tried my best to bring forward my thougts in a tongue that never became mine although I read it every day, because there was nobody deconstructing the "zionist evil"-talk without referring to quasi-religious attitudes and delusive facts and figures that tell nearly nothing about their coherence. If it was too bad - just tell me and I won't follow up or try again.

TomGard , Mar 22, 2014 4:09:30 PM | 144
Nora 138

Okay, thank you, then I want ro add an inference though it needed a bunch of constituents and chain-links to corroborate it:

The US Federal State is warring for it's very existance. If it ends being the executive power of imperialistic metropolises it will probably fall apart, even in the most favorable circumstances you might think of, because of its lack of national substance.

Thats the interface to the fight of the zionist oligarchy for their status as "villa in the jungle", their rule as warlords who can and "must" project power in all the near and middle east and even north africa to stay the ruling power in Palestine. This strongly associates them to the before mentioned faction of the US-elite, especially the MIF(inancial)C.

There is no other evil as the evil of war and it's cause in freedom and accumulation of competing private property.

Nora , Mar 22, 2014 4:22:33 PM | 145
TomGard,

I've cut-and-pasted everything bc I just can't give it the time it deserves right this afternoon. I will though, I promise: it just may take me a little while bc it's a very different way of looking at things and I really need to examine it more carefully. And again, thank you, it's really good food for thought and I'll give it my best.

james , Mar 22, 2014 5:14:35 PM | 146
@137 /144 - tomgard. i 2nd nora's response to you in that i find your commentary highly educational in so far as you articulate a similar viewpoint of mine, but from a very different angle. i am curious what you mean by MIF(inancial)C. - that sounds like what i tend to think military/industrial/financial/complex.. they are definitely rolled into one, even though people look at these entities as being separate and not connected..
MRW , Mar 22, 2014 5:31:58 PM | 150
The result of the neocon meddling in Ukraine has created, as usual, a terrible mess for the "west" and even more so for the Ukrainians. Is there any way to prevent a repeat of such misdeeds?
Yeah, sticking the neocons under water for a week.
amspirnational , Mar 22, 2014 6:00:53 PM | 153
The American political Elite consists of both Zionists and Anglophiles. Just as Lindbergh said.

Now, as far as the Iraq War, as Congressman Moran said, the Jews were not even nearly solely responsible for driving the United States in, based on WMD lies, but as a group they could have politically vetoed the move, dominant and decisive. On other foreign/domestic matters, your fractional mileage may vary.

kalithea , Mar 22, 2014 6:52:36 PM | 155
Blood diamonds are...a Zionist's best friend!
Dan Gertler's grandfather, Moshe Schnitzer (d. November 2007), was known in Israel as "Mr. Diamond;" in youth he joined the pre-state underground organization Etzel (Irgoun), an Israeli military cell self-defined as an "untra-nationationalist Jewish militia," but one that committed acts of terrorism in service to the Israeli cause.8 Moshe Schnitzer assumed a major role in the Africa-Israeli diamond trade in the 1950's in a partnership business called Schnitzer-Greenstein. Schnitzer later founded the Israel Diamond Exchange in Tel Aviv in 1960, which today brings Israel $14 billion annually in blood business, and is the country's second-largest industry, but Israel's top export. King Leopold III of Belgium decorated Schnitzer in recognition of his activities favoring the close relationship of Belgium, Israel and the DeBeers diamond cartels, and Schnitzer was also President of the Harry Oppenheimer Diamond Museum in Israel.80

The diamond jewelry trade in the United States is more than $30 billion annually, and 99% -- everything that is not synthetic or artificial diamonds -- involves blood diamonds and the above organized crime syndicates. Israel buys more than 50% of the world's rough diamonds, and the U.S. buys two-thirds of these. The diamond factories are located in Nethanya, Petach Tikvah, Tel Aviv, Ramat Gan, Jerusalem, and other cities around the country, but most of the offices were in Tel Aviv in the financial district on Ahad Ha'am Street.81 Dan Gertler's father, Asher Gertler, and his uncle, Shmuel Schnitzer, manage the original family business, and Shmuel is Vice-Chairman of the Belgian-based World Diamond Council -- the entity that spends more money promoting the false image of "conflict-free" diamonds than it does helping any of the people dispossessed or brutalized by the diamond industry.48

On August 16, 2007, Rabbi Bentolila in Kinshasa received a communication asking: "What does the Torah say about men exploiting other men for vast profits while other men are starving and dying all around them? Is there some hierarchy to the Torah that suggests, for example, that black people or Africans are lesser beings, and therefore not to be a concern where profound profits are being made?"

There was no reply from Rabbi Bentolila, he was apparently busy readying for another Bar Mitsvah in Belgium. Unfortunately for Dan Gertler and his spiritual advisers, the Torah says that a Jew can keep a slave, but a Jew kept as a slave must be redeemed, and that -- an empty, foolish justification for exploiting innocent people -- is how religion falsifies spirituality.

http://dissidentvoice.org/2008/02/gertlers-bling-bang-torah-gang/

Zionists seem to enjoy exploiting the poor and the oppressed...depraved bastards.

Debs is dead , Mar 23, 2014 12:39:23 AM | 158
So much confusion and little light.

The confusion began when b did one of his usual deliberate substitutions to provoke a bit of thought by substituting slavery for empire.

The normal confusion, generally engendered by the more pedantic of us whenever b does a semantic substitution, was hugely increased when b himself confused two asshole neocons of similar name with each other.

Normally b's substitutions generate thought because the concept summoned by the original wording is considerably different to the concepts generated by its replacement.

This is not the way it is with empire and slavery - two concepts I have always believed to be pretty much indistinguishable from one another.

That is the heart of the issue here, but but adding the confusion from the juxtaposition of similar terms is the confusion many people have about slavery.

For me slavery is enforced labour where a human, regarded as the property of another, is forced to live in a way that is beneficial to his/her 'masters' wants, with no regard for his/her own needs.

Amerikan slavery just like the slavery instituted by the original english colonisers, also featured no payments or wages be given the slaves.

That isn't always the case slaves who are paid are still slaves and may be worse off because of that. The Greek slaves who worked as doctors, secretaries, and retail assistants in imperial Rome frequently were paid for their work, but they were still slaves - their lives were not their own. They were humans who belonged to someone else.

Berkeley is correct at #118 where he points out that slavery without pay ultimately destroys capitalism.

This is why amerika had a civil war. The southern elites wanted to continue as always importing African slaves and paying them nothing, while providing the bare minimum for survival as food & shelter. The factory and retail giant owning Northen elites couldn't give a flying fuck about 'the rights of man' they wanted to get richer that is why they went to war.

The northern elites preferred the form of slavery that had been evolving in Europe since the industrial revolution, where slaves, imported from Europe and more culturally acclimated to factory work than Africans, whose culture and sense of self had been deliberately destroyed, leaving the recipients of that horror in a vacuum.

The 'new slaves' would be responsible for their own upkeep receiving minimum payment to keep themselves in food and shelter, just enough to (a) keep them highly motivated at work and (b) for the elites to profit by taking it back.

Both forms are slavery - the vast majority of humans born into poverty in so-called 'developed' nations such as amerika, england, or israel, have as little say in their own destiny as does a domestic slave in Saudi Arabia.

The biggest difference is that the rules are unwritten & unstated allowing the western elites great flexibility in fucking everyone else over.

They don't need to be written because once the responsibility for feeding yourself and your family is put onto your shoulders in the opprressive and domineering manner which neo-liberal unsocieties put on individuals, the majority follow the same well worn path to personal impoverishment and elite enrichment.

Those who veer off the path - climb outta the rut - can be picked off one by one as needs must. Occasionally one may achieve independence in the form of what seems to be economic self determination, but with few exceptions that is because their divergence suits (& enriches), the slave owners.

This egregious exploitation of ordinary, normal, unsociopathic, humans by the sociopathic elites has been around a lot longer that the organised political movement created to enable followers of Judaism to colonise the Jordan Valley.

If permitted to, ruthless domination of the decent by the greedy will continue long after the zionists have been driven out of the area and the land returned to its original indigenous owners.

Palestinians are the descendants of the people who stayed on, minding their farms and orchards when the despotic monarchists who had comprised Jerusalem's ruling elite fled from their Roman replacements.

It isn't merely incorrect to put the cart before the horse by blaming amerikan imperialism on the corrupt israeli regime, it is fucking dangerous and destructive - firstly because it causes too much time and energy be spent upon a mob of petty crims (yes they are psychopaths, but in comparison to the crimes of amerika, israeli leaders are petty crims), but most importantly because blaming 'the jews' for the world's ills is so destructive to resistance against the asshole elites.

If the elites are to be beaten it will be when all the 'normal' humans have stuck together in common cause against those who consciously butcher any/all of us for profit.

Once we have learned not to be distracted by deliberately nurtured divisive arguments about race, gender, nationality etc - then we will rid ourselves of the leeches and then, that time, provided we have managed to do so without making any scapegoats, maybe then we will be able to asshole-proof our communities ensuring no new sociopaths slink in again under cover of saving us from oldies, 'those kids', morbidly obese, anorexics, gypsies, kaffirs, niggers or jews.

DM , Mar 23, 2014 1:22:26 AM | 160

...Israel as a vassal state of the US http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/158624

U.S. to Israel: You Decide Nukes in Iran, We Decide Bedrooms in Jerusalem http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2009/07/us-israel-iran-nukes-bedrooms-jerusalem

somebody , Mar 23, 2014 2:34:39 AM | 162
@161

How many inhabitants does Israel have? How many the US? What percentage of US citizens are Jewish? You must have a theory of Jews being the superior race if you think they can dominate. Of course Israel is a puppet state. What people are trying with their "anti-zionist" theories of "zionist" rulership of the world is very transparent. They are either crazy and obsessed or they try to intentionally disrupt the discussion. They sure don't know anything about history, about who got killed and why.

The recipe is so simple. Tell the stupid class xy people are responsible for their trouble, make them fight each other and rule them.

TomGard , Mar 23, 2014 4:55:48 AM | 165
Debs is dead | Mar 23, 2014 12:39:23 AM | 158

Substituting exploitation of labor-power for slavery, then the rule of law in trade and exchange for rule of a "greedy", "indecent", "sociopathic" (and, as many consequently say: mentally ill) elite introduces one tribe ("lunatics") for another ("Jews") and therefore an alternative racist doctrine. Both are manifestations of still the same patriarch pattern of subjugation of one gender to the other (slavery of women), "order" vs. "chaos", rule of command vs. rule of reason, rule of decalogue over collective knowledge and judgement,"good" over "evil", and, following up this pattern, rule of a pristhood over patriarchs, of "God" over "men", of intellectual workforce ("Kopfarbeit) over handcraft and, ultimately, the worship of psyche. It's religion combined with the everyday racist interpretation of competition- results by a mix of functionally allocated benchmarks of (awe of) "success" and (worship of) "virtue". The slightly "modern" manifestations, mythologies and patterns are toothless against the inquisitional redoctrination of "good" and "evil" in times of war, that shows up in a renaissance and reconstruction of tribal thought.

Don't know if this rant was kind of understandable, so, simply:

There is no such THING as "common cause" . That's the simple source and agent of racism! But if it's so one has to infer: There is a common source of the delusion of "common cause" that is transformed in tribal or racist thought. I name this common source: Negation of class struggle. Wage-labor is a historical formation of slavery, thats right, and its based on sheer military power like antique slavery, thats right as well. Its usefull and even necessary to remind those roots, but, since the social fundament of wage-labor slavery is not only different, but antithetic to elder formations, its criticism and scandalization has to be different and even antithetic. "Freedom" is not a cause, even less a "common" one, there is no such THING as freedom except freedom of private property. Walking freely is a cause of lust, convenience and a resulting desire. If it becomes obligative and necessary freedom is over and delusion comes in, solemnizing free movement against the bondage of slavery. Americans could have learned this of native leaders they preferred to stab when they couldn't break them in cages.

dan of steele , Mar 23, 2014 6:07:39 AM | 166
@somebody #162

that indeed is a silly argument.

World's 85 richest individuals have as much money as 3.5billion poorest people PUT TOGETHER

the poor are many, the rich are few. Why do the rich control their lives as well as those of all the poor? What is the ratio of guards to prisoners in a jail? by your logic the prisoners should be in control.

seriously, you can do better than that.

regardless, there is way too much time and effort spent on blaming the jews for this mess. there was plenty of inequality before Moses led the slaves out of Egypt.

somebody , Mar 23, 2014 6:24:46 AM | 167
166) Of course, numbers translate into political influence.

But in the last analysis power is in the end of a gun. Money gets you nothing if you cannot defend it. So let's compare the sizes of the US army and the Israeli army, shall we?

The "zionist conspiracy" theory is designed for the "stupid class".

Juan Moment , Mar 23, 2014 7:22:19 AM | 168
somebody @167
[...] But in the last analysis power is in the end of a gun. Money gets you nothing if you cannot defend it. [...]
Sure, no guns no power, but at the same token, no money no guns. You see, one needs the money first, and thats where your friendly neighborhood banker comes into the picture. But before it gets too conspiratorial for you, I better won't elaborate any further.
[...] So let's compare the sizes of the US army and the Israeli army, shall we? [...]
Why? Would only make sense to do so if we'd assume those two are enemies. But they are not. They are close allies, to the point that if Israel would be attacked by any force strong enough to cause sweat in Tel Aviv the US would without blinking once have its military might come to the rescue.

That's why I called NATO Israel's ultimate henchmen, troops it knows it can call on should things get hairy one day.

Since the start of the 20th century no country was allowed to attack the US Navy without getting its teeth kicked in, just Israel. Nearly sinking in 1967 the USS Liberty, killing 34 US sailors and wounding more than a 100, but still best friends. Weird relationship to say the least, better not think too much about it.

somebody , Mar 23, 2014 8:16:00 AM | 169
@168

Well, then lets compare the US GDP to Israel's GDP. Sorry, there is no way Israel can dominate the US. Just more dumbing down the "stupid class".

Rowan Berkeley , Mar 23, 2014 8:36:30 AM | 170
The reason the above argument is irresolvable is that neither side is willing to query the relatively PC term "Zionists" in favour of the more inclusive "Jews". They say that to do this would be "divisive of the class struggle", which obviously is supposed to be against "the bourgeoisie", whoever they are - technically, I should say, all those who live off profits or as they call them 'dividends'. But anyway, this brings us back to the weakness in Marx himself which I mentioned before, namely the apparently deliberate neglect of the power of bankers over industrial capitalists, which even in the 1860s must have been quite evident. So we have to ask, who are the bankers, specifically, the 'merchant bankers' who financed the development of western colonialism, and after them the 'international bankers' who orchestrate the global pecking order under neo-colonialism. There cannot be more than a few tens of thousands of these specialised creatures, worldwide, and one would like to know whether, by the ruse of history, many of them are Jewish. Then the artificial question of 'Zionists' versus 'Non-Jewish USAian Imperialists' would resolve itself, because we would be able to see who was pulling the money strings, which ultimately decide all questions great and small.
hans , Mar 23, 2014 9:14:16 AM | 171
Kagan, while he is of Jewish belief, has Zionist tendency, his and his kind ultimate aim, is the resurrection of the Khazar empire, the control of the desert religions, the destruction of the Rus as a nation state.
Juan Moment , Mar 23, 2014 9:54:40 AM | 172
Somebody, you keep referring to the stupid class. By doing so you're putting yourself right in it, subset "chardonnay sipping intellectual up themselves bozos".
Well, then lets compare the US GDP to Israel's GDP. Sorry, there is no way Israel can dominate the US. [...]
You are stuck in this idea that one country dominates the other. What would help our discussion along is if you would open your mind to the possibility a third party dominates both countries. Once you allow for this reality the weird and opaque relationship the US and Israel have, or the EU for that matter, starts to make sense.

The fact that there is this seemingly never ending discussion going on about which country is the dog and which one the tail should tell you that there are enough arguments to be found to make either theory appear plausible. The only way that is possible is if there is a third "unifying" theory, one which explains those arguments without confusion.

And I am afraid to tell you man, the reason those two countries act in unison so often and have each others back in all important international affairs is because the top echelons in both countries live at the whim of someone far more powerful than them. A group of people who with their extended family have say 10 trillion dollars in assets, that's three times Germany's GDP, and control a network of influence so wide and ingrained it knows no rival.

Rowan @170

[...] But anyway, this brings us back to the weakness in Marx himself which I mentioned before, namely the apparently deliberate neglect of the power of bankers over industrial capitalists, which even in the 1860s must have been quite evident. So we have to ask, who are the bankers, specifically, the 'merchant bankers' who financed the development of western colonialism, and after them the 'international bankers' who orchestrate the global pecking order under neo-colonialism. [...]
Great summary. Their fingerprints are all over the history of wars.

I don't believe its tens of thousands, at the very tip of the pyramid, where there isn't much room left for competition as wealth is so concentrated a clash would cause death to all, I expect a couple of hundred at the most.

kalithea , Mar 23, 2014 1:01:54 PM | 173
@162 somebody
They are either crazy and obsessed or they try to intentionally disrupt the discussion. They sure don't know anything about history, about who got killed and why.

The only person trying to intentionally disrupt is YOU.

I haven't posted consistently on this blog since the Ukraine crisis, so I didn't much analyze the intentions of every poster. But it didn't take me long to have you pegged. You are as transparent as Zionists come. You divert, you distract all discussion away from the real guilty party. That's your main mission here. A hasbara spy in the house of free speech.

FYI, it's not the percentage, buddy, it's the power. Occupy was protesting against the 1% holding all the power and hoarding all the wealth.

If I do a run-down of the heads of all the top banks, equity capital and venture capital firms; I'm talking those that have hundreds of billions invested in the whole spectrum of American industry I come up with at least 80% run by supporters of Zionism. That's a whole lot of power behind Zionism!

So don't give me the percentages bullshit, what level of intelligence quotient do you think we own around here??? Quit insulting our intelligence!

kalithea , Mar 23, 2014 2:41:11 PM | 175
@164 radiator
boy, this "zionism" discussion is getting a but much, lately...

Uh, no. IMO, the subject of Zionism has been way too neglected everywhere, especially considering the gravity of our situation and the increasing threat that Zionism presents to the integrity of justice and our own freedoms in the West, and security in this day and age. Never mind the Palestinians; WE are at risk now. Our own rights are under fire here!

The start of Neoconism led by Kagan, Kristol, Wolfowitz, Feith and others (the majority, Zionists) was the start of the Zionization of America and subsequently the Zionization of other Western nations, the U.S., Canada and U.K being the most affected with Australia and others now catching up.

Of course it started quietly, sinuously working its way through the system trying not to attract too much attention. But ever since the exposé on the Lobby, we're starting to discover just how rampant is Zionism's influence and hold and how much control is exerted on the public's perception and how it's already started chiseling away at rights we used to take for granted.

We are so bombarded with propaganda now in the Zionist media that we've all turned to the internet because we no longer trust the media. But now, they're after our rights and freedom here!

I read a saying the other day that went something like this: The Palestinians will never be free until America is freed. How true! But this problem isn't only America's any more.

Today I posted somewhere else a modified version of MLKs quote on justice: An injustice to someone anywhere is an injustice to us all everywhere. Because it's so true, that if we allow that injustice to fester indefinitely, in particular, the injustice against Palestinians and ignore or smother the problem; eventually the rest of us will be subjected to a version of that injustice.

I'll tell you something, every airport in the world is starting to ressemble Ben Gurion. When I travel now; I feel like I'm at an Israeli checkpoint; I can almost taste the abuse! I can only imagine the level of humiliation and pain Palestinians endure daily.

Our freedom of speech is also on the line; the internet is no longer a free speech zone; we are monitored; we are censored; we are bombarded with junk. When I research now, I feel like the results have been altered, like what may appear to be offensive events or fact has been relegated to back pages or altogether removed to pink wash or whitewash what is happening. It almost feels like the search engine is laundering information and spitting it out in the cleanest order. Is it my imagination? I don't think so; I've been using the internet for quite some time and I'm noticing a change; something's off now.

Our privacy is threatened more than ever. Our intuitive intellect is being smothered or ridiculed. Our financial system is dominated by individuals who not only are supporting a grave injustice, which I believe is supremacist imperialism emerging from Zionism, but they're intent on creating a uniform system globally that is affecting the livelihoods of millions everywhere with a selfish supremacist intention in mind based on monopolization. This is as well as I can express it given my limited economic understanding; but I'm witnessing the results and I like everyone else is in the position to judge and criticize and stop this outrage.

The Federal Reserve has been run by a succession of Zionists, as is the IMF and the top 1%, well just look it up; it's all there; it's disheartening.

Honestly, wherever one looks, one sees a Zionist driving the system. What can I say, if they had honorable, decent, altruistic intentions; personally I might not give a shit; but I really don't like where we're heading; I really don't like where they're steering and I feel my rights and everyone's rights are being threatened and diminished and I don't want my country and the world heading down this destructive path.

When they started accusing Occupy of anti-Semitism it appeared like Zionism was trying to control the 99%'s right to protest, in order not to discover how really rampant Zionism is at the top 1%. I see it; everyone knows it, but we're being muzzled and wrist tied with that pity card "anti-Semitism" that has turned into a whip against our rights instead of a means to protect people from hate crimes.

Maybe, you and those who want to shield Zionism try to deny what our eyes plainly recognize as a threat to our freedom! Do our eyes deceive us? You want us to stop seeing by telling us our lying eyes deceive us or we're anti-Semites? Bullshit! Our eyes and our intuition don't deceive us! And we won't be robbed of our rights so that a supremacist ideology can exist, be legitimized and carry on with impunity permanently!

There is the chaff and the wheat here. The wheat see without denying their inner voice and the chaff are here to ridicule that voice and distract from the truth.

kalithea , Mar 23, 2014 5:41:31 PM | 184
@182 Copeland

Well I see the hasbara reinforcements have arrived!

The "zionism" discussion is no discussion at all, but a constant, percussive irritant.

And expect it to get progressively more constant, progressively more irritating and percussive. This is but the beginning of Ravel's bolero, my friend because we're still at the beginning, it's still a whisper, but it's gonna turn into a ROAR. Zionism is going to be exposed for all it is, for the criminal supremacist, racist ideology that it is. It's really to bad for your that it's so fatally flaw and that it's expiry date is already is view! You're on the wrong side of history and I can't wait til you eat your words. It's coming!

james , Mar 23, 2014 6:06:17 PM | 185
@182 and @184 -

kalithea, i tend to agree with copeland fwiw.. does every conversation have to turn into a discussion on zionism? as for mr. pragma's creative use of the letter z, it is a bit inane on another level. i am willing to accept and agree with the fact it is a large issue and of concern, but that to bring it into every conversation seems redundant. while it is true the thread title makes for a natural fit here, but that is not the case with every thread. i think that is partly what copeland is getting at and i agree with them on this.

Mr. Pragma , Mar 23, 2014 6:11:16 PM | 186
Wow, me impressed.

So, some people have no qualms about zusa wanton mass murdering thousands and thousands ... but they are gravely irritated by someone adding a letter too often?!

Whenever I think the zionists have finally hit the bottom of the pit they somehow manage to pierce through to an ever deeper level.

But I'm a well minded man, so I make you an offer: As soon as zionists stop slaughtering innocent people I shall refrain from adding the of so harmful and evil letter 'z' to words, OK.

kalithea , Mar 23, 2014 7:55:47 PM | 187
Tom G
No, seriously, I hope I never will have to deal with your "argument".

I got bad news for you and your fellow legion of hasbarists: expect my argument, ie the truth about Zionism, to grow exponentially, and to get more constant and more persuasive and to go viral with millions more. You can't stop this cause anymore; you can't stop the truth from busting loose and becoming the pain in your ass it'll be until it's acknowledged.

Before Obama was first elected in 08, I was being censored and labelled an anti-Semite for referring to The Zionist Lobby as a den of spies and political browbeaters and hustlers for Zionism. And wo' and behold, turns out they've ruined careers, and were being investigated by the FBI for espionage. Few dared type Aipac or Zionism in a negative context for fear of being banned. Now, we can justifiably attack these from every angle because they're proving exactly what they are and many of us predicted they were.

We've come a long way, baby! And this is going all the way until Zionism goes down into the pages of historical INFAMY, and nothing less will suffice!

You can ridicule all you want, but I won't rest and neither will the growing number, who believe as I do that Zionism is a threat to us all and not just to Palestinians!

james @185:

The Zionist connection redundant? Not a chance! What it is, is pivotal in getting to the heart of these foreign interventions.

Lest you forget, we're usually discussing a consistent policy of foreign meddling: in Libya, Syria, Ukraine, possibly Russia and Iran next, each one practically rebounding off the other because Syria was the road to Iran and Russia, and Ukraine is to Russia what Syria is to Iran in this agenda; the proxies; it's all connected and if you don't get this; you're dumber than I thought or pretending to be.

Russia doesn't only have a port at stake in Syria, Russian companies are involved in gas and oil exploration off Syria's coast, an area that Zionists want to hoard for themselves, and Russia was heavily involved in Libya and Iraq until the mess created in both which weakened Russian influence in both, although Russia's trying to recover it, another reason Russia's a thorn in Zionism's side. And Ukraine is the strategy to get Russia mired in a problem on its own doorstep to take Russia's focus off Syria, deprive it of Tartus, and again try to weaken its influence in the Middle East, and at the same time weaken Russia's economy so that it will never be a competitive threat again in the Middle East! So you bet Zionism's fingerprints are all over this! And the connections to Zionism go beyond what I've just stated which I've already outlined in other posts.

All these incursions even Ukraine are linked to ZIOCON foreign agenda; forget neocon forever; the term "Neocon" was always a red herring; a Zionist euphemism used to disguise how many Zionists are actually involved in the hegemonic operation.

So don't give me that redundant crap. Neocons are ZIONISTS with an aggressive global initiative based on neutralization; and they're driving this policy and you better believe I'm going to harp on that!

Copeland , Mar 23, 2014 8:43:09 PM | 189
@184 kalithea

It's easy to see the mental disturbance occurring in the writings of a polemicist, in the mindless overuse of a particular word in any given tract. It's obvious kalithea, that an abundance of couple of these words, is not a question of style in your writing, but of obsession. First of all, this is a literate group, composed of a lot of longtime readers. Another thing is that your irresponsible use of "hasbara" is nothing but a smear against those who have a record here of opposing the outrages of Israeli governments, and their war crimes, about which you bark. This doesn't make you look so good.

What you remind me of most, is an enforcer of party discipline, whose job it is to crack the whip, and to hand out censures, in other words, to excoriate and verbally abuse anyone who doesn't keep to your dogma.

The issue of the injustices handed out to Palestinians has been focused upon by most of us here for a long time; but it is not courageous, or good of you, to fire polemic broadsides, or to dispense wantonly,

the charges of hasbara, upon anyone who hasn't tipped over into your particular fantasies.

Debs is dead , Mar 23, 2014 10:54:27 PM | 191
I don't have time for those who seek to use the crimes committed against jews by europeans to excuse the crimes committed by israel against the indigenous people of the Jordan Valley, but I don't believe that is what Tom G is doing. I supposed he was pointing out that having half yer family knocked off by assholes tends to focus the mind (there is a lesson in there for israelis but if they haven't learned by now its unlikely they ever will).

Pragma et al may have confused predecessors with ancestors. Predecessor is not another word for ancestor; it is someone who precedes someone else in an office or title.

When I read Tom G's post which alluded to kalithea's predecessors I assumed that he was referring to the last mob of cheerleaders for judeophobia - the nazis.

At no stage did I consider Tom G had some sorta special insight into the mindset of kalithea's primogenitors.

Those people who focus upon a persons race rather than the person's actions are always gonna be susceptible to believing that others operate on the same basis.

I'm all for kicking alla the talk of antisemitism into touch as long as we can stick to considering people by what they say and do rather than what we believe their genetics to be.

kalithea , Mar 23, 2014 11:14:16 PM | 192
Occupy Wall Street was on the right track. People of the world need to rise up against the 1% banksters AND Zionism although they're one and the same. These forces are driving the Ziocon imperial advance. If Occupy hadn't dissolved because of winter; Zionists were ready to kill it because they were very worried that the Occupy Movement would eventually merge with the BDS movement against Zionism and gain momentum on a larger scale and this is exactly what was starting to happen. People are starting to feel like the Palestinians under Zionism; they're starting to feel like their leaders are collaborators with Zionism like Abbas and the PA negotiating to screw their people. People are feeling like they no longer have a voice against the powerbrokers in Washington and on Wall Street. They're feeling like they can't trust the media, because it's full of Ziocon propaganda. We are watched; we are listened to; we are monitored. We are now the OCCUPIED of Wall Street and Zionism.

There are all kinds of articles on the web written by Zionists condemning Occupy as anti-Semitic. Google Zionism and Occupy Wall Street. Why were Zionists so scared of Occupy? Because they know Wall Street is run by Zionists and everyone at Occupy knew saw this; that's why they're next target was The Lobby; and they were planning to occupy Aipac. Zionists realized that the Occupy movement getting closer and closer to the cause of Occupied Palestine. The Occupy Movement was starting to move against Zionism.

Zionism has no clothes and because we all see this FACT; they accuse us of anti-Semitism. Occupy Wall Street needs to mobilize again, and occupy not only Wall Street, but the Zionist Lobby as well as it planned to and join with the BDS movement, because if we don't mobilize soon against Ziocon expansion we will become the empire of Orwellian slavery that this Zionist Kaplan dreams of. Maybe that's Zionism's PROMISED LAND.

Pirouz_2 , Mar 23, 2014 11:20:24 PM | 193
"It isn't merely incorrect to put the cart before the horse by blaming American imperialism on the corrupt Israeli regime, it is fucking dangerous and destructive - firstly because it causes too much time and energy be spent upon a mob of petty crimes (yes they are psychopaths, but in comparison to the crimes of America, Israeli leaders are petty criminals), but most importantly because blaming 'the Jews' for the world's ills is so destructive to resistance against the asshole elites."

Thank god finally some one other than myself said this, and in a much more eloquent way than I could ever do; because I am afraid what 'mearsheimer and walt' are doing is precisely that : "putting the cart before the horse" and the direct implication of that is "blaming 'the jews' for the world's ills".

Sadly this is an inevitable consequence that very often is neglected by decent progressive people, in a way that I some times feel being a part of a very small minority even on this site!

kalithea , Mar 23, 2014 11:48:40 PM | 195
@191

I find your argument naive*, but I won't argue it, except for the short paragraph below; and whether he meant predecessors as in people he thinks held my beliefs, or he meant ancestors - it's still slanderous crap, because he doesn't know me and I am not no Nazi-lover just as I'm no Zionist lover! What I am sick to death of is that bloody victim card and having it shoved in my face like so much shit, and hung over me like the sword of Damocles! I am not German and even if I were I wouldn't be responsible for the crap Nazis pulled. That was then and this is now. I know what I see, I see Zionist supremacy, and I always call things as I see them and if he's offended. Tough, scroll or get lost.

I don't buy into exclusivity, exceptionalism or choseness bullshet of any kind and if that's some genetic bias than too bad get off the f*cking chosen pedestal! I can't stand monarchies either. And I really can't stand people who don't get the concept of universality.

Mr. Pragma , Mar 24, 2014 12:10:59 AM | 197
Oh well, predecessor, ancestor, whatever. I think everyone could understand what I was meaning.

Anyway TomGard can hardly know about kalitheas predecessors, ancestors, or whatever-cestors.

Debs is dead brought up an interesting point, which I'd like to extend.

Actually I remember quite well, what my first thought was when I for the first time didn't simply brush off as "oh well, palestinians are terrorists anyway" (I should mention that I was a young man then, quite innocent or stupid, depending on ones pov) but actually began to understand what israelis did there.

It was "Hell no! If anyone on earth is to know how evil it is to terrorize others for being of this or that race or for believing in this that God, then it must certainly be the israelis!"

For while my anger grew and I began to despise jews. Until one day a patient elderly french jew explained it me. He showed me the smearings on their synagogue and explained "whenever israel commits cruelties the smearings here in at our cemetery increase in frequency and anger".

That was my lesson about the jews and the israelis and about them not always being one and the same.

And although I had all I needed to understand more I still somehow didn't arrive at the conclusion that there might be evil planning behind it. It took me again several years and a coincidence to understand that the "jewish" in "jewish state" (israel) might actually be a really evil disguise and a perfidious one at that.

Perfidious because israel willfully abused the negative image of "the jews" for which they were responsible in the first place. But perfidious also because israel greatly profits from anti-semitism, both real and grossly attributed anti-semitism because it perfectly fits israels "jews should come to israel to live there" credo.

kiev is just another case of that in a series of cases.

There is a lot more to tell but I will cut it at that point for the moment.

But although it took me long to pervade through that complex matter and often disguised by different layers and tricks, I made it a habit to tell zionists who tried the "half of my family was killed by nazis" plot to mute someone that may dare to create demands on history once they have proven to themselves have learned from the nazi time what is to be learned, namely that racial or religious based terror is cruel, inhumane, and utterly despicable. Someone supporting a regime that acts not that much different from what the nazis have been accused have simply no right to recur on that time, and even less to base demands on it, as long as their very fucking own actions prove that, if at all, they only learned to be the criminals themselves in the very crime they complain about.

As far as I'm concerned israel can burn and so can all its supporters.

Pirouz_2 , Mar 24, 2014 12:36:08 AM | 199
Kalithea;

What you guys don't understand, is that "Zionism" is the manifestation of the global Western imperialism in middle east. It is nothing more. Is it ugly? Yes! Is it criminal? Yes! Is it responsible for all the crimes in the world? NO! Was Zionism responsible for the coup of 1953 in Iran? NO! Who was behind it? The Western imperialism! Was Zionism behind the coup in Guatemala in 1954? NO! Who was behind it? The Western imperialism! Was Zionism responsible for the coup against Sukarno? NO!

Was Zionism responsible for the Vietnam war? NO! Who was responsible it? The Western imperialism! Was Zionism behind the coup against Allende? NO! Who was behind it? The Western imperialism!

IN FACT: Was Zionism behind Zionism? NO! It was the Western imperialism and its ambitions to hegemonize the world energy resources which was behind Zionism to begin with (Balfour declaration)!

Israel's birth predates 1948! Its real birth was in 1939 when *BRITISH IMPERIALISM* massacred Palestinians and suppressed the Arab revolt! Zionism is the manifestation of the Western imperialism *in middle east* and not the other way around!

kalithea , Mar 24, 2014 3:26:39 AM | 201
@199
Was zionism behind zionism? NO! blah-blah

What a load of crock! Guys like Herzl and Jabotinsky were behind Zionism so don't gimme that crap.

I already wrote in another post here that power in the U.S. started turning Zionist sometime during Kennedy's Presidency, not that I blame him he was otherwise very occupied. So you could have saved yourself some time screaming all those historical references at me. And why are you so freakin' defensive anyway?

The Ziocon Jews Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Leo Strauss were the earlier founders of the so-called neoconservatism movement, and were vehemently opposed to relaxing foreign policy in regards to the Soviet Union and communism in general.

In the early nineties the Ziocon torch was passed on to the likes of William Kristol, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. And we all know what followed next...years of endless war.

All these "neocons" were Zionists and Jews and were instrumental in influencing foreign policy.

So as you can see Zionists and Zionism was leading the charge. Maybe you should read Paul Wolfowitz's speech at West Point.

Wolfowitz Doctrine...Not intended for public release, it was leaked to the New York Times on March 7, 1992,[1] and sparked a public controversy about U.S. foreign and defense policy. The document was widely criticized as imperialist as the document outlined a policy of unilateralism and pre-emptive military action to suppress potential threats from other nations and prevent any other nation from rising to superpower status.

A real manifesto for authored by a Zionist for supremacy and imperialiam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine

But this is not all the Zionist cabal authored as you well know: Zionist Pnac members also authored another document called:A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm

Next time do the research before you rant.

Pirouz_2 , Mar 24, 2014 1:22:59 PM | 203
kalithea;

This subject has been talked about extensively, and I really don't have the desire to get into a useless and endless debate recounting the history especially when people want to obstinately shut their eyes to the most obvious facts going on right before their eyes; facts such as what's going on in Ukraine and the bloody war waged to disintegrate Yugoslavia which has/had nothing to do with zionism.

I will just go over a couple of points in your argument which were quite nonsense (well your whole comment was nonsense but I will just go over a couple of points).

First of all US imperialism in particular and the Western imperialism in general did not start with Kennedy, the coup against Mosaddegh in 1953, the coup against Arbenz in 1954, the first indochina war (with absolute and active support of the French by the USA), the Korean war and the attrocities commited by USA in Korean peninsula, the whole hearted support for Batista and brutal suppression of the cubans, the coup against Patrice Lumumba, The colonization of India and brutal suppression of Indians by the british, the coup after coup made against the constitutional revolution in Iran etc. etc. ALL PREDATE Kennedy. In fact in case of USA its very inception was based on imperialism, land grab, ethnic cleansing, genocide and slavery, all happening LONG before Kennedy and having ZERO to do with zionism.

Secondly guys like Herzl and Jabotinsky are nothing but clowns. Ineffective idiots who without the active support and the absolute control and management of the Western imperialism would not be able to make an autonomous village let alone making an independent country based on ethnic cleansing and mass murder. Land grab through ethnic cleansing, mass murder of the native population and wars against all local nations require CAPITAL and MILITARY. And No capitalist invests such huge sums of capital without any rate of return. Capital is invested for RATE OF RETURN and a hegemony to make possible the continous flow of that rate of return, not for some nationalistic, racial or religious motive!

And so Israel was not created by the likes of Herzl, it was created by the force (monetary and military) of British empire, and such creations by the British was not peculiar to middle east and Israel, the British had many other such wonderous feats of crime all over the globe, of which Israel constitutes but a single example! The British did not create Israel because they were in love with the Jews or were obssessed with Jewish nationalism. They did it because it was PROFITABLE. Hegemony is always profitable. And they did in the middle east, what they had done all over the globe to maintain their hegemony and increase their profit. NOTHING MORE.

Had the geology followed a different trend and all that oil been formed some where other than middle east -say in the region of Tibet- Herzl and Jabotinsky would not have been even remembered today!

kalithea , Mar 25, 2014 1:59:26 AM | 209
Pirouz_2

Omg, where do I start? I won't; I don't even want to dignify most of that. First, if you want to be taken seriously, paragraphs might help.

Second, I never said imperialism started with Kennedy; at least quote me for God's sakes; it's in front of you! I said that power in the U.S. get it? i.e. those who wield power in the US , such power started changing hands from Anglo to Zionist during Kennedy's presidency, and I'm talking about the top of the corporate food chain, the super-wealthy who influence power in Washington, and the evolution of the Ziocon movement. But it started discreetly without becoming obvious. Only in the 1980s did it start becoming obvious, because it had grown so much and it's influence was becoming more transparent. The flaw with Zionists is that they're control freaks (rig every corner of the system as much as possible in Zionism's favor) maybe it has to do with latent paranoia, but that's the reality; don't blame me.

As far as the other wars you mention; most were to fight communism; but guess why the Ziocons, Kristol sr., Podhoretz and Strauss formed this Ziocon movement? To prevent Communism from spreading! They broke with the Democratic party because they saw these liberals trying to relax relations with the Soviet Union and they wanted to go in another direction: neutralize; using force.

You can blame the British all you want but around the late 50s early 1960s, again, while Kennedy was a rising star and becoming President, Zionists were in charge of their affairs, and the worst crimes of Zionism, the worst unilateral attacks on neighboring countries happened under Zionist sovereignty. Zionist were so in charge of their fiefdom that they started developing nuclear weapons behind Kennedy's back; that's how powerful they were becoming.

I stated over and over again that I'm not concerned with ancient history; I'm concerned with post-WWII after the Partition, when Zionists started bombing Palestinian villages, ethnic cleansing and massacre upon massacre. Okay Zionists started their terrorism before, but that was only to set the stage for frustrating the British to impose their rule over the Palestinians with brutal force.

Let's agree to disagree; you and r'giap and TomGuard can't stand my attacking Zionism, and the power it wields to keep perpetuating the longest-running most brutal occupation in modern history and committing crimes with total impunity. You don't get to subert the rule of law without astounding power and influence.

Your not so cogent narrative only serves to protect Zionism, and thus perpetuate this horrific injustice.

Dont' bother replying; you will never change my mind; I know what I see; and I'm going to call it as I see it: based on the obvious exponential growth of Zionist power in the U.S.; cause I repeat; you don't get away with such crimes with TOTAL impunity without pretty significant power, and stiffling that truth is what perpetuates Zionist Injustice against Palestine. That power sustains injustice!

Arnold Lockshin , Mar 28, 2014 7:08:45 AM | 211
Defense of slavery and the slave trade -- the most inhuman form of exploitation conceivable. Defense of United States imperialism. One and the same. Arnold Lockshin, political exile from the US living in Moscow
Rowan Berkeley , Mar 28, 2014 8:10:11 AM | 212
It's very convenient for you, Arnold, to blame simply "US imperialism", as if it fell out of the sky. It didn't. It was directed by finance capital, which is not an impersonal force but a collection of individual investors, more than a few of whom are interested particularly in Jewish welfare, as they conceive it: that is to say, they want to use Jewish issues, to which the general US public is already well conditioned, to push through an entire program of global domination by force. One wonders who these individuals are, and why they chose Jewish issues as their cover, if they're not Jews.

[Aug 08, 2018] The CIA, FBI, and US army killed Dr. King with the help of their organized crime assets. JFK might be killed the same way

Aug 08, 2018 | www.unz.com

From: Civil War II Coming by Kevin Barrett

William Pepper -- the King family's attorney who proved in a court of law that the CIA, FBI, and US army killed Dr. King with the help of their organized crime assets -- once spoke with a US Army Colonel who admitted to helping plan the assassination. The Colonel said that the military had done extensive focus group style interviews with participants in the 1967 race riots and determined that Dr. King's charisma was the biggest factor driving the riots.

Counterintuitively, the apostle of nonviolence was inspiring the psychological liberation of black people in such a way that a certain percentage felt empowered to act out their repressed anger. So when King determined to bring half a million followers to Washington, DC and stay there until the feds pulled out of Vietnam and declared a real war on poverty, the Colonel and his friends immediately envisioned the nation's capital erupting into mass violence that could spread nationwide on a scale many orders of magnitude beyond what had happened during 1967's Long Hot Summer, perhaps precipitating a real civil war culminating in the revolutionary overthrow of the American State. This, the Colonel explained to Pepper, was the primary reason King had to be terminated with extreme prejudice.

Predictably, the Deep State's murder of Dr. King did not solve the racial violence problem. The assassination itself set off a wave of new riots in cities including Chicago, Baltimore, and -- sorry, Colonel -- Washington, DC. White-dominated forces of the State retaliated with escalating repression. Black communities felt increasingly under siege, and have continued to feel that way until the present day.

[Jul 15, 2018] What Mueller won t find by Bob In Portland

Highly recommended!
So Mueller was a CIA mole in FBI fromthe very beginning. Interesting...
Notable quotes:
"... You could say that Mueller married into the CIA, except that his great uncle was Richard Bissell. So between his family and his wife's family Mueller had two of the three people that Kennedy fired before he was assassinated by a "lone nut", as well as the mayor who hosted the assassination. The third man fired was Allen Dulles, who sat on the Warren Commission and managed to keep the CIA out of the investigation into JFK's murder. Perhaps Dulles was a guest at the wedding. ..."
"... Mueller would invariably land on cases with Deep State intelligence connections. ..."
"... Mueller, who had been appointed Assistant U.S. Prosecutor under GHW Bush, became FBI Director under George W. Bush just in time not to see the CIA fingerprints on 9/11, which should not be surprising considering whom he didn't see when he investigated BCCI. ..."
"... Additionally, Mueller oversaw the anthrax letter case, never investigating Battelle Memorial Corporation, which had a building within a mile of the mailbox where the letters had been mailed. (Battelle Memorial's corporate motto is "It Can Be Done".) Instead, he centered FBI investigations on scientists in government labs in Fort Detrick, Maryland, who had neither the expertise nor the equipment to make the weaponized military grade anthrax found in the letters. One scientist sued and won millions. The other allegedly "committed suicide". Battelle is noteworthy because it handles the US military's anthrax program. Mueller had no interest that two of the targets who received anthrax letters were at the time the most vociferous opponents of the Bush Administration's Patriot Act. ..."
"... Perhaps his greatest accomplishment aiding the Deep State as FBI Director was his shutting down of Operation Green Quest, the FBI's investigation into the funding behind 9/11 and the terrorist network behind it. Names began popping up like Grover Norquist, the Muslim Brotherhood, old Nazis and the royal family of Luxembourg. Nothing to see here. Move along. ..."
"... @detroitmechworks ..."
"... Only thing missing for me was the tie in to Pappy Bush and the rest of the family. Mueller the consigliere of the CIA. Oh man how fucked are we? ..."
"... Great history of how corrupt Mueller has always been and how he has covered up for so many crimes. I'm just stunned by the number of people who have decided that Mueller's history and the history of the CIA, FBI and the other intelligence agencies wasn't that bad after all just because they are going after Trump. This selective amnesia is simply amazing, isn't it? ..."
"... Clinton's role in helping the CIA to smuggle drugs into Arkansas is never talked about either. Or if it is it's called "a right wing attempt to bring them down." ..."
"... that explains why centrist and liberal media have a disturbing tendency to rehabilitate some of the most vile, reactionary forces on the American right simply because they say vaguely negative things about Donald Trump -- a phenomenon we call "Trumpwashing." ..."
"... Just like Mueller, Brennan is one more war criminal whose actions seem to have been forgotten. ..."
"... Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations," according to the filing. ..."
"... Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump. ..."
"... Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations," according to the filing. ..."
"... Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump. ..."
"... The seas were calm and the skies were clear." ..."
"... "The reason why the ship went down is because of the massive storm that came out of nowhere." ..."
"... It would appear at first glance this is basically an effort at espionage only ..."
"... as it appears they don't ..."
"... I don't think anyone (including Mueller) anticipated that any of the defendants would appear in court to defend against the charges. ..."
"... Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations," according to the filing. ..."
"... Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump. ..."
"... Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations," according to the filing. ..."
"... Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump. ..."
Jul 12, 2018 | caucus99percent.com

In the 1950s, when the science fiction genre started making itself felt in movies, there was always the pivotal scene where the protagonist discovers the dark secret but no one will believe him: a flying saucer hidden under the sand in a field, truckloads of pod people to replace real people, or that the friendly aliens' book "To Serve Man" wasn't a guide to helping humans, but a cookbook. It's that moment of sudden realization that no one will believe the hero because it sounds too crazy to believe.

Granted, to the uninitiated, coming to a realization so shocking and threatening to your current mental construction of the world can appear like paranoia. It becomes a question of the discoverer's knowledge and senses over what everyone else believes. Everyone else seems to be allowing him or herself to be absorbed into the great growing evil.

Today many of us, certainly readers here at Caucus99, are finding ourselves in similar positions. Our political structure is a lie, the people who are supposed to represent us and our interests don't, our law enforcement protects the property of the rich, not our lives, and often are in cahoots with the criminals from whom we are supposed to be protected. I am sure that many of our old friends and acquaintances have been alienated from some of us here when we began talking about Hillary's track record during the Presidential campaign, for example. In our current pasteboard world, if you are a Republican or Democrat you must assume that your designated political party, maybe with a couple of exceptions, are there to look after you.

And there that crazy friend goes, yelling about cookbooks.

I suppose my introduction to the corruption of those in power, at thirteen, was the assassination of JFK. Not actually the assassination, but the murder of Oswald two days later, in the basement of the Dallas police headquarters. I had slept overnight at a friend's and we came back from shooting basketballs to watch the transfer of Oswald to another facility. That was the moment that I realized all wasn't what it seemed. But, like most kids my age, the Beatles came along in a month or so and I was swept into the world of rock and roll, which kept me occupied until I began noticing girls. Until 1968. I was still noticing girls and rock and roll, but I was also noticing the number of progressives being gunned down by "lone nuts". And I was noticing Vietnam.

I'm not sharing this to explain to you how I became (that loathsome term) a "conspiracy theorist". I just want to explain to you that the democracy of the United States, and all the characters running across the stage in Washington, D.C., are the cookbook.

I wrote an essay here back in April of 2017 explaining how the Russiagate scandal had been designed to give Hillary Clinton a casus belli for her future war against Russia, and that what we were seeing since she lost has been a recycling of it to get Trump in line with the goals of the Deep State. So far nothing much has happened that has moved me from that belief. Now that the Deep State seems to have persuaded our Dear Leader that he can go on being himself as long as he understands the actual hierarchy and doesn't get in the way the Deep State, everything seems to be back on track. At least until Donald's next tweet.

But in order to understand the depth of criminality in our system one has to understand how things are done. After World War II a lot of social awareness began putting pressure on the old system that had driven the world into the Great Depression. FDR had demonstrated that the government could look out for the poor, could give them jobs when there were no other jobs to be had. The GI Bill sent millions of vets to college and helped to create the middle class we used to have. Unions had real power in negotiating wages and terms of service. Government could create a system to help the elderly. The African Americans, coming back home from fighting a war against fascism, refused go to the coloreds only water fountains. In short, the United States were in for some growing pains.

What happened? As I mentioned above there was a rash of murders of progressive political candidates and leaders in the sixties. But in order for the forces behind a return to the old rules to keep a lid on any revolutions there had to be something better than shooting every progressive who raised his head above the lectern. Thus the wave of recruitment of agents and assets in the late sixties by the CIA, FBI and other agencies. Although I didn't know it directly at the time, arriving on campus in 1968 it was evident that there was a "presence" of people looking over the shoulders of student activists.

Which brings me to another great revelation. It's not just politicians and political parties that are serving the Deep State. Any agency that can be corrupted by power will be, eventually.

Which brings us to the courts.

There are certain things that must be preserved for a ruling class to remain legitimate in the eyes of the public. Some people don't think much beyond the flag. But there are other things. The media is better than ever at keeping uncomfortable truths from the majority of Americans. But what happens where the criminality of the Deep State collides with our judicial system?

Let me introduce you to the man of the hour in Washington, Robert Swann Mueller III. Robert was born into the upper crust in our American class system. At one point in his education in private schools John Kerry was a classmate. (Kerry was also a fellow Bonesman with the Bushes.) Mueller met his eventual bride, Ann Cabell Standish, at one of the dances they attended. They married in 1966, three years after John Kennedy's assassination. If you have read much about the JFK assassination you would recognize her middle name. Her grandfather, Charles Cabell, had been second in command at the CIA when John Kennedy was elected President. In the aftermath of the Bay of Pigs fiasco, Kennedy fired three men from leadership positions at the CIA: Director Allen Dulles, Cabell and Richard Bissell. Charles Cabell was Ann's grandfather. Her grand uncle, Earle Cabell, was the mayor of Dallas at the time of Kennedy's murder there. Recently declassified JFK documents revealed that Mayor Cabell was also an asset of the CIA at the time. Small world. You could say that Mueller married into the CIA, except that his great uncle was Richard Bissell. So between his family and his wife's family Mueller had two of the three people that Kennedy fired before he was assassinated by a "lone nut", as well as the mayor who hosted the assassination. The third man fired was Allen Dulles, who sat on the Warren Commission and managed to keep the CIA out of the investigation into JFK's murder. Perhaps Dulles was a guest at the wedding.

Soon thereafter Mueller decided to go to Vietnam because, he said, a classmate had died there and patriotism and so forth. He became an officer and eventually ended up as an aide-de-camp for the 3rd Marine Division's commanding general, General William K. Jones. Something else was going on in Vietnam. The CIA had installed its Phoenix Program. I cannot do justice to the Phoenix Program and won't considering Doug Valentine's work on it is available for everyone, but the Phoenix Program was the CIA's attempt to totally control the Vietnamese population. Besides massacres of villages, the program assassinated suspected leaders and spies for the Vietcong, coerced others into being their agents, and kept up files on all the relevant Vietnamese down to the village level. Like in later wars, the CIA incorporated torture, murder and psychological techniques in order to control their targets. As an aide-de-camp to a commanding Marine general, there is no way that Mueller didn't know about the Phoenix Program. He probably saw daily briefings.

When he came back to the US he studied law and quickly became a federal prosecutor.

One of the things to mark his career was to deny a pardon to Patty Hearst for her part in the whole Symbionese Liberation Army's "terror" campaign. What did the SLA have to do with anything? A short history: Donald DeFreeze, a small-time criminal in Los Angeles agreed to become an informant for the LAPD in order to stay out of jail. After awhile he got tired of ratting out others and asked to get out of the program. Instead, DeFreeze was incarcerated at the Vacaville Medical Facility for criminally insane prisoners in the California penal system. There DeFreeze met Colston Westbrook who gave classes for the "Black Cultural Association", an experimental behavior modification unit inside the prison. Who was Westbrook? He was a CIA agent, trained in psychological warfare and part of the Phoenix Program. DeFreeze was modified by Westbrook and company for two years. Soon thereafter, he was transferred to Soledad Prison, from which he "escaped" and became the infamous "Cinque". Then came the Symbionese Liberation Army, a caricature of a black militant group filled with mostly white people with military backgrounds. The murder of Marcus Foster, a progressive black leader in the San Francisco East Bay, was done by white men in blackface, according to eyewitnesses. The SLA claimed credit for it. The SLA kidnapped Hearst, subjected her to torture, rape, sensory deprivation and mind control tactics, just like the CIA did in the Phoenix Program in Vietnam. Then came the bank robberies.

I bring up the Patty Hearst case because, in 2000, decades after her prison sentence had been commuted, Mueller still opposed her pardon. Guess what he didn't notice when he rejected her pardon? This has been his pattern throughout his career. We'll return to Patty Hearst shortly.

Mueller has presided over many cases where it's been important for the prosecutor to overlook the fingerprints of the CIA. He prosecuted what was known in the San Francisco Bay Area as the "drug tug" case which had connections to an island in Panama. It was a drug smuggling case and had tentacles into things like bank frauds in Northern California. He prosecuted Manuel Noriega's drug-smuggling without noticing Oliver North's drug-smuggling, arms running and money laundering through Panama as a part of Iran-contra.

Mueller would invariably land on cases with Deep State intelligence connections.

For example, he prosecuted Pan Am 103. Initially, and then later confirmed by an insurance investigator's report, the bomb that brought down the airliner was believed to be placed onboard by baggage handlers working at the Frankfurt Airport. They were given the bomb by a terrorist cell who in turn got it from one Monzer al-Kassar, who was a very large heroin dealer, estimated at supplying twenty percent of the US's heroin at the time. A big operator. And, in fact, one of the passengers on the plane was a drug mule for al-Kassar. Al-Kassar also happened to be a part of the Iran-contra operation, supplying weapons for North's Enterprise. The operation was, according to the early reports, carried out by a cell of Palestinian terrorists based in Frankfurt, the Palestinian Liberation Front-General Command, who got the bomb from al-Kassar and put the bomb on that airline.

Mueller, put in charge of the case, pursued an entirely different direction, accusing two Libyans of bombing the plane. At the time Libya and Khadafy were getting blamed for a lot of terrorist activity, but the case against the two was so weak as to hardly be circumstantial.

There were other questions arising from Pan Am 103. A top official in the FBI, Oliver "Buck" Revell, rushed onto the tarmac in London to pull his son and daughter-in-law off of Pan Am 103 before it went on to explode over Lockerbie, Scotland. Also changing flight plans were South African President Pik Botha and his negotiating team. Apparently, someone that Revell and Pik Botha knew gave them the warning.

There was one group that didn't get warned. That was the McKee Team, an assembled group of US intelligence agents tasked to investigate American hostages in Beruit. They allegedly discovered a link between the hostage takers, drug traffickers and the CIA. They were returning to the US, against orders, presumably to spill the beans. This was essentially a clean-up operation, tying up loose strings of the Iran-contra operation. So was Noriega's prosecution.

That's why Mueller got the case. He knew where to look and where not to look.

He also prosecuted ancillary Iran-contra cases. He prosecuted John Gotti for dealing cocaine in the New York City area. The cocaine he sold was part of the the Iran-contra (CIA) plan where Southern Air Transport flew weapons to Latin America for the contras (whom Congress had voted against aiding) and bringing back cocaine from Latin America on its return flights, to include Mena, Arkansas. One of the CIA's pilots, Barry Seal, bragged that he had a "get-out-of-jail" letter written for him by then-Governor Bill Clinton. At the time, Asa Hutchinson was the federal prosecutor for that corner of Arkansas. He also didn't notice all that cocaine. Hutchson later served as George W. Bush's first "drug czar" before going into politics. How coincidental.

Mueller, who had been appointed Assistant U.S. Prosecutor under GHW Bush, became FBI Director under George W. Bush just in time not to see the CIA fingerprints on 9/11, which should not be surprising considering whom he didn't see when he investigated BCCI. As head of our country's biggest law enforcement agency Mueller did not pursue the House of Saud's part in 9/11 even though fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and a number of them could be traced to Saudi intelligence, and the money chain could be traced to Saudis living in the US, some of whom flew out of the US while all other US flights were grounded. He did not investigate Mohammed Atta's time in Frankfort, Germany, where he was employed by a front company for the BND, West Germany's equivalent to the CIA. Nor did Mueller investigate Huffman Aviation where Mo Atta and another hijacker matriculated in flying planes into buildings. Huffman is interesting because while Mo was studying in Huffman's Venice, Florida aviation school a Huffman plane was busted in Orlando with 43 pounds of heroin. Curiously, the pilot walked away from the DEA without being charged and no one was prosecuted at Huffman.

Ask Colleen Rowley about Mueller's leadership in the 9/11 investigation.

Additionally, Mueller oversaw the anthrax letter case, never investigating Battelle Memorial Corporation, which had a building within a mile of the mailbox where the letters had been mailed. (Battelle Memorial's corporate motto is "It Can Be Done".) Instead, he centered FBI investigations on scientists in government labs in Fort Detrick, Maryland, who had neither the expertise nor the equipment to make the weaponized military grade anthrax found in the letters. One scientist sued and won millions. The other allegedly "committed suicide". Battelle is noteworthy because it handles the US military's anthrax program. Mueller had no interest that two of the targets who received anthrax letters were at the time the most vociferous opponents of the Bush Administration's Patriot Act.

Perhaps his greatest accomplishment aiding the Deep State as FBI Director was his shutting down of Operation Green Quest, the FBI's investigation into the funding behind 9/11 and the terrorist network behind it. Names began popping up like Grover Norquist, the Muslim Brotherhood, old Nazis and the royal family of Luxembourg. Nothing to see here. Move along.

A closer examination of Robert Mueller would probably find a lot more of these cases and I encourage others to continue the search. For example, it's been alleged that Mueller sent innocent men to jail for crimes committed by Whitey Bulger for the benefit of someone or something within the government and that this allowed Bulger to continue his criminal activities for years.

***

It's been seventy years since the CIA was created, fifty years since JFK was most likely murdered by them. In order to avoid any consequences for their crimes more and more institutions have had to be infiltrated and corrupted by them. Many of the heroes of the Left have turned out to be purveyors of "modified limited hangouts" which served the Deep State. Ramsey Clark, who was given the mantle of "good guy" by the media of the Left, was active as LBJ's Attorney General in blocking Jim Garrison's investigation into the JFK assassination and was named by Doug Valentine in his THE CIA AS ORGANIZED CRIME as a major proponent of the CIA's OPERATION CHAOS and the FBI's COINTELPRO. While the media spent a good deal of time talking about how great they were in releasing the Pentagon Papers to the public, the hero who exposed the military, Daniel Ellsberg, turns out to have been CIA, operating with CIA black ops in Vietnam. And while the Pentagon Papers exposed our military's great errors in Vietnam the CIA was generally spared. Again. Bob Woodward, our hero of Watergate, had been a courier for the Office of Naval Intelligence only a few years earlier. Thus, the CIA and Deep State, which had soured on Nixon, orchestrated that President's departure.

I raise this because Robert Mueller's current task is the investigation of our sitting President. No matter how much you dislike Trump you can't help but notice that the "evidence" against him conspiring with Putin and Russia is thin gruel. And while Trump, like most politicians who ascend to the big seat, has a lot of questionable, even indictable business connections around him, the great dangers of a Putin-Trump conspiracy trumpeted by the media have been fading because, apparently, there was never a there there. Thus, as Mueller oversees this case, he will find people surrounding Trump who have lied to FBI agents, who have perhaps not registered as foreign agents, and other crimes that routinely happen out of the public spotlight and aren't prosecuted. What was obvious to me from the start, that this was a psyop that involved U.S. intelligence, Ukrainian intelligence, Clinton and the DNC, will not be obvious to Mueller. Thus, as his career has shown, Mueller has been put in place not merely to prosecute those around Trump as a means of pressure on his administration, but to not see the CIA's hand in it.

When one begins examining high-profile court cases in post-1963 America one sees a cast of people who keep popping up. Prosecutors, judges, defense attorneys, coroners, witnesses, reporters, authors. This ensemble keeps reappearing in these show trials. We may not know what Mueller will find, but we know what he won't find.

There was a review at Truthdig back in 2016 of Jeffrey Toobin's book on Patty Hearst, AMERICAN HEIRESS (Toobin himself worked as an associate counsel to Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh during the investigation Iran–Contra affair and Oliver North's criminal trial). In part it reads: "Toobin features the characters who populated the edges of Hearst's story. Robert Shapiro, who would later work with [F. Lee] Bailey on the O.J. Simpson case, makes a cameo appearance. Lance Ito, the judge in that case, briefly shared a shooting range with a machine-gun toting SLA member. Reverend Jim Jones offered to help with the food distribution effort; that enterprise also employed Sara Jane Moore, who served 32 years for attempting to assassinate President Gerald Ford during his 1975 visit to San Francisco. Congressman Leo Ryan, who represented Randy and Catherine Hearst's district, endorsed the commutation of Patty's sentence. "Off to Guyana," he wrote Patty in 1978. "See you when I return. Hang in there." Jim Jones' henchmen shot and killed Ryan before he could board his flight home. Robert Mueller, the U.S. Attorney in San Francisco before taking over as FBI director, strenuously opposed Hearst's pardon, claiming that her attitude, born of wealth and social position, "has always been that she is a person above the law.""

When Mueller wrote that line he must have laughed out loud.

Wow! Where did you get all those facts about Mueller.

That isn't connecting the dots. Its painting a bloody Mona Lisa.

I had no idea how dirty this man was. He is the CIA version of Zelig or Forest Gump. He makes Bill Clinton look like an amateur.

Beginning with the double CIA family ties and proceeding through whitewashing 911, this man is so central to our rotten government that its a wonder someone hasn't done what you just did a lot sooner.

My hat is off to you. Someone should post this article on our blog.

detroitmechworks on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 3:15pm
It's almost become a parody of a dystopia...

The one that keeps jumping to mind is the mid 80's game "Paranoia" which was a cartoonish comedy about the drugged citizens of a complex where the state oversaw everything, and the people were obsessed with celebrities and junk food and oh my goooooodd...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia_ (role-playing_game)

Seriously though, so much of this makes absolute sense if you just abandon the concept that democracy has any play whatsoever in our society.

So with that in mind, a little music from the era, and a little self parody as well.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/LR4XNqrqxrU?modestbranding=0&html5=1&rel=0&autoplay=0&wmode=opaque&loop=0&controls=1&autohide=0&showinfo=0&theme=dark&color=red&enablejsapi=0

arendt on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 6:36pm
In my hatred of role-playing games, I missed Paranoia

@detroitmechworks

Thanks for pointing to it. I got laughs just reading the wikipedia page.

It sounds like Kafka meets that Russian guy who was simultaneously head of the secret police and leader of the resistance.

LOL.

The one that keeps jumping to mind is the mid 80's game "Paranoia" which was a cartoonish comedy about the drugged citizens of a complex where the state oversaw everything, and the people were obsessed with celebrities and junk food and oh my goooooodd...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia_ (role-playing_game)

Seriously though, so much of this makes absolute sense if you just abandon the concept that democracy has any play whatsoever in our society.

So with that in mind, a little music from the era, and a little self parody as well.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/LR4XNqrqxrU?modestbranding=0&html5=1&rel=0&autoplay=0&wmode=opaque&loop=0&controls=1&autohide=0&showinfo=0&theme=dark&color=red&enablejsapi=0

detroitmechworks on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 6:48pm
West End Games had a lot of incredible hits...

@arendt even considering they were working from licenses half the time. They ended up essentially creating the universe bibles for Ghostbusters and the Star Wars EU prior to the reboots.

Unfortunately, that didn't translate into respect. However, I still to this day am amazed at the complexity of thought that went into many of the rules and the ability they had to match mechanics to maintaining the play feel.

Paranoia in particular was hilarious. Kafka and Three Stooges, and even a little Joseph Heller. Later editions even managed to work in criticisms of late stage capitalism by having players ALWAYS broke and any unexpected expenses needing to be made up through crime... which was illegal, to avoid budget shortfalls... which was also illegal...

#3

Thanks for pointing to it. I got laughs just reading the wikipedia page.

It sounds like Kafka meets that Russian guy who was simultaneously head of the secret police and leader of the resistance.

LOL.

Linda Wood on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 3:19pm
Brilliant and wonderful essay!

Bob, thank you. As detailed and extensive as it is, your essay is concise by making it clear exactly what's so wrong with Mueller:

Mueller has presided over many cases where it's been important for the prosecutor to overlook the fingerprints of the CIA...

Mueller would invariably land on cases with Deep State intelligence connections...

Thus, as his career has shown, Mueller has been put in place not merely to prosecute those around Trump as a means of pressure on his administration, but to not see the CIA's hand in it...

For me, the anthrax case is the most important. Biological weapons are no joke. I believe we learned, from whistle-blowing scientists, not from the FBI investigation, that the CIA had one of the many illegal biological weapons programs being run with our tax dollars leading up to the anthrax attack. So whether Battelle was one of the CIA's contractors or yet another cut out, the investigation by Mueller simply stated those entities, all of them, were eliminated from the investigation.

arendt on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 4:48pm
Some relevant quotes from Hannah Arendt

The chief difference between the despotic and the totalitarian secret police lies in the difference between the "suspect" and the "objective enemy". The latter is defined by the policy of the government and not by his own desire to overthrow it. He is never an individual whose dangerous thoughts must be provoked or whose past justifies suspicion, but a "carrier of tendencies" like a carrier of disease. Practically speaking, the totalitarian ruler behaves like a man who persistently insults another man until everybody knows that the latter is his enemy, so that he can, with some plausibility, go and kill him in self-defense.
p423-4

"From a legal point of view, even more interesting than the change from the suspect to the objective enemy is the totalitarian replacement of the suspected offense by the possible crime ...While the suspect is arrested because he is thought to be capable of committing a crime that more or less fits his personality, the totalitarian possible crime is based on the logical anticipation of objective developments.

The task of the totalitarian police is not to discover crimes, but to be on hand when the government decides to arrest a certain category of the population.

"The only rule of which everybody in a totalitarian state may be sure is that the more visible government agencies are, the less power they carry, and the less is known of the existence of an institution, the more powerful it will ultimately turn out to be...Real power begins where secrecy begins. (p403)

ggersh on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 5:32pm
And Mr. transparency was O himself

@arendt

"The only rule of which everybody in a totalitarian state may be sure is that the more visible government agencies are, the less power they carry, and the less is known of the existence of an institution, the more powerful it will ultimately turn out to be...Real power begins where secrecy begins. (p403)

The chief difference between the despotic and the totalitarian secret police lies in the difference between the "suspect" and the "objective enemy". The latter is defined by the policy of the government and not by his own desire to overthrow it. He is never an individual whose dangerous thoughts must be provoked or whose past justifies suspicion, but a "carrier of tendencies" like a carrier of disease. Practically speaking, the totalitarian ruler behaves like a man who persistently insults another man until everybody knows that the latter is his enemy, so that he can, with some plausibility, go and kill him in self-defense.
p423-4

"From a legal point of view, even more interesting than the change from the suspect to the objective enemy is the totalitarian replacement of the suspected offense by the possible crime ...While the suspect is arrested because he is thought to be capable of committing a crime that more or less fits his personality, the totalitarian possible crime is based on the logical anticipation of objective developments.

The task of the totalitarian police is not to discover crimes, but to be on hand when the government decides to arrest a certain category of the population.

"The only rule of which everybody in a totalitarian state may be sure is that the more visible government agencies are, the less power they carry, and the less is known of the existence of an institution, the more powerful it will ultimately turn out to be...Real power begins where secrecy begins. (p403)

on the cusp on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 5:13pm
This is the most interesting essay I have read here.

Bravo, Bob.

ggersh on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 5:36pm
Great story!!!

Only thing missing for me was the tie in to Pappy Bush and the rest of the family. Mueller the consigliere of the CIA. Oh man how fucked are we?

snoopydawg on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 5:45pm
Outstanding

Great history of how corrupt Mueller has always been and how he has covered up for so many crimes. I'm just stunned by the number of people who have decided that Mueller's history and the history of the CIA, FBI and the other intelligence agencies wasn't that bad after all just because they are going after Trump. This selective amnesia is simply amazing, isn't it?

Clinton's role in helping the CIA to smuggle drugs into Arkansas is never talked about either. Or if it is it's called "a right wing attempt to bring them down."

Good to see you writing here again, Bob.

Snode on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 5:52pm
Wow!

This awesome. I knew about Colleen Rowley, but the rest.....2 things, what about Comey? and Bush1 being in Dallas the day of the JFK assassination?

CS in AZ on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 6:02pm
Wow, thank you

I almost skipped reading this one, assumed at first from the headline it was going to be about the Russia "investigation" which I've been steadfast in not paying any attention to.

But wow, this is so much better than I'd expected, a fascinating tapestry. A lot to absorb. At this point I'm just feeling overwhelmed at how little "we the people" in this country have any say in, or even any knowledge about, what is going on.

Thank you for this excellent history and synthesis.

snoopydawg on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 7:04pm
Here's some history of another creep who has found redemption

from those who believe the fairy tale of Russia Gate. John Brennan has also become a darling of the left. Greenwald wrote about him after Obama appointed him to his cabinet.

Joe posted this link that explains why centrist and liberal media have a disturbing tendency to rehabilitate some of the most vile, reactionary forces on the American right simply because they say vaguely negative things about Donald Trump -- a phenomenon we call "Trumpwashing."

Just like Mueller, Brennan is one more war criminal whose actions seem to have been forgotten.

Wink on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 9:56pm
It's relatively safe to

conclude from this, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the Mueller investigation of "Russiagate" won't get anywhere near the Oval Office.
Mostly becuz "Deep State" itself is up to its eyebrows in the affair. And also becuz Trump has very little to do with it. I'm sure they'd Love to bury Hillary in this, but it looks like that won't happen either. A shame.

snoopydawg on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 11:21pm
Mueller doesn't want to show the Russians his evidence

I think if you charge someone with a crime then they get to see the evidence against them. Mueller charged 3 Russian companies for their interference with the election, but I guess he didn't think that their lawyers would bother to show up. Oops, they did.

Mueller Scrambles To Limit Evidence After Indicted Russians Actually Show Up In Court

Special Counsel Robert Mueller is scrambling to limit pretrial evidence handed over to a Russian company he indicted in February over alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.

Mueller asked a Washington federal Judge for a protective order that would prevent the delivery of copious evidence to lawyers for Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, one of three Russian firms and 13 Russian nationals. The indictment accuses the firm of producing propaganda, pretending to be U.S. activists online and posting political content on social media in order to sow discord among American voters.

The special counsel's office argues that the risk of the evidence leaking or falling into the hands of foreign intelligence services, especially Russia, would assist the Kremlin's active "interference operations" against the United States.

Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations," according to the filing.

The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say were unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors

Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump.

Yep. Hillary spent $1-2 billion on her campaign, but it was the $100,000 worth of ads that a Russian advertising agency placed on Facebook that cost her the election. More than half of the ads were placed after the election though. But people still believe that the ads were what caused people not to vote for Herheinous!

Deja on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 11:46pm
A Red list?

@snoopydawg @snoopydawg
What the hell? Do these people even know they're on this list, or part of this evidence? Or, are they not even real people, or are they maybe even govt employees needed to play a role? There's that cookbook again, maybe. Yikes!

The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say were unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors

I think if you charge someone with a crime then they get to see the evidence against them. Mueller charged 3 Russian companies for their interference with the election, but I guess he didn't think that their lawyers would bother to show up. Oops, they did.

Mueller Scrambles To Limit Evidence After Indicted Russians Actually Show Up In Court

Special Counsel Robert Mueller is scrambling to limit pretrial evidence handed over to a Russian company he indicted in February over alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.

Mueller asked a Washington federal Judge for a protective order that would prevent the delivery of copious evidence to lawyers for Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, one of three Russian firms and 13 Russian nationals. The indictment accuses the firm of producing propaganda, pretending to be U.S. activists online and posting political content on social media in order to sow discord among American voters.

The special counsel's office argues that the risk of the evidence leaking or falling into the hands of foreign intelligence services, especially Russia, would assist the Kremlin's active "interference operations" against the United States.

Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations," according to the filing.

The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say were unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors

Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump.

Yep. Hillary spent $1-2 billion on her campaign, but it was the $100,000 worth of ads that a Russian advertising agency placed on Facebook that cost her the election. More than half of the ads were placed after the election though. But people still believe that the ads were what caused people not to vote for Herheinous!

snoopydawg on Wed, 06/13/2018 - 12:49am
Who knows?

@Deja

It's obvious that the whole damn Russia Gate conspiracy was just made up. It started when Wikileaks said that they were going to release the emails between Hillary and Podesta that showed how they rigged the primary against Bernie. The reason why they did it was to keep people from talking about the contents of the emails. And it worked. The media didn't focus on their contents, but only on how Wikileaks obtained them.

Another reason for the Russian propaganda crap is so people will give their permission for the upcoming war against Russia that had already been planned for over two years before the election. And they will. I've seen so many comments that says what Russia (Putin) did and is still doing was an act of war. Today on ToP one person said that "we need to assassinate Putin." Was that person HRd for promoting violence which is against the site rules? Nope. Those that believe Russia actually did interfere with the election also think that the republicans are also Putin's puppets and that is why they won't go against Trump. The front pagers have been pushing lies about Russia's actions it should be obvious to anyone with a working brain. I'll see a definitive statement like " The seas were calm and the skies were clear." But they will rewrite their statement to "The reason why the ship went down is because of the massive storm that came out of nowhere." Hopefully you get my drift on how they're blatantly lying in their statements.

Hillary's BFF, Nuland and McCain were the ones that worked the hardest on overthrowing the Ukraine government. The USA wanted to put its own puppet government on Russia's border. Plus the USA and NATO have been installing troops into countries that surround Russia's borders.

The original reason why the Mueller investigation was created was to find evidence that Trump colluded with Putin to win the election. None of the Mueller indictments have anything to do with that charge. This is why he was taken off guard when the Russian lawyers showed up to defend their clients. Hope that you read the entire article.

#13 #13
What the hell? Do these people even know they're on this list, or part of this evidence? Or, are they not even real people, or are they maybe even govt employees needed to play a role? There's that cookbook again, maybe. Yikes!

The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say were unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors

snoopydawg on Wed, 06/13/2018 - 2:40am
Heh. This is being spun differently over on ToP

@snoopydawg

This also proves my point above how information is selectively posted over there. Just certain parts of the articles are posted, but the parts of the articles that show the information in a different light are left out. This is from a comment..

It would appear at first glance this is basically an effort at espionage only , but I'm not much more sure than you are.

If they don't have a US presence ( as it appears they don't ), I can't understand why they even care that Mueller has charged them. As you point out, they won't be extradited, so none of this really matters. They could have their lawyers just play a DVD of them confessing followed by giving Mueller the double birds all around and it wouldn't make any difference, so the only logical answer for this is to try and pry state secrets out legally via the courts instead of through hacking and spying.

Oops. From the article ..

I don't think anyone (including Mueller) anticipated that any of the defendants would appear in court to defend against the charges.

I think if you charge someone with a crime then they get to see the evidence against them. Mueller charged 3 Russian companies for their interference with the election, but I guess he didn't think that their lawyers would bother to show up. Oops, they did.

Mueller Scrambles To Limit Evidence After Indicted Russians Actually Show Up In Court

Special Counsel Robert Mueller is scrambling to limit pretrial evidence handed over to a Russian company he indicted in February over alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.

Mueller asked a Washington federal Judge for a protective order that would prevent the delivery of copious evidence to lawyers for Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, one of three Russian firms and 13 Russian nationals. The indictment accuses the firm of producing propaganda, pretending to be U.S. activists online and posting political content on social media in order to sow discord among American voters.

The special counsel's office argues that the risk of the evidence leaking or falling into the hands of foreign intelligence services, especially Russia, would assist the Kremlin's active "interference operations" against the United States.

Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations," according to the filing.

The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say were unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors

Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump.

Yep. Hillary spent $1-2 billion on her campaign, but it was the $100,000 worth of ads that a Russian advertising agency placed on Facebook that cost her the election. More than half of the ads were placed after the election though. But people still believe that the ads were what caused people not to vote for Herheinous!

Wink on Wed, 06/13/2018 - 6:08pm
Well, it gets everyone

off the hook.
@snoopydawg
Especially Mueller. Finding the 13 Russians guilty that is. Mueller can then claim, "See! The Russians did it," which gives Hillbots a warm fuzzy and reason to scold BernieBros with a "told ya so!!" AND, no reason to investigate further. Investigation over. Case closed! Everyone gets what they want. Alas... Their lawyer showed up.

I think if you charge someone with a crime then they get to see the evidence against them. Mueller charged 3 Russian companies for their interference with the election, but I guess he didn't think that their lawyers would bother to show up. Oops, they did.

Mueller Scrambles To Limit Evidence After Indicted Russians Actually Show Up In Court

Special Counsel Robert Mueller is scrambling to limit pretrial evidence handed over to a Russian company he indicted in February over alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.

Mueller asked a Washington federal Judge for a protective order that would prevent the delivery of copious evidence to lawyers for Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, one of three Russian firms and 13 Russian nationals. The indictment accuses the firm of producing propaganda, pretending to be U.S. activists online and posting political content on social media in order to sow discord among American voters.

The special counsel's office argues that the risk of the evidence leaking or falling into the hands of foreign intelligence services, especially Russia, would assist the Kremlin's active "interference operations" against the United States.

Improper disclosure would tip foreign intelligence services about how the U.S. operates, which would "allow foreign actors to learn of those techniques and adjust their conduct, thus undermining ongoing and future national security operations," according to the filing.

The evidence includes thousands of documents involving U.S. residents not charged with crimes who prosecutors say were unwittingly recruited by Russian defendants and co-conspirators to engage in political activity in the U.S., prosecutors

Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump.

Yep. Hillary spent $1-2 billion on her campaign, but it was the $100,000 worth of ads that a Russian advertising agency placed on Facebook that cost her the election. More than half of the ads were placed after the election though. But people still believe that the ads were what caused people not to vote for Herheinous!

snoopydawg on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 11:30pm
Well of course it was a PR stunt!
As Powerline notes, Mueller probably didn't see that coming - and the indictment itself was perhaps nothing more than a PR stunt to bolster the Russian interference narrative.

I don't think anyone (including Mueller) anticipated that any of the defendants would appear in court to defend against the charges. Rather, the Mueller prosecutors seem to have obtained the indictment to serve a public relations purpose, laying out the case for interference as understood by the government and lending a veneer of respectability to the Mueller Switch Project.

One of the Russian corporate defendants nevertheless hired counsel to contest the charges. In April two Washington-area attorneys -- Eric Dubelier and Kate Seikaly of the Reed Smith firm -- filed appearances in court on behalf of Concord Management and Consulting. Josh Gerstein covered that turn of events for Politico here. -Powerline Blog

Deja on Tue, 06/12/2018 - 11:49pm
Now I want to see it too

@snoopydawg
Especially since it's supposed to contain all these names of stooges, duped into participating in US politics by the Kremlin. It's ridiculous.

As Powerline notes, Mueller probably didn't see that coming - and the indictment itself was perhaps nothing more than a PR stunt to bolster the Russian interference narrative.

I don't think anyone (including Mueller) anticipated that any of the defendants would appear in court to defend against the charges. Rather, the Mueller prosecutors seem to have obtained the indictment to serve a public relations purpose, laying out the case for interference as understood by the government and lending a veneer of respectability to the Mueller Switch Project.

One of the Russian corporate defendants nevertheless hired counsel to contest the charges. In April two Washington-area attorneys -- Eric Dubelier and Kate Seikaly of the Reed Smith firm -- filed appearances in court on behalf of Concord Management and Consulting. Josh Gerstein covered that turn of events for Politico here. -Powerline Blog

mimi on Wed, 06/13/2018 - 1:08am
I need to print this out and hang it at my bedside

because I believe it will be gone in its digital format in no time. Thank You for writing this out. You did good. Thank you.

GreyWolf on Wed, 06/13/2018 - 12:57pm
Bookmarked (with two separate archives)

@mimi This page is also at:archive.org archive.is because I believe it will be gone in its digital format in no time.

Thank You for writing this out. You did good. Thank you.

gulfgal98 on Wed, 06/13/2018 - 7:16pm
One of the best and most complete essays

I have read here in a long time. While I linked ot our Twitter account last night, I did not have time to read it before I posted it. I am going to link this again because I think it is such an important essay for others to read.

Thank you again for such an outstanding essay!

[Jun 26, 2018] American Pravda The JFK Assassination, Part II Who Did It by Ron Unz

An excellent even headed analysis of events and major hypothesis about the assassination. Remarkable conclusion: " So although committed partisans can continue endless, largely fruitless debates over "Who Killed JFK," I think that the one firm conclusion we can draw from the remarkable history of this pivotal event of the twentieth century is that all of us have lived for many decades within the synthetic reality of ' Our American Pravda.' "
Notable quotes:
"... As Lane recounted in his 1991 bestseller, Plausible Denial , his strategy generally proved quite successful, not only allowing him to win the jury verdict against Hunt, but also eliciting sworn testimony from a former CIA operative of her personal involvement in the conspiracy along with the names of several other participants, though she claimed that her role had been strictly peripheral. ..."
"... Hunt's explosive death-bed confession was recounted in a major 2007 Rolling Stone article and also heavily analyzed in Talbot's books, especially his second one, but otherwise largely ignored by the media. ..."
"... Many of these same apparent conspirators, drawn from the same loose alliance of groups, had previously been involved in the various U.S. government-backed attempts to assassinate Castro or overthrow his Communist government, and they had developed a bitter hostility towards President Kennedy for what they considered his betrayal during the Bay of Pigs fiasco and afterward. ..."
"... While this framework for the assassination is certainly possible, it is far from certain. One may easily imagine that most of the lower-level participants in the Dallas events were driven by such considerations but that the central figures who organized the plot and set matters into motion had different motives. ..."
"... A new presidential election was less than a year away, and Kennedy's shifting stance on Civil Rights seemed likely to cost him nearly all the Southern states that had provided his margin of electoral victory in 1960. A series of public declarations or embarrassing leaks might have helped remove him from office by traditional political means, possibly replacing him with a Cold War hard-liner such as Barry Goldwater or some other Republican. Would the militarists or business tycoons often implicated by liberal JFK researchers have really been so desperate as to not wait those extra few months and see what happened? ..."
"... While his involvement is certainly possible, obvious questions arise. Dulles was a seventy-year-old retiree, with a very long and distinguished career of public service and a brother who had served as Eisenhower's secretary of state. He had just published The Craft of Intelligence , which was receiving very favorable treatment in the establishment media, and he was embarked on a major book tour. Would he really have risked everything -- including his family's reputation in the history books -- to organize the murder of America's duly-elected president ..."
"... On the other hand, it is very easy to imagine that such individuals had some awareness of the emerging plot or may even have facilitated it or participated to a limited extent. And once it succeeded, and their personal enemy had been replaced, they surely would have been extremely willing to assist in the cover-up and protect the reputation of the new regime, a role that Dulles may have played as the most influential member of the Warren Commission. But such activities are different than acting as the central organizer of a presidential assassination. ..."
"... Furthermore, the strong evidence that many CIA operatives were involved in the conspiracy very much suggests that they were recruited and organized by some figure high in their own hierarchy of the intelligence or political worlds rather than the less likely possibility that they were brought in solely by leaders of the parallel domain of organized crime. And while crime bosses might possibly have organized the assassination itself, they surely had no means of orchestrated the subsequent cover-up by the Warren Commission, nor would there have been any willingness by America's political leadership to protect mafia leaders from investigation and proper punishment for such a heinous act. ..."
"... As a total newcomer to the enormous, hidden world of JFK conspiracy analysis, I was immediately surprised by the mere sliver of suspicion directed towards Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, the slain leader's immediate successor and the most obvious beneficiary. ..."
"... Although liberals had grown to revile LBJ by the late 1960s for his escalation of the unpopular Vietnam War, over the decades those sentiments have faded, while warm memories of his passage of the landmark Civil Rights legislation and his creation of the Great Society programs have elevated his stature in that ideological camp. Furthermore, such legislation had long been blockaded in Congress and only became law because of the 1964 Democratic Congressional landslide following JFK's martyrdom, and it might be difficult for liberals to admit that their fondest dreams were only realized by an act of political parricide. ..."
"... An additional factor helping to explain the extreme unwillingness of Talbot, Douglass, and others to consider Johnson as an obvious suspect may be the realities of the book publishing industry. ..."
"... if he had devoted any space to voicing suspicions that our 35th president had been murdered by our 36th, surely the weight of that extra element of "outrageous conspiracy theory" would have ensured that his book sank without a trace. ..."
"... If the plot succeeded and Johnson became president, the conspirators must surely have felt reasonably confident that they would be protected rather than tracked down and punished as traitors by the new president. Even a fully successful assassination would entail enormous risks unless the organizers believed that Johnson would do exactly what he did, and the only means of ensuring this would be to sound him out about the plan, at least in some vague manner, and obtain his passive acquiesce. ..."
"... Based on these considerations, it seems extremely difficult to believe that any JFK assassination conspiracy took place entirely without Johnson's foreknowledge, or that he was not a central figure in the subsequent cover-up. ..."
"... A very useful corrective to the "See No Evil" approach to Johnson from liberal JFK writers is Roger Stone's The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ , published in 2013. Stone, a longtime Republican political operative who got his start under Richard Nixon, presents a powerful case that Johnson was the sort of individual who might easily have lent his hand to political murder, and also that he had strong reasons to do so. ..."
"... Certainly one remarkable aspect of Johnson's career is that he was born dirt-poor, held low-paying government jobs throughout his entire life, yet took the oath of office as the wealthiest president in modern American history , having accumulated a personal fortune of over $100 million in present-day dollars, with the financial payoffs from his corporate benefactors having been laundered through his wife's business. This odd anomaly is so little remembered these days that a prominent political journalist expressed total disbelief when I mentioned it to him a decade ago. ..."
"... The pressure and financial aid threats secretly applied to Israel by the Kennedy Administration eventually became so severe that they led to the resignation of Israel's founding Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion in June 1963. But all these efforts were almost entirely halted or reversed once Kennedy was replaced by Johnson in November of that same year. ..."
"... So although committed partisans can continue endless, largely fruitless debates over "Who Killed JFK," I think that the one firm conclusion we can draw from the remarkable history of this pivotal event of the twentieth century is that all of us have lived for many decades within the synthetic reality of "Our American Pravda." ..."
Jun 26, 2018 | www.unz.com

A strong dam may hold back an immense quantity of water, but once it breaks the resulting flood may sweep aside everything in its path. I had spent nearly my entire life never doubting that a lone gunman named Lee Harvey Oswald killed President John F. Kennedy nor that a different lone gunman took the life of his younger brother Robert a few years later. Once I came to accept that these were merely fairy tales widely disbelieved by many of the same political elites who publicly maintained them, I began considering other aspects of this important history, the most obvious being who was behind the conspiracy and what were their motives.

On these questions, the passage of a half-century and the deaths, natural or otherwise, of nearly all the contemporary witnesses drastically reduces any hope of coming to a firm conclusion. At best, we can evaluate possibilities and plausibilities rather than high likelihoods let alone near certainties. And given the total absence of any hard evidence, our exploration of the origins of the assassination must necessarily rely upon cautious speculation.

From such a considerable distance in time, a bird's-eye view may be a reasonable starting point, allowing us to focus on the few elements of the apparent conspiracy that seem reasonably well established. The most basic of these is the background of the individuals who appear to have been associated with the assassination, and the recent books by David Talbot and James W. Douglass effectively summarize much of the evidence accumulated over the decades by an army of diligent assassination researchers. Most of the apparent conspirators seem to have had strong ties to organized crime, the CIA, or various anti-Castro activist groups, with considerable overlap across these categories. Oswald himself certainly fit this same profile although he was very likely the mere "patsy" that he claimed to be, as did Jack Ruby, the man who quickly silenced him and whose ties to the criminal underworld were long and extensive.

ORDER IT NOW

An unusual chain of events provided some of the strongest evidence of CIA involvement. Victor Marchetti, a career CIA officer, had risen to become Special Assistant to the Deputy Director, a position of some importance, before resigning in 1969 over policy differences. Although he fought a long battle with government censors over his book, The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence , he retained close ties with many former agency colleagues.

During the 1970s, the revelations of the Senate Church Committee and the House Select Committee on Assassinations had subjected the CIA to a great deal of negative public scrutiny, and there were growing suspicions of possible CIA links to JFK's assassination. In 1978 longtime CIA Counter-intelligence chief James Angleton and a colleague provided Marchetti with an explosive leak, stating that the agency might be planning to admit a connection to the assassination, which had involved three shooters, but place the blame upon E. Howard Hunt, a former CIA officer who had become notorious during Watergate, and scapegoat him as a rogue agent, along with a few other equally tarnished colleagues. Marchetti published the resulting story in The Spotlight , a weekly national tabloid newspaper operated by Liberty Lobby, a rightwing populist organization based in DC. Although almost totally shunned by the mainstream media, The Spotlight was then at the peak of its influence, having almost 400,000 subscribers, as large a readership as the combined total of The New Republic , The Nation , and National Review .

Marchetti's article suggested that Hunt had actually been in Dallas during the assassination, resulting in a libel lawsuit with potential damages large enough to bankrupt the publication. Longtime JFK assassination researcher Mark Lane became aware of the situation and volunteered his services to Liberty Lobby, hoping to use the legal proceedings, including the discovery process and subpoena power, as a means of securing additional evidence on the assassination, and after various court rulings and appeals, the case finally came to trial in 1985.

ORDER IT NOW

As Lane recounted in his 1991 bestseller, Plausible Denial , his strategy generally proved quite successful, not only allowing him to win the jury verdict against Hunt, but also eliciting sworn testimony from a former CIA operative of her personal involvement in the conspiracy along with the names of several other participants, though she claimed that her role had been strictly peripheral. And although Hunt continued for decades to totally deny any connection with the assassination, near the end of his life he made a series of video-taped interviews in which he admitted that he had indeed been involved in the JFK assassination and named several of the other conspirators, while also maintaining that his own role had been merely peripheral. Hunt's explosive death-bed confession was recounted in a major 2007 Rolling Stone article and also heavily analyzed in Talbot's books, especially his second one, but otherwise largely ignored by the media.

Many of these same apparent conspirators, drawn from the same loose alliance of groups, had previously been involved in the various U.S. government-backed attempts to assassinate Castro or overthrow his Communist government, and they had developed a bitter hostility towards President Kennedy for what they considered his betrayal during the Bay of Pigs fiasco and afterward. Therefore, there is a natural tendency to regard such animosity as the central factor behind the assassination, a perspective generally followed by Talbot, Douglass, and numerous other writers. They conclude that Kennedy died at the hands of harder-line anti-Communists, outraged over his perceived weakness regarding Cuba, Russia, and Vietnam, sentiments that were certainly widespread within right-wing political circles at the height of the Cold War.

While this framework for the assassination is certainly possible, it is far from certain. One may easily imagine that most of the lower-level participants in the Dallas events were driven by such considerations but that the central figures who organized the plot and set matters into motion had different motives. So long as all the conspirators were agreed on Kennedy's elimination, there was no need for an absolute uniformity of motive. Indeed, men who had long been involved in organized crime or clandestine intelligence operations were surely experienced in operational secrecy, and many of them may not have expected to know the identities, let alone the precise motives, of the men at the very top of the remarkable operation they were undertaking.

We must also sharply distinguish between the involvement of particular individuals and the involvement of an organization as an organization. For example, CIA Director John McCone was a Kennedy loyalist who had been appointed to clean house a couple of years before the assassination, and he surely was innocent of his patron's death. On the other hand, the very considerable evidence that numerous individual CIA intelligence officers and operatives participated in the action has naturally raised suspicions that some among their highest-ranking superiors were involved as well, perhaps even as the principal organizers of the conspiracy.

These reasonable speculations may have been magnified by elements of personal bias. Many of the prominent authors who have investigated the JFK assassination in recent years have been staunch liberals, and may have allowed their ideology to cloud their judgment. They often seek to locate the organizers of Kennedy's elimination among those rightwing figures whom they most dislike, even when the case is far from entirely plausible.

But consider the supposed motives of hard-line anti-Communists near the top of the national security hierarchy who supposedly may have organized Kennedy's elimination because he backed away from a full military solution in the Bay of Pigs and Cuban Missile Crisis incidents. Were they really so absolutely sure that a President Johnson would be such an enormous improvement as to risk their lives and public standing to organize a full conspiracy to assassinate an American president?

A new presidential election was less than a year away, and Kennedy's shifting stance on Civil Rights seemed likely to cost him nearly all the Southern states that had provided his margin of electoral victory in 1960. A series of public declarations or embarrassing leaks might have helped remove him from office by traditional political means, possibly replacing him with a Cold War hard-liner such as Barry Goldwater or some other Republican. Would the militarists or business tycoons often implicated by liberal JFK researchers have really been so desperate as to not wait those extra few months and see what happened?

ORDER IT NOW

Based on extremely circumstantial evidence, Talbot's 2015 book The Devil's Chessboard , something of a sequel to Brothers , suggests that former longtime CIA Director Allan Dulles may have been the likely mastermind, with his motive being a mixture of his extreme Cold Warrior views and his personal anger at his 1961 dismissal from his position.

While his involvement is certainly possible, obvious questions arise. Dulles was a seventy-year-old retiree, with a very long and distinguished career of public service and a brother who had served as Eisenhower's secretary of state. He had just published The Craft of Intelligence , which was receiving very favorable treatment in the establishment media, and he was embarked on a major book tour. Would he really have risked everything -- including his family's reputation in the history books -- to organize the murder of America's duly-elected president , an unprecedented act utterly different in nature than trying to unseat a Guatemalan leader on behalf of supposed American national interests? Surely, using his extensive media and intelligence contacts to leak embarrassing disclosures about JFK's notorious sexual escapades during the forthcoming presidential campaign would have been be a much safer means of attempting to achieve an equivalent result. And the same is true for J. Edgar Hoover and many of the other powerful Washington figures who hated Kennedy for similar reasons.

On the other hand, it is very easy to imagine that such individuals had some awareness of the emerging plot or may even have facilitated it or participated to a limited extent. And once it succeeded, and their personal enemy had been replaced, they surely would have been extremely willing to assist in the cover-up and protect the reputation of the new regime, a role that Dulles may have played as the most influential member of the Warren Commission. But such activities are different than acting as the central organizer of a presidential assassination.

Just as with the hard-line national security establishment, many organized crime leaders had grown outraged over the actions of the Kennedy Administration. During the late 1950s, Robert Kennedy had intensely targeted the mob for prosecution as chief counsel to the Senate Labor Rackets Committee. But during the 1960 election, family patriarch Joseph Kennedy used his own longstanding mafia connections to enlist their support for his older son's presidential campaign, and by all accounts the votes stolen by the corrupt mob-dominated political machines in Chicago and elsewhere helped put JFK in the White House, along with Robert Kennedy as his Attorney General. Frank Sinatra, an enthusiastic Kennedy supporter, had also helped facilitate this arrangement by using his influence with skeptical mob leaders.

However, instead of repaying such crucial election support with political favors, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, perhaps ignorant of any bargain, soon unleashed an all-out war against organized crime, far more serious than anything previously mounted at the federal level, and the crime bosses regarded this as a back-stabbing betrayal by the new administration. Once Joseph Kennedy was felled by an incapacitating stroke in late 1961, they also lost any hope that he would use his influence to enforce the deals he had struck the previous year. FBI wiretaps reveal that mafia leader Sam Giancana decided to have Sinatra killed for his role in this failed bargain, only sparing the singer's life when he considered how much he personally loved the voice of one of the most famous Italian-Americans of the 20th century.

These organized crime leaders and some of their close associates such as Teamster boss Jimmy Hoffa certainly developed a bitter hatred toward the Kennedys, and this has naturally led some authors to point to the mafia as the likely organizers of the assassination, but I find this quite unlikely. For many decades, American crime bosses had had a complex and varied relationship with political figures, who might sometimes be their allies and at other times their persecutors, and surely there must have been many betrayals over the years. However, I am not aware of a single case in which any even moderately prominent political figure on the national stage was ever targeted for assassination, and it seems quite unlikely that the sole exception would be a popular president, whom they would have likely regarded as being completely out of their league. On the other hand, if individuals who ranked high in Kennedy's own DC political sphere set in motion a plot to eliminate him, they might have found it easy to enlist the enthusiastic cooperation of various mafia leaders.

Furthermore, the strong evidence that many CIA operatives were involved in the conspiracy very much suggests that they were recruited and organized by some figure high in their own hierarchy of the intelligence or political worlds rather than the less likely possibility that they were brought in solely by leaders of the parallel domain of organized crime. And while crime bosses might possibly have organized the assassination itself, they surely had no means of orchestrated the subsequent cover-up by the Warren Commission, nor would there have been any willingness by America's political leadership to protect mafia leaders from investigation and proper punishment for such a heinous act.

If a husband or wife is found murdered, with no obvious suspect or motive at hand, the normal response of the police is to carefully investigate the surviving spouse, and quite often this suspicion proves correct. Similarly, if you read in your newspapers that in some obscure Third World country two bitterly hostile leaders, both having unpronounceable names, had been sharing supreme political power until one was suddenly struck down in a mysterious assassination by unknown conspirators, your thoughts would certainly move in an obvious direction. Most Americans in the early 1960s did not perceive their own country's politics in such a light, but perhaps they were mistaken. As a total newcomer to the enormous, hidden world of JFK conspiracy analysis, I was immediately surprised by the mere sliver of suspicion directed towards Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, the slain leader's immediate successor and the most obvious beneficiary.

The two Talbot books and the one by Douglass, totaling some 1500 pages, devote merely a few paragraphs to any suspicions of Johnson's involvement. Talbot's first book reports that immediately after the assassination, the vice president had expressed a frantic concern to his personal aides that a military coup might be in progress or a world war breaking out, and suggests that these few casual words demonstrate his obvious innocence, although a more cynical observer might wonder if those remarks had been uttered for exactly that reason. Talbot's second book actually quotes an apparent low-level conspirator as claiming that Johnson had personally signed off on the plot and admits that Hunt believed the same thing, but treats such unsubstantiated accusations with considerable skepticism, before adding a single sentence acknowledging that Johnson may indeed have been a passive supporter or even an accomplice. Douglass and Peter Dale Scott, author of the influential 1993 book Deep Politics and the Death of JFK , apparently seem never to have even entertained the possibility.

Ideological considerations are probably an important reason for such remarkable reticence. Although liberals had grown to revile LBJ by the late 1960s for his escalation of the unpopular Vietnam War, over the decades those sentiments have faded, while warm memories of his passage of the landmark Civil Rights legislation and his creation of the Great Society programs have elevated his stature in that ideological camp. Furthermore, such legislation had long been blockaded in Congress and only became law because of the 1964 Democratic Congressional landslide following JFK's martyrdom, and it might be difficult for liberals to admit that their fondest dreams were only realized by an act of political parricide.

Kennedy and Johnson may have been intensively hostile personal rivals, but there seem to have been few deep ideological differences between the two men, and most of the leading figures in JFK's government continued to serve under his successor, surely another source of enormous embarrassment to any ardent liberals who came to suspect that the former had been murdered by a conspiracy involving the latter. Talbot, Douglass, and many other left-leaning advocates for an assassination conspiracy prefer to point the finger of blame towards far more congenial villains such as hard-line, anti-Communist Cold Warriors and right-wing elements, notably including top CIA officials, such as former director Allan Dulles.

An additional factor helping to explain the extreme unwillingness of Talbot, Douglass, and others to consider Johnson as an obvious suspect may be the realities of the book publishing industry. By the 2000s, JFK assassination conspiracies had long become passé and were treated with disdain in mainstream circles. Talbot's strong reputation, his 150 original interviews, and the quality of his manuscript broke that barrier, and attracted The Free Press as his very respectable publisher, while later drawing a strongly positive review by a leading academic scholar in the New York Times Sunday Book Review and an hour long television segment broadcast on C-Span Booknotes . But if he had devoted any space to voicing suspicions that our 35th president had been murdered by our 36th, surely the weight of that extra element of "outrageous conspiracy theory" would have ensured that his book sank without a trace.

However, if we cast off these distorting ideological blinders and the practical considerations of American publishing, the prima facie case for Johnson's involvement seems quite compelling.

Consider a very simple point. If a president is struck down by an unknown group of conspirators, his successor would normally have had the strongest possible incentive to track them down lest he might become their next victim. Yet Johnson did nothing, appointing the Warren Commission that covered up the entire matter, laying the blame upon an erratic "lone gunman" conveniently dead. This would seem remarkably odd behavior for an innocent LBJ. This conclusion does not demand that Johnson was the mastermind, nor even an active participant, but it raises a very strong suspicion that he at least had had some awareness of the plot, and enjoyed a good personal relationship with some of the principals.

A similar conclusion is supported by a converse analysis. If the plot succeeded and Johnson became president, the conspirators must surely have felt reasonably confident that they would be protected rather than tracked down and punished as traitors by the new president. Even a fully successful assassination would entail enormous risks unless the organizers believed that Johnson would do exactly what he did, and the only means of ensuring this would be to sound him out about the plan, at least in some vague manner, and obtain his passive acquiesce.

Based on these considerations, it seems extremely difficult to believe that any JFK assassination conspiracy took place entirely without Johnson's foreknowledge, or that he was not a central figure in the subsequent cover-up.

ORDER IT NOW

But the specific details of Johnson's career and his political situation in late 1963 greatly strengthen these entirely generic arguments. A very useful corrective to the "See No Evil" approach to Johnson from liberal JFK writers is Roger Stone's The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ , published in 2013. Stone, a longtime Republican political operative who got his start under Richard Nixon, presents a powerful case that Johnson was the sort of individual who might easily have lent his hand to political murder, and also that he had strong reasons to do so.

Among other things, Stone gathers together an enormous wealth of persuasive information regarding Johnson's decades of extremely corrupt and criminal practices in Texas, including fairly plausible claims that these may have included several murders. In one bizarre 1961 incident that strangely foreshadows the Warren Commission's "lone gunman" finding, a federal government inspector investigating a major Texas corruption scheme involving a close LBJ ally was found dead, shot five times in the chest and abdomen by a rifle, but the death was officially ruled a "suicide" by the local authorities, and that conclusion was reported with a straight face in the pages of the Washington Post .

Certainly one remarkable aspect of Johnson's career is that he was born dirt-poor, held low-paying government jobs throughout his entire life, yet took the oath of office as the wealthiest president in modern American history , having accumulated a personal fortune of over $100 million in present-day dollars, with the financial payoffs from his corporate benefactors having been laundered through his wife's business. This odd anomaly is so little remembered these days that a prominent political journalist expressed total disbelief when I mentioned it to him a decade ago.

ORDER IT NOW

The Dark Side of Camelot strongly suggest that personal blackmail was a greater factor than geographical ticket-balancing. In any event, Kennedy's paper-thin 1960 victory would have been far more difficult without Texas narrowly falling into the Democratic column, and election fraud there by Johnson's powerful political machine seems almost certainly to have been an important factor.

Under such circumstances, Johnson naturally expected to play a major role in the new administration, and he even issued grandiose demands for a huge political portfolio, but instead he found himself immediately sidelined and treated with complete disdain, soon becoming a forlorn figure with no authority or influence. As time went by, the Kennedys made plans to get rid of him, and just a few days before the assassination, they were already discussing whom to place on the reelection ticket in his stead. Much of Johnson's long record of extreme corruption both in Texas and in DC was coming to light following the fall of Bobby Baker, his key political henchman, and with strong Kennedy encouragement, Life Magazine was preparing a huge expose of his sordid and often criminal history, laying the basis for his prosecution and perhaps a lengthy prison sentence. By mid-November 1963, Johnson seemed a desperate political figure at the absolute end of his rope, but a week later he was the president of the United States, and all those swirling scandals were suddenly forgotten. Stone even claims that the huge block of magazine space reserved for the Johnson expose was instead filled by the JFK assassination story.

Aside from effectively documenting Johnson's sordid personal history and the looming destruction he faced at the hands of the Kennedys in late 1963, Stone also adds numerous fascinating pieces of personal testimony, which may or may not be reliable. According to him, as his mentor Nixon was watching the scene at the Dallas police station where Jack Ruby shot Oswald, Nixon immediately turned as white as a ghost, explaining that he had personally known the gunman under his birth-name of Rubenstein. While working on a House Committee in 1947, Nixon had been advised by a close ally and prominent mob-lawyer to hire Ruby as an investigator, being told that "he was one of Lyndon Johnson's boys." Stone also claims that Nixon once emphasized that although he had long sought the presidency, unlike Johnson "I wasn't willing to kill for it." He further reports that Vietnam Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge and numerous other prominent political figures in DC were absolutely convinced of Johnson's direct involvement in the assassination..

Stone has spent more than a half-century as a ruthless political operative, a position that provided him with unique personal access to individuals who participated in the great events of the past, but one that also carries the less than totally candid reputation of that profession, and individuals must carefully weigh these conflicting factors against each other. Personally, I tend to credit most of the eyewitness stories he provides. But even readers who remain entirely skeptical should find useful the large collection of secondary source references to the sordid details of LBJ's history that the book provides.

Finally, a seemingly unrelated historical incident had originally raised my own suspicions of Johnson's involvement.

U.S.S. Liberty , our most advanced intelligence-gathering ship, to remain offshore in international waters and closely monitor the military situation. There have been published claims that he had granted Israel a green-light for its preemptive attack, but fearful of risking a nuclear confrontation with the Soviet patrons of Syria and Egypt, had strictly circumscribed the limits of the military operation, sending the Liberty to keep an eye on developments and perhaps also to "show Israel who was boss."

Whether or not this reconstruction is correct, the Israelis soon launched an all-out attack on the nearly defenseless ship despite the large American flag it was flying, deploying attack jets and torpedo boats to sink the vessel during an assault that lasted several hours, while machine-gunning the lifeboats to ensure that there would be no survivors. The first stage of the attack had targeted the main communications antenna, and its destruction together with heavy Israeli jamming prevented any communications with other U.S. naval forces in the region..

Liberty and drive off the attackers, each time they were recalled, apparently upon direct orders from the highest authorities of the U.S. government. Once the Israelis learned that word of the situation had reached other U.S. forces, they soon discontinued their attack, and the heavily-damaged Liberty eventually limped into port, with over 200 dead and wounded sailors and NSA signal operators, representing the greatest loss of American servicemen in any naval incident since World War II.

ORDER IT NOWW

Liberty survivor, risked severe legal consequences and published Assault on the Liberty in 1979 .

As it happened, NSA intercepts of Israeli communications between the attacking jets and Tel Aviv, translated from the Hebrew, fully confirmed that the attack had been entirely deliberate, and since many of the dead and wounded were NSA employees, the suppression of these facts greatly rankled their colleagues. My old friend Bill Odom, the three-star general who ran the NSA for Ronald Reagan, later shrewdly circumvented the restrictions of his political masters by making those incriminating intercepts part of the standard curriculum of the Sigint training program required for all intelligence officers.

In 2007 an unusual set of circumstances finally broke the thirty year blackout in the mainstream media. Real estate investor Sam Zell, a Jewish billionaire extremely devoted to Israel, had orchestrated a leveraged-buyout of the Tribune Company Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune , investing merely a sliver of his own money, with the bulk of the financing coming from the pension funds of the company he was acquiring. Widely heralded as "the grave dancer" for his shrewd financial investments, Zell publicly boasted that the deal gave him nearly all of the upside potential of the company, while he bore relatively little of the risk. Such an approach proved wise since the complex deal quickly collapsed into bankruptcy, and although Zell emerged almost unscathed, the editors and journalists lost decades of their accumulated pension dollars, while massive layoffs soon devastated the newsrooms of what had been two of the country's largest and most prestigious newspapers. Perhaps coincidentally, just as this business turmoil hit in late 2007, the Tribune ran a massive 5,500 word storyy Liberty attack, representing the first and only time such a comprehensive account of the true facts has ever appeared in the mainstream media.

By all accounts, Johnson was an individual of towering personal ego, and when I read the article, I was struck by the extent of his astonishing subservience to the Jewish state. The influence of campaign donations and favorable media coverage seemed completely insufficient to explain his reaction to an incident that had cost the lives of so many American servicemen. I began to wonder if Israel might have played an extraordinarily powerful political trump-card, thereby showing LBJ "who was really boss," and once I discovered the reality of the JFK assassination conspiracy a year or two later, I suspected I knew what that trump-card might have been. Over the years, I had become quite friendly with the late Alexander Cockburn, and the next time we had lunch I outlined my ideas. Although he had always casually dismissed JFK conspiracy theories as total nonsense, he found my hypothesis quite intriguing.

Liberty incident certainly demonstrated the exceptionally close relationship between President Johnson and the government of Israel, as well as the willingness of the mainstream media to spend decades hiding events of the most remarkable nature if they might tread on particular toes.

These important considerations should be kept in mind as we begin exploring the most explosive yet under-reported theory of the JFK assassination. Almost twenty-five years ago the late Michael Collins Piper published Final Judgment presenting a very large body of circumstantial evidence that Israel and its Mossad secret intelligence service, together with their American collaborators, probably played a central role in the conspiracy.

For decades following the 1963 assassination, virtually no suspicions had ever been directed towards Israel, and as a consequence none of the hundreds or thousands of assassination conspiracy books that appeared during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s had hinted at any role for the Mossad, though nearly every other possible culprit, ranging from the Vatican to the Illuminati, came under scrutiny. Kennedy had received over 80% of the Jewish vote in his 1960 election, American Jews featured very prominently in his White House, and he was greatly lionized by Jewish media figures, celebrities, and intellectuals ranging from New York City to Hollywood to the Ivy League. Moreover, individuals with a Jewish background such as Mark Lane and Edward Epstein had been among the leading early proponents of an assassination conspiracy, with their controversial theories championed by influential Jewish cultural celebrities such as Mort Sahl and Norman Mailer. Given that the Kennedy Administration was widely perceived as pro-Israel, there seemed no possible motive for any Mossad involvement, and bizarre, totally unsubstantiated accusations of such a monumental nature directed against the Jewish state were hardly likely to gain much traction in an overwhelmingly pro-Israel publishing industry.

ORDER IT NOW

The Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy described the extreme efforts of the Kennedy Administration to force Israel to allow international inspections of its allegedly non-military nuclear reactor at Dimona, and thereby prevent its use in producing nuclear weapons. Dangerous Liaisons: The Inside Story of the U.S.-Israeli Covert Relationship by Andrew and Leslie Cockburn appeared in the same year, and covered similar ground.

Although entirely hidden from public awareness at the time, the early 1960s political conflict between the American and Israeli governments over nuclear weapons development had represented a top foreign policy priority of the Kennedy Administration, which had made nuclear non-proliferation one of its central international initiatives. It is notable that John McCone, Kennedy's choice as CIA Director, had previously served on the Atomic Energy Commission under Eisenhower, being the individual who leaked the fact that Israel was building a nuclear reactor to produce plutonium..

ORDER IT NOW

The pressure and financial aid threats secretly applied to Israel by the Kennedy Administration eventually became so severe that they led to the resignation of Israel's founding Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion in June 1963. But all these efforts were almost entirely halted or reversed once Kennedy was replaced by Johnson in November of that same year.

Taking Sides: America's Secret Relations With a Militant Israel had previously documented that U.S. Middle East Policy completely reversed itself following Kennedy's assassination, but this important finding had attracted little attention at the time.

Skeptics of a plausible institutional basis for a JFK assassination conspiracy have often noted the extreme continuity in both foreign and domestic policies between the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations, arguing that this casts severe doubt on any such possible motive. Although this analysis seems largely correct, America's behavior towards Israel and its nuclear weapons program stands as a very notable exception to this pattern..

An additional major area of concern for Israeli officials may have involved the efforts of the Kennedy Administration to sharply restrict the activities of pro-Israel political lobbies. During his 1960 presidential campaign, Kennedy had met in New York City with a group of wealthy Israel advocates, led by financier Abraham Feinberg, and they had offered enormous financial support in exchange for a controlling influence in Middle Eastern policy. Kennedy managed to fob them off with vague assurances, but he considered the incident so troubling that the next morning he sought out journalist Charles Bartlett, one of his closest friends, and expressed his outrage that American foreign policy might fall under the control of partisans of a foreign power, promising that if he became president, he would rectify that situation. And indeed, once he had installed his brother Robert as Attorney General, the latter initiated a major legal effort to force pro-Israel groups to register themselves as foreign agents, which would have drastically reduced their power and influence. But after JFK's death, this project was quickly abandoned, and as part of the settlement, the leading pro-Israel lobby merely agreed to reconstitute itself as AIPAC.

ORDER IT NOW

Final Judgment went through a number of a reprintings following its original 1994 appearance, and by the sixth edition released in 2004, had grown to over 650 pages, including numerous long appendices and over 1100 footnotes, the overwhelming majority of these referencing fully mainstream sources. The body of the text was merely serviceable in organization and polish, reflecting the total boycott by all publishers, mainstream or alternative, but I found the contents themselves remarkable and generally quite compelling. Despite the most extreme blackout by all media outlets, the book sold more than 40,000 copies over the years, making it something of an underground bestseller, and surely bringing it to the attention of everyone in the JFK assassination research community, though apparently almost none of them were willing to mention its existence. I suspect these other writers realized that even any mere acknowledgement of the existence of the book, if only to ridicule or dismiss it, might prove fatal to their media and publishing career. Piper himself died in 2015, aged 54, suffering from the health problems and heavy-drinking often associated with grim poverty, and other journalists may have been reluctant to risk that same dismal fate.

As an example of this strange situation, the bibliography of Talbot's 2005 book contains almost 140 entries, some rather obscure, but has no space for Final Judgment , nor does his very comprehensive index include any entry for "Jews" or "Israel." Indeed, at one point he very delicately characterizes Sen. Robert Kennedy's entirely Jewish senior staff by stating "There was not a Catholic among them." His 2015 sequel is equally circumspect, and although the index does contain numerous entries pertaining to Jews, all these references are in regards to World War II and the Nazis, including his discussion of the alleged Nazi ties of Allen Dulles, his principal bête noire . Stone's book, while fearlessly convicting President Lyndon Johnson of the JFK assassination, also strangely excludes "Jews" and "Israel" from the long index and Final Judgment from the bibliography, and Douglass's book follows this same pattern.

Furthermore, the extreme concerns that the Piper Hypothesis seems to have provoked among JFK assassination researchers may explain a strange anomaly. Although Mark Lane was himself of Jewish origins and left-wing roots, after his victory for Liberty Lobby in the Hunt libel trial, he spent many years associated with that organization in a legal capacity, and apparently became quite friendly with Piper, one of its leading writers. According to Piper, Lane told him that Final Judgment made "a solid case" for a major Mossad role in the assassination, and he viewed the theory as fully complementary to his own focus on CIA involvement. I suspect that concerns about these associations may explain why Lane was almost completely airbrushed out of the Douglass and 2007 Talbot books, and discussed in the second Talbot book only when his work was absolutely essential to Talbot's own analysis. By contrast, New York Times staff writers are hardly likely to be as versed in the lesser-known aspects of the JFK assassination research community, and being ignorant of this hidden controversy, they gave Lane the long and glowing obituaryy that his career fully warranted.

When weighing the possible suspects for a given crime, considering their past pattern of behavior is often a helpful approach. As discussed above, I can think of no historical example in which organized crime initiated a serious assassination attempt against any American political figure even moderately prominent on the national stage. And despite a few suspicions here and there, the same applies to the CIA.

By contrast, the Israeli Mossad and the Zionist groups that preceded the establishment of the Jewish state seem to have had a very long track record of assassinations, including those of high-ranking political figures who might normally be regarded as inviolate. Lord Moyne, the British Minister of State for the Middle East, was assassinated in 1944 and Count Folke Bernadotte, the UN Peace Negotiator sent to help resolve the first Arab-Israel war, suffered the same fate in September 1948. Not even an American president was entirely free of such risks, and Piper notes that the memoirs of Harry Truman's daughter Margaret reveal that Zionist militants had tried to assassinate her father using a letter laced with toxic chemicals in 1947 when they believed he was dragging his heels in supporting Israel, although that failed attempt was never made public. The Zionist faction responsible for all of these incidents was led by Yitzhak Shamir, who later became a leader of Mossad and director of its assassination program during the 1960s, before eventually becoming Prime Minister of Israel in 1986.

ORDER IT NOW

Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel's Targeted Assassinations by journalist Ronen Bergman suggests that no other country in the world may have so regularly employed assassination as a standard tool of state policy.

ORDER IT NOWW

There are other notable elements that tend to support the Piper Hypothesis. Once we accept the existence of a JFK assassination conspiracy, the one individual who is virtually certain to have been a participant was Jack Ruby, and his organized crime ties were almost entirely to the huge but rarely-mentioned Jewish wing of that enterprise, presided over by Meyer Lansky, an extremely fervent supporter of Israel. Ruby himself had particularly strong connections with Lansky lieutenant Mickey Cohen, who dominated the Los Angeles underworld and had been personally involved in gun-running to Israel prior to the 1948 war. Indeed, according to Dallas rabbi Hillel Silverman , Ruby had privately explained his killing of Oswald by saying "I did it for the Jewish people."

JFK film should also be mentioned. Arnon Milchan, the wealthy Hollywood producer who backed the project, was not only an Israeli citizen, but had also reportedly played a central role in the enormous espionage projectt to divert American technology and materials to Israel's nuclear weapons project, the exact undertaking that the Kennedy Administration had made such efforts to block. Milchan has even sometimes been described as "the Israeli James Bond." JFK scrupulously avoided presenting any of the details that Piper later regarded as initial clues to an Israeli dimension, instead seeming to finger America's fanatic home-grown anti-Communist movement and the Cold War leadership of the military-industrial complex as the guilty parties.

Summarizing over 300,000 words of Piper's history and analysis in just a few paragraphs is obviously an impossible undertaking, but the above discussion provides a reasonable taste of the enormous mass of circumstantial evidence mustered in favor of the Piper Hypothesis..

Final Judgment struck me as quite persuasive, a good fraction of the names and references were unfamiliar, and I simply do not have the background to assess their credibility, nor whether the description of the material presented is accurate.

Under normal circumstances, I would turn to the reviews or critiques produced by other authors, and comparing them against Piper's claims, then decide which argument seemed the stronger. But although Final Judgment was published a quarter-century ago, the near-absolute blanket of silence surrounding the Piper Hypothesis, especially from the more influential and credible researchers, renders this impossible.

However, Piper's inability to secure any regular publisher and the widespread efforts to smother his theory out of existence, have had an ironic consequence. Since the book went out of print years ago, I had a relatively easy time securing the rights to include it in my collection of controversial HTML Books, and I have now done so, thereby allowing everyone on the Internet to conveniently read the entire text and decide for themselves, while easily checking the multitude of references or searching for particular words or phrases..

Final Judgment The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy Michael Collins Piper • 2005 • 310,000 Words

This edition actually incorporates several much shorter works, originally published separately. One of these, consisting of an extended Q&A, describes the genesis of the idea and answers numerous questions surrounding it, and for some readers might represent a better starting point.

Default Judgment Questions, Answers & Reflections About the Crime of the Century Michael Collins Piper • 2005 • 48,000 Words

There are also numerous extended Piper interviews or presentations easily available on YouTube, and when I watched two or three of them a couple of years ago, I thought he effectively summarized many of his main arguments, but I cannot remember which ones they were.

The Kennedy assassination surely ranks as one of the most dramatic and heavily reported events of the twentieth century, yet the overwhelming evidence that our president died at the hands of a conspiracy rather than an eccentric "lone gunman" was almost entirely suppressed by our mainstream media during the decades that followed, with endless ridicule and opprobrium heaped on many of the stubborn truth-tellers. Indeed, the very term "conspiracy theory" soon became a standard slur aimed against all those who sharply questioned establishmentarian narratives, and there is strong evidence that such pejorative use was deliberately promoted by government agencies concerned that so much of the American citizenry was growing skeptical of the implausible cover story presented by the Warren Commission. But despite all these efforts, the period may mark the inflection point at which public trust in our national media began its precipitous decline. Once an individual concludes that the media lied about something as monumental as the JFK assassination, he naturally begins to wonder what other lies may be out there.

Although I now consider the case for an assassination conspiracy overwhelming, I think that the passage of so many decades has removed any real hope of reaching a firm conclusion about the identities of the main organizers or their motives. Those who disagree with this negative assessment are free to continue sifting the enormous mountain of complex historical evidence and debating their conclusions with others having similar interests.

However, among the cast of major suspects, I think that the most likely participant by far was Lyndon Johnson, based on any reasonable assessment of means, motive, and opportunity, as well as the enormous role he obviously must have played in facilitating the subsequent Warren Commission cover-up. Yet although such an obvious suspect must surely have been immediately apparent to any observer, Johnson seems to have received only a rather thin slice of the attention that books regularly directed to other, far less plausible suspects. So the clear dishonesty of the mainstream media in avoiding any recognition of a conspiracy seems matched by a second layer of dishonesty in the alternative media, which has done its best to avoid recognizing the most likely perpetrator.

Final Judgment provided an enormous mass of circumstantial evidence suggesting a major, even dominant, role for the Israeli Mossad in organizing the elimination of both our 35rd president and also his younger brother, a scenario that seems second in likelihood only to that of Johnson's involvement. Yet Piper's hundreds of thousands of words of analysis have seemingly vanished into the ether, with very few of the major conspiracy researchers even willing to admit their awareness of a shocking book that sold over 40,000 copies, almost entirely by underground word-of-mouth.

So although committed partisans can continue endless, largely fruitless debates over "Who Killed JFK," I think that the one firm conclusion we can draw from the remarkable history of this pivotal event of the twentieth century is that all of us have lived for many decades within the synthetic reality of "Our American Pravda."

[Jun 26, 2018] Interesting players on the ground in Dallas that day included GHW Bush

Jun 26, 2018 | www.unz.com

The Alarmist , June 25, 2018 at 9:13 am GMT

I'm reminded of an old joke:

Q: Who fired the shot that killed Mussolini?
A: A thousand Italian marksmen.

Johnson has been my perennial favourite as the person who had the most to gain, but he could not have done it without his Texas machinery, not the least of which was KBR, and they certainly had a lot to gain by elevating their boy to the pinnacle of power if the rumours, that JFK planned to scale back in Viet Nam, were true. Coincidence that it happened in Dallas? Hardly, in that scenario.

Other interesting players on the ground in Dallas that day included GHW Bush, who, unlike most Americans, can't quite remember where he was when the President was shot. Was he behind it? Almost certainly not, but he may have been an unwitting co-conspirator by doing something tangentially connected, e.g. delivering cash. This is pure speculation, but it is interesting that he rose out of relative obscurity to become a Texas oilman, partnered with a former CIA operative, with oil interests in a number of international hotspots, and that formed the basis for him to build a fortune as well as launch a long and storied political career that saw him elected to Congress, then appointed to the head of the CIA, and ultimately crowned as President.

I particularly loved it when Trump tried to connect Ted Cruz's father to Oswald. It is not entirely out of the question, given his father, while a anti-Batista rebel turned refugee-student at the U of Texas might have crossed paths with Oswald while in Texas .

Yes, all roads seem to lead to Texas, except for that one that goes to NOLA, but that isn's so far from TX, and it seems like the kind of place oil industry types might go to cat around and conspire on a coup. It's also one of the few places in the South where Israelis might not appear to be so out of place.

As for the Israelis well, they're the Israelis. If they saw a shot to capture effective control of our government by offing a guy more likely to keep them in check for a venal type who probably didn't give a rat's behind for the Israelis, but salivated over destabilising the middle east, because destabilizing the middle east actually made Texas oil and other oil assets around the world controlled by or lifted by Texans in the oil industry far more valuable, then who can blame them for joining the cabal and taking the shot?

[Jun 26, 2018] The cultivation of a positive American image abroad was a primary concern of the Deep State, and given what immeasurable harm the exposure of a CIA coup would have done to America's standing as 'leader of the free world' I cannot imagine the plot was CIA-hatched or led. CIA connivance and behind-the-scenes assistance raises very interesting possibilities, though.

Jun 26, 2018 | www.unz.com

Abe , Website June 25, 2018 at 5:55 pm GMT

Very nice. Just one thing, though- anyone who was an adult during the Cold War understands the immense importance of propaganda and 'optics' as they say now. In 1981 the French Communist Party won 15% of the Presidential vote. Together with the Socilaist Party that was a combined 40%.

Much of what constituted American' political theater' in the Cold War era consisted of 'double bank-shot' efforts to convince a somewhat cold and borderline hostile European public to support the trans-Atlantic alliance and the American system which underlay it, a difficult proposition given that European leftists were ideologically opposed to America's capitalist system, while seemingly natural-ally European rightists were often repulsed by the gauche nature of American culture, critical of unrestrained 'Anglo-Saxon' capitalism, plus resentful of American pop-cultural 'imperialism' as well.

In such a climate the cultivation of a positive American image abroad was a primary concern of the Deep State, and given what immeasurable harm the exposure of a CIA coup would have done to America's standing as 'leader of the free world' I cannot imagine the plot was CIA-hatched or led. CIA connivance and behind-the-scenes assistance raises very interesting possibilities, though.

[Jun 26, 2018] Why Trump delayed release of the Kennedy files yet again

Jun 26, 2018 | www.unz.com

Si1ver1ock , June 25, 2018 at 5:58 pm GMT

Something to consider is that these people in the intelligence agencies are supposed to protect America , but they can't even spot an assassination when it occurs right under their noses with a pile of evidence stacked to the ceiling. The majority of Americans can see it, but not the people tasked with "keeping us safe." WTF?

In the RFK assassination we have video and photos of CIA assassins in the hotel when it occurs, but they can't see that either.

We have endless crime shows on TV with forensic experts tracking killers, but our real law enforcement officials can't see anything wrong with the way WTC building 7 implodes.

We are talking about treason and it is ongoing, not simply in the past. Trump delayed release of the Kennedy files yet again.

Who killed RFK?

Eighthman , June 25, 2018 at 6:36 pm GMT
A remote viewer psychic came up with an interesting notion as to why JFK was murdered. The power brokers believed he was reckless and a danger to the whole world.

It's a miracle that the Cuban missile crisis didn't end the world. USSR sub commanders had immediate authority to use nuclear weapons if attacked – and they were depth charged.

It may have been the icing on the cake.

[Jun 26, 2018] LJB and a crew of Texas Oil magnates and John Birch Society types in place and ready to help. They even posted a 'Wanted for Treason' poster the day Kennedy arrived

Jun 26, 2018 | www.unz.com

nickels , June 25, 2018 at 8:30 pm GMT

LBJ had a crew of Texas Oil magnates and John Birch Society types in place and ready to help. They even posted a 'Wanted for Treason' poster the day Kennedy arrived:
If this is to be believed, the Birch society was in bed with the Zio crew, which might be believable, because the crusade against Russia was mostly utilizing the bitterness of the Trotskyites against Stalin's siezure of the Russian state, and thus a natural alliance between the Zio and Birch groups:

http://www.dcdave.com/article4/050308.htm

Details on the Hunt crew:

https://stevenhager420.wordpress.com/2013/11/27/h-l-hunt-is-a-key-to-the-jfk-assassination/

Si1ver1ock , June 25, 2018 at 9:46 pm GMT

On these questions, the passage of a half-century and the deaths, natural or otherwise, of nearly all the contemporary witnesses drastically reduces any hope of coming to a firm conclusion.

Perhaps. One thing that becomes more clear over time is who benefited. Look closely at those who were put into positions to enable the coverup, people like George Joannides and Richard Helms. Who was promoted?

The Israel angle is interesting, but Israel doesn't work for me. My government owes me an explanation. They have a duty to uphold the constitution. They swear an oath to see that the laws are faithfully executed. It is their duty to protect America from All Enemies Foreign and Domestic.

[Jun 26, 2018] Autopsy controversy

Jun 26, 2018 | www.unz.com

Paul Jolliffe , June 26, 2018 at 1:23 am GMT

@Ivan2

I agree.

The late Harold Weisberg once told me exactly the same thing: figuring out precisely who was in control of the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital on the evening of 11/22/63 was the key to unraveling the cover-up.

U. S. Military authorities ran that thing and made every single damned decision. (Not RFK or Jacqueline Kennedy.)

Hell, there is credible, provocative and reasonably persuasive evidence the no less a figure than the legendary USAF Chief of Staff Curtis LeMay flew in to Bethesda and was playing a major role in directing the autopsy.

The (suspiciously undated) autopsy report was re-written after Ruby shot "Oswald" on Sunday morning, and the original "draft notes" were burned. The hand-written version was then edited with very significant changes, most infamously the original wording that JFK had a "puncture" wound in his neck – WHICH MEANT A SHOT FROM THE FRONT! – was changed in the typed version as "much smaller".

These changes were not because Humes, Boswell and Finck demanded them. These changes were done at the behest of military brass, for reasons known only to themselves.

The autopsy was the start of the cover-up, and the autopsy was controlled by the U.S. Military.

By the way, LeMay was the inspiration for the General Buck Turgidson in "Dr. Strangelove".

[Jun 26, 2018] Interesting similarities berween JFK assasination and 9/11

Notable quotes:
"... The CIA command structure exercises not authority, but something akin to the divine right of kings, concealed for appearances' sake as state secrets ..."
Jun 26, 2018 | www.unz.com

utu , June 25, 2018 at 8:29 pm GMT

@Buzz Mohawk

While commenting at the Part I I had similar thoughts concerning the 9/11 as you. The preponderance of mutually contradictory technical theories of JFK assassination completely detracted anybody from looking at the qui bono which inevitably would lead to Israel.

It occurred to me that 9/11 may share a similar fate.

This thought was very depressing. Relatively recently we have learned about the term of the 'cognitive infiltration' from Cass Sustain. It seems clear to me that exactly this cognitive infiltrations were successfully carried out in the case of JFK truthers.

Ron Unz , June 25, 2018 at 11:46 pm GMT
In writing my article, I'd forgotten to mention that in 1946 Zionist groups led by future Israeli prime ministers Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir had apparently planned to assassinate British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin. There's a link to a 2003 article from the Daily Telegraph:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1430766/Jewish-groups-plotted-to-kill-Bevin.html

Interestingly enough, the British government files also claim that an American Jewish activist named Rabbi Korff planned to organize some sort of aerial terrorist bombing attack against London around the same time. Korff later enjoyed a moment of considerable fame as a very high-profile supporter of President Richard Nixon shortly before his resignation during the Watergate Scandal.

renfro , June 25, 2018 at 11:56 pm GMT

I had a relatively easy time securing the rights to include it in my collection of controversial HTML Books, and I have now done so, thereby allowing everyone on the Internet to conveniently read the entire text and decide for themselves, while easily checking the multitude of references or searching for particular words or phrases.

Great ! -- thanks, have not read this before.

Sean Sean Sean , June 25, 2018 at 11:59 pm GMT
@Sean

"I really doubt that anyone, even the US vice president or director of the CIA has the authority to order anything like a political assassination of a sitting President."

Authority is not the word you're looking for. The appropriate term, depending on your point of view, is either absolute sovereignty or impunity. A US Secretary of State formally defined sovereignty in absolute life-and-death terms repudiated two millenia ago by the Germanic tribes of pre-modern Europe. The entire world has negated this viewpoint by acclamation, so the USA's a throwback.

In universally-acknowledged law, sovereignty is responsibility. But the US government thinks state responsibility is bullshit, and always did do. The US government has been assiduously undermining it ever since WWII. The US fights tooth and nail to make sure its citizens have no recourse to actions of the state, lawful or not.

Congress wrote absolute sovereignty into municipal law in the Central Intelligence Agency Act, various bureaucratic loopholes, and secret confidential legal pretexts. They gave it to CIA. The CIA command structure exercises not authority, but something akin to the divine right of kings, concealed for appearances' sake as state secrets . So you misunderstand, or misrepresent, the government bureaucracy when you imagine that there's that someone CIA would be scared to kill. They do what they want. And you do what they tell you to, or else.

lysias , June 26, 2018 at 12:01 am GMT
Almost certainly what gave the conspirators control over what was said in the U.S. media was Operation Mockingbird. That was (is?) a CIA operation.
utu , June 26, 2018 at 12:01 am GMT
Here is a commenter at Mondoweiss who brings up many assassinations linked to Israel.

http://mondoweiss.net/2015/07/president-inspections-facility/
July 28, 2015, 3:40 am

What we have in the case of the Zionist movement and Israel is a pattern of a serial perpetrator of murder, mass murder and terror. This is a well established fact. That pattern started well before the creation of Israel, see eg the murder of Jacob Israël de Haan on 30/6/1924 or the King David Hotel bombing on 22/7/1946. That murderous pattern continued after the creation of Israel, see for the early days for example the murder of Folke Bernadotte on 17/9/1948 and then read "Israel's sacred terrorism" based on Moshe Sharett's Personal Diary:

https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/essays/rokach.html

Since the early days of Zionism there are so many proven Zionist and Israeli state sponsored murders that it is hard to keep tracking them all. The murderous pattern of Israeli behaviour continues to the very recent time, think for example of the attampted assassination of Khaled Mashal on 25/9/1997, the car bomb killing Imad Mughniyah on 12/2/2008, the murder of Brig Gen Mohammed Suleiman on 1/8/2008 (which was just recently proven by US documents to be an Israeli job), the assassination of Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh on 19/1/2010 or the recent serial murder of Iranian scientists.

The murder of Jacob Israël de Haan proves that the Zionist movement targeted also jews. It was not a single case. Naeim Giladi wrote in detail about his role as a Zionist in attacking Iraqi jews on behalf of Israel in his book: Ben-Gurion's Scandals: How the Haganah and the Mossad Eliminated Jews. We also know from things like Operation Susannah and the attempt to sink the USS Liberty that Israel also has already attacked US targets in the past.

Generally I'ld say Israeli murders and terrors fit in two motive categories: either Israel committed state sponsored murders to get rid of anactual or perceived enemy like Khaled Mashal or Imad Mughniyah or someone deemed otherwise harmful to Israeli interests like Folke Bernadotte, or Israel committed acts of terror and murder with the intention of blaming the crime on someone else, ie perpetraiting "false flag operations", like it was the case with attacking Iraqi jews or Operation Susannah. One regular motivation for Israeli false flag ops was to enlist the US in fighting Israel's real or perceived enemies, ie starting US-led wars of aggression in the service of Israel. AIPAC/WINEP operatives publicly talk about using such "options" in the service of starting wars Israel wanted to get started:

A typical Israeli method to ensure false blame was faking signal intelligence. Victor Ostrovsky wrote about how the Mossad did falsely blame Libya of terror in his time with radio signal boxes placed by the Mossad in Libya for that purpose. In the case of the Ghouta chemical false flag terror attack, Israel simply provided the US with faked signal intelligence, essentially saying to Obama: now you must go to war, because we proved hereby that Syria crossed your chemical red lines.

So, now comes the funny thing. Despite this whole record of serial Israeli murder, terror and false flag terror targeting likewise enemies and friends, terrorists and innocents, Arabs and Westerners, Muslims, Christians and Jews, Syrians and Americans, and clear motives for Israel to perpetrate the crimes, there still exists a big taboo of talking about and investigating a possible Israeli sponsorship of the JFK murder and 9/11. It's even deemed anti-semitic to speak about this.

redmudhooch , June 26, 2018 at 12:05 am GMT
@utu

What exactly did the editor of Atlanta Jewish Time who called for Obama assassination say? I could not find the original but here is the quote in The Atlantic

This is the original article:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/284979-ajt.html

redmudhooch , June 26, 2018 at 12:22 am GMT
@Carlton Meyer

I think the "neocons" tried to get their wars started under Clinton with the USS Cole attack October 12 2000, while it was being refueled in Yemen's Aden harbor, that they also blamed on Al-Qaeda.
Sounds very similar to USS Liberty eh? Same people again, same story .
I guess Clinton refused to go along even after ((((Lewinsky))) sex blackmail, and false flag attack on USS Cole. So they knew they had to get a Republican into office, thats why there was such a fuss about that election, should also tell you where the Supreme Court stands
9/11, WTC planning, demolition rigging, probably started soon after USS Cole false flag.
It all adds up when you start thinking about it.
and I don't doubt Johnson played a huge role, he obviously did, I also believe some in CIA played a role as well as in Military/MIC, and probably even Wall St/Banking, Big Oil, that is what makes it a CONSPIRACY!
But I think the head honcho is Israel/Zionist intrests, and their plan of world domination.

JFK – The Speech That Killed Him

prusmc , Website June 26, 2018 at 12:33 am GMT
@nickels

I thought JFK was President when Diem was killed?

Ron Unz , June 26, 2018 at 1:33 am GMT
One important aspect of Piper's book is that his overwhelming focus on Israel and the Mossad provides a very helpful corrective to the CIA-centricism that I've noticed among so many "conspiracy people," who seem to believe that the CIA is some sort of all-powerful controlling force.

For example, in Appendix Six, Piper suggests that Mossad may have assassinated former CIA Director William Colby, as well as John Paisley, another former high-ranking CIA official:

http://www.unz.com/book/michael_collins_piper__final-judgment/#appendix-six-retribution

I certainly don't know enough about these cases to comment, but the NSA is supposedly also a pretty powerful intelligence organization, and lots of NSA people were killed or wounded during the Liberty attack, with absolutely no apparent consequences. And if top CIA people could also occasionally be killed with relative impunity, maybe that organization also isn't really so all-powerful.

Furthermore, one of Piper's major arguments is that long-time CIA counter-intelligence chief James Angleton had effectively become a Mossad intelligence asset at least by the 1960s, and he seems to provide a great deal of circumstantial evidence in favor of this notion. Therefore, he points toward Angleton as the likely CIA figure who spearheaded the CIA involvement in the JFK assassination.

One nice thing about my HTML Book software is that it allows full text searches of the books in question, controlled by the little Search icon next to the Email button. Or you can use this link:

http://www.unz.com/book/michael_collins_piper__final-judgment/?search=angleton+and+mossad

Iris , Next New Comment June 26, 2018 at 2:08 am GMT
@Ron Unz

"..CIA-centricism that I've noticed among so many "conspiracy people," who seem to believe that the CIA is some sort of all-powerful controlling force."

The CIA was also the "easy" and "obvious" culprit after 9/11. It came under an incredible amount of criticism from the "courageous" media, and George Tenet, its director at the time, was almost forced to resign.

It turned out later that the CIA had previously warned G. Bush about the increased risks of terror attack, and that their warnings were dismissed by Rumsfeld and the NeoCons, who a contrario were never blamed for anything.

This really shows who is higher up the food chain.

Achilles , Next New Comment June 26, 2018 at 2:35 am GMT

Jack Ruby was running guns and ammunition from Galveston Bay to Fidel Castro's guerrillas in Cuba about 1957, a former poker-playing partner of the Dallas nightclub owner told The News Thursday.

James E. Beaird said he waited until 1966, almost three years after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and "nothing had come out so I called them (FBI) just to find out why I was curious. However, they didn't see fit to even mention it to me again, so I never heard of anything they ever opened up on it."

Beaird said the FBI finally "sent a man out in 1976. I don't know why they did it then."

The FBI agent who interviewed Beaird in 1976 didn't mention in his report that Beaird had volunteered information about Ruby's gunrunning to the bureau in 1966. The report stated that since the 1963 assassination, "there had been so·much speculation as to possible foreign connections and he (Beaird) thought it better not to mention his knowledge of Jack Ruby in Kemah (southeast of Houston on Galveston Bay)."

The Warren Commission in 1964 investigated numerous allegations of gunrunning by Ruby but concluded that no factual information existed.

Beaird told the FBI that he "personally saw many boxes of new guns, including atltomatic rifles and handguns," stored in a 2-story house near the channel at Kemah and loaded on what looked like a 50-foot surplus military boat.

"He stated each time that the boat left with guns and ammunition, Jack Ruby was on the boat," the FBI report said.

Beaird, who was an automobile dealer in Houston from 1955 to 1957, said Ruby "was in it for the money. It wouldn't matter what side, just one that would pay him the most I don't even know who the ship belonged to. But he was in command of it. He went out every time it went. It was meeting a connection down there (in Cuba), that's all I ever heard."

Ruby would show up in Kemah, generally on weekends, to play poker and "just killing time until the boat was loaded," Beaird said, and usually was there not more than one or two hours.

"They loaded up at least twice while I was down there," be said. "Pickup trucks would carry it from the house over to this boat."

By 1959, Castro had taken control of Cuba and Ruby was beginning to switch sides as Castro threatened to force Mafia-backed professional gamblers out of the casinos in Havana.

Dallas Morning News, 18 Aug 1978

What was Ruby's connection to the splinter groups of left-over Cubans in Dallas? Was he selling them guns? Was he hiring them for odd jobs? Did he hear of the crazy violent commie anglo Oswald through his connections to these Cubans?

[Hide MORE]

What were these Israeli goats doing in Cuba shortly after the revolution that brought Fidel Castro to power? It turns out that Castro had taken notice of Israeli goats and was just waiting for the chance to taste their milk following the establishment in 1960 of diplomatic relations between the two countries.

"Fidel thought there were goats in Israel that produced milk like cows," recounted Clarita Malhi, who worked at the Cuban embassy in Israel. "He was really enamored by the technical progress Israel had made in the field of agriculture."

The Cuban ambassador in Israel was a Jewish millionaire revolutionary by the name of Ricardo Wolf (Ricardo Subirana y Lobo in Spanish), who decided to fulfill the dream of his boss who had sent him to Israel. The ambassador went looking for goats that "produced milk like cows" and could be shipped far across the ocean.

Yitzhak Zilber, a Cuban Jew and a member of Kibbutz Gaash, was chosen for the mission. Zilber, 89, sent Haaretz photos in which he is seen with the goats he found, waiting for a plane at the airport and travelling around Cuba.

Ultimately, when the goats for the mission were found, they were brought together at the airport, awaiting the moment when they could be airlifted to Cuba. An El Al plane landed in Israel from Cuba with new immigrants from the Cuban Jewish community who had decided to flee Castro's revolution. They came as part of an agreement under which Cuba effectively exchanged the immigrants for the goats.

The Haaretz archives contain a piece of information that might buttress the story about Castro and his Israeli goats. In an article in July 1961, it was reported that the Israeli Agriculture Ministry had sent an expert to Cuba to help the Cubans improve goat breeding.

Wolf, who was born in Germany, emigrated to Cuba in the 1920s and became a close associate of Castro. As a wealthy industrialist, he gave a large sum of money to finance the revolution. He later politely declined the offer of a cabinet position, but asked Castro to appoint him ambassador to Israel. Castro assented and Wolf arrived in the country in 1960 as Cuba's first – and only – ambassador. The trade involving the goats and the new immigrants was funded by Wolf personally.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-jews-for-goats-castro-s-secret-deal-with-israel-1.5475376

'Twas not ever thus. Not only did Cuba establish ties with nascent Israel in 1949, but Castro dispatched a key supporter, Ricardo Wolf, as his ambassador to Israel in 1960.

Dworin says Wolf, who made his fortune as a pioneer in the metal industry, helped finance the purchase of the yacht Granma, the cabin-cruiser built for 12 that ferried the Castro brothers, Che and 80 other revolutionaries from Mexico to Cuba in 1956 -- on the voyage that would culminate in the overthrow of Batista.

"What can I do to repay you?" Castro, once installed in power, asked Wolf, in Dworin's telling. "I want to be ambassador to Israel," he replied.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/when-our-woman-in-havana-asked-fidel-castro-to-the-synagogue-hanukkah-party/

Was Ricardo Subirana Y Lobo (Ricardo Wolf), a Cuban Jew and supporter of Castro, the bridge between Castro and Mossad? Castro originally offered Wolf the post of Minister of Finance in the communist government, but Wolf preferred to be Ambassador to Israel.

Kiza , Next New Comment June 26, 2018 at 3:08 am GMT
@Ron Unz

Hello Ron, I found your comment about growing up with the belief in the lone gunman official story interesting. I grew up in a communist country which was not part of the USSR block and I grew up with a belief in the official story that CIA was the main culprit in the JFK assassination although without a direct mention of LBJ. I would be interested to learn also what the official story inside the Eastern block was.

Even to this day, I have to admit that this official story was actually very close to the truth. So many years later and even after reading your high quality article I tend to believe that LBJ was heavily involved but at arms length distance, that CIA has done all of the ground work, that Mossad probably assisted and that Oswald did not even shoot let alone kill anyone.

Why is a local belief relevant? Well because whoever killed Kennedy tried to point blame at communists, those of USSR and Cuba. What I was lead to believe in this instance proves the old saying audi alteram partem – do not form any belief before you hear both sides. This applies to practically all strange events of history. Historical, geographical and ideological distance make quite a difference in the beliefs that we grow up with.

Next, the culprits would probably be mirrored in the case of 911, where the Israelis have done most of the ground work, whilst the dual citizens and the US agencies they control played the supporting and enabling role.

Obviously, the logistics of 911 dwarfs the logistics of the Kennedy assassinations, but it would be the same team, different era and with a different emphasis. The acts becoming more self-confident and brazen.

Ron Unz , June 26, 2018 at 3:12 am GMT
@Wizard of Oz

The account you are responding to has Macnamara ordering back nuclear armed planes which obviously had nothing to do with seeing off Israeli fighters and gunboats.

The more "mainstream" account that has been widely reported is that squadrons of U.S. jets were twice dispatched to rescue the Liberty, and then twice recalled based on top-level instructions from D.C.

I've sometimes seen another account floating around on the Internet that the Johnson and the Israelis had concocted a plan to have the latter sink the Liberty with all hands, after which Johnson would blame the attack on Egypt and launch a nuclear attack against Cairo in retaliation. Frankly, I find this scenario *extraordinarily* implausible, and until someone provides a credible source, I would just dismiss it. And by a "credible source" I mean something more than some random guy making the claim somewhere in some book.

[Jun 26, 2018] Was CIA and LBJ worked in tandem in the JFK assassination?

Jun 26, 2018 | www.unz.com

Center for Study of the Obvious , June 25, 2018 at 2:17 pm GMT

The 'bad-apples' disinformation relies on the idea that compartmentation and plausible deniability are incompatible with strict hierarchy. CIA lets a thousand flowers bloom when it makes a directive, but its assets are always strictly controlled with inducements, coercion, and compromise. The multiple JFK plots show CIA's telltale M.O. for important programs, not hordes of sneaky bad apples.

All the mafia-did-it disinformation relies on a sharp distinction between CIA and organized crime. Anywhere CIA is, they farm crime for agents and cutouts. Robert Kennedy Jr. makes this point in his book American Values (and that is why it sank without a ripple.)

And of course Johnson had foreknowledge. He was at Clint Murchison's party, in the little closed-door conclave where CIA green-lighted the coup. So was Rockefeller henchman John McCloy. CIA arranged to implicate lots of influential people.

The key point here is CIA impunity. CIA did it because CIA can get away with it. That makes Johnson a figurehead, not a potential threat.

Here's what we all have to face. All of us grew up under an autocratic CIA regime that hires and fires presidents, legislators, and judges. Kills them, too. They still kill or torture anyone they want. Ask Gina.

Heymrguda , June 25, 2018 at 2:50 pm GMT
I too have read Stone's book and, while he did not in any way "prove" that LBJ had JFK shot, he certainly laid out a plausible case for his involvement. Any one who has read Caro's series of books on LBJ will come away with the realization that he (Johnson) was capable of having him assassinated as well as having the means and the motivation. The man had no principles or scruples whatsoever.

I can't comment on any Israeli involvement, but praise for Ron Unz for adding his voice to those who believe LBJ almost had to have played a role in that event. Like others here, I was not a JFK fan either. But johnson's elevation to the presidency was an unparalleled disaster for the USA.

TonyVodvarka , June 25, 2018 at 2:51 pm GMT
The late Col. Fletcher Prouty was assigned to the Pentagon in charge of Air Force support of CIA operations in the years leading up to the assassination. His boss there was Gen. Edward Lansdale, nominally Air Force but actually undercover CIA, father of Special Forces and the engineer of the coup in the Philippines in the mid-fifties. Those familiar with the JFK treachery will recall the clear press photos of "the three tramps", men arrested in the railroad yard behind the grassy knoll, who were led away and never seen again. Two of those men were Howard Hunt (CIA) and Charles Harrelson (Texas mafia assassin). One of these photos shows a suited man passing by casually, seeming to reassure the three men. Col. Prouty, who worked closely with Lansdale for years, positively identified him and this was affirmed by Gen. "Brute" Krulak, who was at the time commander of MAAG in South Vietnam. The distinctive shape of his head and his West Point ring are clearly visible. Go to the website dedicated to Col. Prouty's works at http://www.prouty.org for this and much else directly from the horse's mouth. By the way, toward the end of the nineties, the only fingerprint on the sixth floor of the book depository that was not identified after the assassination was matched to Malcolm Wallace, Lindon Johnson's hitman, reportedly executing at least three murders for him.
TonyVodvarka , June 25, 2018 at 3:15 pm GMT
@Buzz Mohawk

Viewing the Zapruder film carefully, one can see that, during the six seconds of shooting, the limousine's brake lights are on and it almost comes to a halt. The chauffeur is looking back all this time and does not speed off until he sees JFK's head explode. There is a film clip that shows that, as the cortege begins to leave Love Field, the SS agents that attempted to ride in the normal protective position on the back bumper were called away by the chief of the detail. The two men protested strongly but were ordered back to a car. There were no motorcycle outriders, a standard security procedure. The 1112th Military Intelligence group, which normally would have secured the parade route was ordered to stand down and there was no additional security to replace them. Make of it what you will.

CanSpeccy , Website June 25, 2018 at 3:27 pm GMT

the passage of a half-century and the deaths, natural or otherwise, of nearly all the contemporary witnesses drastically reduces any hope of coming to a firm conclusion. At best, we can evaluate possibilities and plausibilities rather than high likelihoods let alone near certainties. And given the total absence of any hard evidence, our exploration of the origins of the assassination must necessarily rely upon cautious speculation.

What pathetic bollocks. You should write for CNN.

If the doctors attending on Kennedy at the Parklands Hospital, men experienced with gunshot wounds, all agreed, as they did, that Kennedy was killed by a bullet to the front of his head, then he was not killed by bullets from the Texas School Book Depository window where Oswald is alleged to have been. Therefore, the Warren Commission Report is based on lies. In particular, a phony autopsy report and a rewriting of the autopsy report findings by none other than President-to-be, Gerald Ford. That's not a matter of plausibilities or possibilities, liklihoods or non-certainties. It's as hard evidence as you ever likely to get in a court of law.

But Israel didn't do it! LOL. Who said Israel did do it? Only some of the nutters that comment freely here.

What would be interesting, if anyone would take the trouble to do it, is to delve more deeply into the political connections of the people in the CIA who organized the crime. If LBJ was the greatest beneficiary, it is nevertheless likely that there were Republicans on side with the killing, otherwise the CIA would surely not have acted. That E. Howard Hunt, Mexico City CIA station chief at the time of the assassination appears to have been connected with the event through (a) Oswald's visit to the Mexico City CIA office, and (b) Hunt's alleged presence in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination, suggests that Hunt's role in the Watergate burglary was to see what information the Democratic Party may have had relating to the assassination that could have been used to damage Richard Nixon in his run for re-election.

exiled off mainstreet , June 25, 2018 at 3:33 pm GMT
All of this seems pretty interesting and completes my suppositions as to what happened to JFK and RFK and who was responsible and, perhaps even more importantly, who benefited "cui bono" a usual criterion in determined who instigated a murder.
SunBakedSuburb , June 25, 2018 at 4:03 pm GMT
" Johnson may indeed have been a passive supporter or even an accomplice."

Lyndon Johnson's long-standing friendship/strategic partnership with J. Edgar Hoover points to the "passive supporter" role. Act of Treason (1991), by Mark North, documents Hoover's knowledge of, but not active participation in, the JFK hit. Hoover's job was to provide bureaucratic support of the coup d'état and to ease his friend Lyndon into the White House.

The prime mover in the assassination was the Allen Dulles cabal at CIA: The presence of Lee Harvey Oswald speaks of James Angleton's involvement. But the details of the network that took the operational role still seems to be in question. There was that group of U.S. intelligence officers and Mafia figures that began during the second world war. And now the new research that suggests an Israeli role on one hand, and Fourth Reich elements on the other. (Fourth Reich elements being the Otto Skorzeny network known as Die Spinne or Odessa that had ties with MacArthur's WW2 intelligence chief Charles Willoughby.)

So the mystery continues. But however the network that assumed the operational role in the JFK hit was configured, Allen Dulles was the godfather.

Anonymous [336] Disclaimer , June 25, 2018 at 4:10 pm GMT
Jackie Kennedy thought Johnson was behind it. I believe Bobby Kennedy did too.

https://www.irishcentral.com/news/jackie-kennedy-lyndon-b-johnson-jfk-murder

jdf , June 25, 2018 at 4:33 pm GMT
Nice summary of the salient points of the assassinations. A couple of things that did not get mentioned:
The "wink" as LBJ was being sworn in. It clinches it.
Marion Brown's statement that LBJ, her lover, told her well in advance that JFK was going to be killed.
Peter Dale Scott stated: The door to the assassination is through Jack Ruby.
Ruby's phone calls were looked at by the FBI and Justice Dept., and catalogued. Almost all were to Jewish mafia figures–not Italians. When the House Assassinations Committee asked for these transcripts, they were told they no longer existed! But old copies were eventually found. Someone in DOJ tried to scrub them from the records.
One of the best books on the assassination IMHO is Gaeton Fonzi's "The Last Investigation."
Piper's book is essential reading, but he focuses only on Israel and the Jewish connections. Because of its lack of "balance", it should not be read as a stand-alone treatise on the JFK assassination.
Among my top ten books are–admittedly a list long out of date:
On the Trail of the Assassins
The Last Investigation
Deep Politics and the Death of JFK
JFK and the Unspeakable
Final Judgment (with above reservations)

Probably more important would be a list of books absolutely NOT to be read–among them Gerald Posner's "Case Closed."

As a general rule, you can consider ANYONE arguing that Unz is full of s$#t and Oswald did it as a crazed lone assassin, is a paid TROLL. The assassinations are grounded in solid research that has been going on since the 1970s, when I attended a four-hour lecture by David Lifton at SUNY Stony Brook–an event that literally toppled my world. It has never recovered.

Jinks , June 25, 2018 at 4:44 pm GMT
You might want to find a copy of Dr. Mary's Monkey. I think it is a really good read about a side story to the JFK assassination about the goings on in New Orleans and the CIA.
jinks , June 25, 2018 at 4:56 pm GMT
@Bardon Kaldian

It matters only because the truth always matters, and until it is satisfied it will always be a pebble in the shoe. The past is only past because it has happened, but in its own strange way its always with us. Events that occurred 200 years ago affect today, as well as those events from 500 years ago. And sometimes things need to be covered up for very good reasons.

As for our "kulcher", I personally believe it's just part of a nations life cycle. None of us age younger, neither does a nation, it can also die.

Ron Unz , June 25, 2018 at 5:24 pm GMT
@JohnnyWalker123

You mention here that you think our alternative media have been dishonest in analyzing LBJ's likely role in the assassination. Why? Was it because the media feared LBJ might have them killed?

I very much doubt that. Johnson died at the beginning of 1973, a very widely despised and hated figure, and surely few people feared any retaliation much after that, let alone Talbot and Douglass writing forty years later.

I suspect there were several factors, mostly the ones I outlined in my discussion.

First, most JFK researchers were strong liberals or otherwise admired "Camelot," and it surely would have been very difficult for them to psychologically accept that most of JFK's top people were perfectly willing to continue working for LBJ, if the latter had murdered the former.

Also, "LBJ Killed JFK" might sound like such a ultra "crazy conspiracy theory" to publishers and editors who overwhelmingly may still believe that a "lone gunman" killed JFK. So writers who considered making such a claim might fear having their careers totally ruined. I think fear of humiliation, reputation-loss, and the resulting financial damage is a far greater factor than fear of physical harm.

Here's another factor. Having a vice president come to power by assassinating his predecessor is the sort of thing that just doesn't happen in developed First World countries. Offhand, I can't think of even a single case in any major country over the last couple of hundred years. It would probably be pretty embarrassing for even a Third World banana-republic. What respectable American historian would want to admit that the politics of our own country at the height of its international prestige during the early 1960s may have actually made Guatemala look like a shining example of orderly, constitutional government?

Dillon Sweeny , June 25, 2018 at 5:30 pm GMT
@jinks

As for our "kulcher", I personally believe it's just part of a nations life cycle. None of us age younger, neither does a nation, it can also die.

"Culture" is not a subset of "nation". The American culture has changed -- all culture changes in accordance with external influences. America, as a nation founded under a set of Enlightenment principles, has ended. There remains a huge morass/aggregation of conflicting cultures, overseen and manipulated by a horrificly corrupt government.

Anon [257] Disclaimer , June 25, 2018 at 7:32 pm GMT
Blood Money & Power by Barr McClennan

Murder From Within by Fred Newcomb

Both books claim Johnson killed Kennedy.

McClennan is the son of one of Johnson's attorneys

I read them both along with Piper's book.

They make a lot more sense that the right wing atmosphere of hate Dallas PD including officer Tippett another of Oswald's Victims and president bush & cia fbi secret service army navy Air Force departments of agriculture and every other government department and of course the man directing the military ambush by 15 shooters, umbrella man.

Have fun with your myths legends and fairy tales, naive credulous gullible idiots.

CanSpeccy , Website June 25, 2018 at 7:37 pm GMT

Nixon knew what happened to JFK who resisted.

The Warren Commission Report was a cover up. The evidence for that is clear for the reasons I have stated here .

And if the Warren Commission Report was a cover up, what had they to cover up? Government complicity in the assassination of JFK, obviously. So who, in particular, was involved. Well obviously that branch of government that does assassinations, the CIA. But that does not mean that the CIA went rogue.

The CIA serves the powers that be, so whatever the antagonism of some individuals within the Agency, the CIA would not have acted on the assassination of JFK without bipartisan political support.

LBJ, the obvious beneficiary, had every reason to give the CIA the nod, but someone on the other side of the aisle had to be complicit too. Who?

Well Nixon had been the Republican Presidential candidate in the previous election, so he was the effective head of the party and thus the man to go to.

As I argue here , Nixon's guilty knowledge of the assassination may have been the real cause of his downfall. Nixon's Vice President, Gerald R. Ford had been appointed to the Warren Commission by LBJ and it was he who made a critical falsification of that report, therby casting responsibility for the killing on Lee Harvey Oswald.

It is likely, therefore, that Ford had the goods on Nixon and blackmailed him into resignation over the Watergate inquiry.

utu , June 25, 2018 at 7:40 pm GMT
What exactly did the editor of Atlanta Jewish Time who called for Obama assassination say? I could not find the original but here is the quote in The Atlantic

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/what-earth-would-prompt-newspaper-editor-call-obamas-assassination/332854/

Three, give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place , and forcefully dictate that the United States' policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.

Yes, you read "three" correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel's existence. Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don't you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel's most inner circles ?

Where from did Mr. Andrew Adler, who was forced to resign later, get the idea of killing a president so he would be replaced with Israel friendly VP? Did Mr. Adler study JFK assassination and LBJ policy with respect to Israel? Or is it a common knowledge and common Jewish modus operandi: kill whoever does not like Israel? Do Jews think and talk about assassinating of American presidents who are unfriendly to Israel? Do Jews believe that the Deep Sate in Israel considers assassinations and act on it when necessary?

[Jun 26, 2018] The opposition media is created to nominally represent alternative views but in reality to silence of the issues you want silenced.

Jun 26, 2018 | www.unz.com

j2 , June 25, 2018 at 9:44 am GMT

@JohnnyWalker123

"You mention here that you think our alternative media have been dishonest in analyzing LBJ's likely role in the assassination. Why? Was it because the media feared LBJ might have them killed? Was it perhaps because some in our media were on the payroll and being used to distract from the "mastermind" assassin?"

You have the reason already in Maurice Joly's Dialogues. The opposition media is created to nominally represent alternative views but in reality to silence of the issues you want silenced. Even the opposition, which always picks up on everything, agrees with this issue, so it accepted by all. Much of the alternative media has nothing to fear as it is not alternative media in anything but appearance. But with the Internet it is getting harder to do this. Finally they fail.

j2 , June 25, 2018 at 10:00 am GMT
@The Alarmist

"As for the Israelis well, they're the Israelis. If they saw a shot to capture effective control of our government by offing a guy more likely to keep them in check for a venal type who probably didn't give a rat's behind for the Israelis, but salivated over destabilising the middle east, because destabilizing the middle east actually made Texas oil and other oil assets around the world controlled by or lifted by Texans in the oil industry far more valuable, then who can blame them for joining the cabal and taking the shot?"

So, LBJ just wanted to promote Texas oil and to become the President, no special Israel connection? And the Israelis just joined the cabal and who can blame them?
I found it very interesting that young LBJ was helping in the Galveston project. Galveston somehow reminded me of Jacob Schiff. And I also found it fascinating that young Allan Dulles was the guy who produced the very copy of Joly's Dialogues from which Ohrana plagiarized the Protocols. Both were working for the dark side from their youth.

[Jun 26, 2018] Why lymo, which as acrime scene artifact was repaired so quickly

Jun 26, 2018 | www.unz.com

Carlton Meyer , Website June 25, 2018 at 5:56 pm GMT

I recently learned of another smoking gun. After JFKs Limo arrived at Parkland hospital, many people looked it over and took photos. There was a bullet hole through the front windshield. It entered from the front, yet was never discussed afterwards by anyone. The Limo was hauled away to Washington within hours and secretly repaired. There are lots of links about this, such as:

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/douglas-p-horne/photographic-evidence-of-bullet-hole-in-jfk-limousine-windshield-hiding-in-plain-sight/

[Jun 26, 2018] See Col. L. Fletcher Prouty on why CIA hated JFK

Jun 26, 2018 | www.unz.com

MrTruth , June 25, 2018 at 9:06 am GMT

See Col. L. Fletcher Prouty videos and books on the deep background for why the CIA hated JFK.

http://www.prouty.org/

Prouty was the source for Mr. X in Oliver Stone's movie JFK. Prouty was an air force pilot in WWII. He flew missions around the world and witnessed history as it happened. After WWII, he worked in the pentagon as a liaison officer between the military and the CIA. He saw the original documents authorizing military support of CIA operations around the world.

As Prouty explains it, throughout human history war was a means of killing the other guy and taking his stuff. The preparation for war and the prosecution of war provided an organizing principle for human society that gave people the motivation to develop their own societies, lest the other guy become more powerful than you and kill you.

As he describes it, with the detonation of atomic weapons at the end of WWII, conventional war was instantly understood to be obsolete. In any future conventional war, if one side was about to win a decisive victory, the potentially losing side would simply go nuclear, and everyone would lose.

With the end of conventional war, and the impossibility of nuclear war, the global power elite invented the proxy war as the new means for the continuation of war as an organizing principle of society. In the U.S., the CIA was the tool for starting and prosecuting proxy wars.

Prouty describes how, at the end of WWII, he was flying supply missions to Okinawa for the staging of the invasion of Japan. The military bases in Okinawa were overflowing with every conceivable type of materiel necessary to support more than a million man invasion.

After the atomic bombs were dropped and Japan had surrendered, Prouty claims that he asked a supply officer if they were just going to send all the supplies back to the states.

The officer said no. He said that all the materiel was going to be divided in half, and that half was going to Seoul, Korea, and that the other half was going to Hanoi, Vietnam. Prouty believes that by 1945 Korea and Vietnam had already been decided to be the sites of the first proxy wars, and that the CIA was already involved in planning the wars.

Kennedy was planning to dismantle the CIA, and Prouty recounts in his books, lectures, and videos how the JFK assassination reversed the course of history.

The JFK assassination is an endless rabbit hole of history. If you jump in, you won't come out the same way.

[Jun 26, 2018] Was Osvald a CIA agent?

Jun 26, 2018 | www.unz.com

Carlton Meyer , Website June 25, 2018 at 4:31 am GMT

This article is a nice overview that explains the problem. There were many powerful groups who wanted Kennedy killed, and probably several plots were underway. Allow me to suggest "The Secret Team" by Col. Prouty to your reading list.

Your last post resulted in too many posts to read, but one pointed to an outstanding video of Lee Oswald's life, showing facts that make it clear he was a CIA operative. Note that after he returned from Russia after openly committing treason, he was never arrested, and granted a spousal visa for his Russian wife. That undeniable fact itself is proof he was a CIA plant. Oswald hoped to become an official CIA officer and federal employee, but remained a low-level paid operative until his death. Oswald expressed concern in New Orleans that operatives were considered disposable.

Anyway, I highly recommend this great video:

JohnnyWalker123 , June 25, 2018 at 8:30 am GMT
Here's a picture that proves that Oswald and David Ferrie knew each other through the Civil Air Patrol.

https://isgp-studies.com/DL_1967_02_22_David_Ferrie_death

It also appears that Oswald may have known Clay Shaw. See quote below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Clay_Shaw#Later_findings,_and_CIA_revelations

In 1979, the House Select Committee on Assassinations stated in its Final Report that the Committee was "inclined to believe that Oswald was in Clinton (Louisiana) in late August, early September 1963, and that he was in the company of David Ferrie, if not Clay Shaw,"[64] and that witnesses in Clinton, Louisiana "established an association of an undetermined nature between Ferrie, Shaw and Oswald less than three months before the assassination".[65]

The CIA also admitted that Clay Shaw had worked for them in some capacity. See quote below.

During a 1979 libel suit involving the book Coup D'Etat In America, Richard Helms, former director of the CIA, testified under oath that Shaw had been a part-time contact of the Domestic Contact Service of the CIA, where Shaw volunteered information from his travels abroad, mostly to Latin America.[70] Like Shaw, 150,000 Americans (businessmen, and journalists, etc.) had provided such information to the DCS by the mid-1970s.[70] [nb 1] In February 2003, the CIA released documents pertaining to an earlier inquiry from the Assassination Records Review Board about QKENCHANT, a CIA project used to provide security approvals on non-CIA personnel, that indicated Shaw had obtained a "five Agency" clearance in March 1949.[72]

More interesting information below.

New Orleans attorney Dean Andrews testified to the Warren Commission that while he was hospitalized for pneumonia, he received a call from "Clay Bertrand" the day after the assassination, asking him to fly to Dallas to represent Lee Harvey Oswald.[28][29] According to FBI reports, Andrews told them that this phone call from "Clay Bertrand" was a figment of his imagination.[30]

In his book, On the Trail of the Assassins, Garrison says that after a long search of the New Orleans French Quarter, his staff was informed by the bartender at the tavern "Cosimo's" that "Clay Bertrand" was the alias that Clay Shaw used. According to Garrison, the bartender felt it was no big secret and "my men began encountering one person after another in the French Quarter who confirmed that it was common knowledge that 'Clay Bertrand' was the name Clay Shaw went by."[\

So it appears likely that Oswald, Ferrie, and Shaw knew each other. Which is sort of strange.

Then there's George de Mohrenschildt, a very complex and interesting character. I wonder if anyone here could tell me more about the nature of his relationship with Oswald.

JohnnyWalker123 , June 25, 2018 at 8:32 am GMT
@Carlton Meyer

I really liked Dark Journalist's analysis of Oswald. I think I posted this video in the other thread.

Oswald was certainly a CIA asset, much like the late Osama Bin Laden.

Milton , June 25, 2018 at 12:00 pm GMT
I believe the Zionists in Israel placed the order and Freemasons in the American Deep State executed the order. It's also quite possible that Zionist terrorists did the actual shooting as they had the experience in killing Western high profile targets (Moyne, Bernadotte, King David Hotel bombing, etc) but more likely that elements of the Deep State in America who hated JFK did the actual shooting. In either case, Oswald was not lone-nut and the case is certainly not closed. We know this because Trump recently reclassified the sealed JFK assassination records which were mandated to be released in October, 2017. He stated that he did so to protect "national security" (aka protect the Deep State and Israel) and to protect the "names and addresses" of individuals still alive. Trump, far from being an opponent of the Deep State, is actually working hand-in-hand with them (the Mueller "investigation" is actually smoke and mirrors to distract the Sheeple from the fact that Trump is actually part of the Deep State).
gsjackson , June 25, 2018 at 12:30 pm GMT
I've heard Stone talk about Nixon's reaction to seeing Ruby shoot Oswald, but this surely wasn't an eyewitness account, as Stone was in 6th grade at the time. His career as a political operative goes back about 45 years to volunteering for CREEP as a college student in 1972, somewhat less as an influential one.

Apparently Johnson's mistress said he told her in so many words that the assassination was going to happen. I think there's little doubt that he was aware and acquiescent, perhaps an active participant. Ruby probably was his man, and he and Ruby both likely were Israel's men. A few years later Johnson was blood in the water for the mainstream media shark tank over Vietnam and civil disorder. If he were the prime mover of the JFK assassination, I doubt that the media would uniformly have laid off the subject. Only Israel, it would seem, could have orchestrated such a massive and continuous cover up.

[Jun 26, 2018] Here's a good History Channel special on how LBJ may have been involved with the JFK assassination. I personally think it makes a pretty good case.

Jun 26, 2018 | www.unz.com

JohnnyWalker123 , June 25, 2018 at 8:19 am GMT

Another well-reasoned and highly-detailed article. I agree that we'll probably never know many of the important details of how the assassination was planned and who was involved, given almost all the participants and witnesses are long since dead. However, we can almost certainly conclude that there was a conspiracy that involved many important individuals from the establishment, including President LBJ.

What are your thoughts on Seymour Hersh and his book "The Dark Side of Camelot"? I recall his book received very negative coverage by the MSM, but I can't really judge how credible his claims happen to be. It's a very shocking book though.

You mention here that you think our alternative media have been dishonest in analyzing LBJ's likely role in the assassination. Why? Was it because the media feared LBJ might have them killed? Was it perhaps because some in our media were on the payroll and being used to distract from the "mastermind" assassin?

So the clear dishonesty of the mainstream media in avoiding any recognition of a conspiracy seems matched by a second layer of dishonesty in the alternative media, which has done its best to avoid recognizing the most likely perpetrator.

Here's a good History Channel special on how LBJ may have been involved with the JFK assassination. I personally think it makes a pretty good case.

[Jun 26, 2018] Buzz Mohawk

Jun 26, 2018 | www.unz.com

says: June 25, 2018 at 8:09 am GMT 100 Words For anyone who hasn't seen it, here is a stabilized, panoramic version of the Zapruder film. With this, you can get a clearer idea of the scene and what really happened. For me at least, it removes a lot of the mystery, revealing that the physical event itself was not that remarkable, no matter who did it.

Read More Replies: @JohnnyWalker123 Dan Rather lied about the event to the public.

Which was remarkable.

Watch Rather lie here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXFwbIx2mbc , @TonyVodvarka Viewing the Zapruder film carefully, one can see that, during the six seconds of shooting, the limousine's brake lights are on and it almost comes to a halt. The chauffeur is looking back all this time and does not speed off until he sees JFK's head explode. There is a film clip that shows that, as the cortege begins to leave Love Field, the SS agents that attempted to ride in the normal protective position on the back bumper were called away by the chief of the detail. The two men protested strongly but were ordered back to a car. There were no motorcycle outriders, a standard security procedure. The 1112th Military Intelligence group, which normally would have secured the parade route was ordered to stand down and there was no additional security to replace them. Make of it what you will. , @Heros Every time I see that Zapruder film I am reminded by the Kinks song "Give the people what they want":


When Oswald shot Kennedy, he was insane
Yet still we watch the re-runs again and again
We all sit glued while killer takes aim.......
Hey Mom there go the pieces of the Presidents Brain
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0hWhCOx4U8&t=2m28s

Both Kennedy assassinations were also a massive psyop, and they remain so today. All the talk shows, all the movies, all the images flashing on screen, all the background music. But the scandal, is always used to push the sexualize and destroy the family agenda. Kennedy publicly had so many lovers, including Maralyn Monroe, another psyop herself.

It is the same with Clinton's famous cigar. This obsession with perverse sex is a very strong indicator of where the scandal is emanating. All the dogs not barking that point to this place are evidence too.

[Jun 18, 2018] In criminal investigations the first question always is 'who benefits'. The weird thing in political suspicious deaths is that this question is seldom asked

Counting the shooting of JFK in 1963, and the shooting-wouding of Ronald Reagan in 1981 by a guy whose father was working for George Bush's brother (!), plus the two arguably-staged 'impeachments' of Richard Nixon (ending 1974) and Bill Clinton (ending 1999), you have a 40% removal-programme hit rate on the previous 10 US Presidents.
Notable quotes:
"... Counting the shooting of JFK in 1963, and the shooting-wouding of Ronald Reagan in 1981 by a guy whose father was working for George Bush's brother (!), plus the two arguably-staged 'impeachments' of Richard Nixon (ending 1974) and Bill Clinton (ending 1999), you have a 40% removal-programme hit rate on the previous 10 US Presidents. ..."
"... Ron's suspicions may be correct. However, I am bothered by two things left out of his article: the identity of the conspirators and their motivation. What was President Kennedy doing that had to be stopped? ..."
Jun 18, 2018 | www.unz.com

Not Raul , June 18, 2018 at 5:41 am GMT
One of the main reasons why "conspiracy theory" is used in the pejorative sense:

After JFK was killed, there were many articles and books written claiming a conspiracy. And then nothing happened.

At some level, most Americans are still convinced that the police and prosecutors are looking out for them: If it really were proved that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, of course the conspirators would be prosecuted, right?

The same is true of the "suicide" of Gary Webb, the man who uncovered Iran Contra. He was found with an alleged suicide note, and two gunshot wounds to the back of the head. The coroner ruled his death a suicide. Case closed.

Technomad , June 18, 2018 at 6:11 am GMT
The thing is, the kind of high-level people who're generally accused of wanting to murder poor, poor, innocent JFK both knew that at worst, he'd be gone by January 21, 1969, and knew more than enough about him to come up with a much better plan. Getting "Dr. Feelgood," with or without his conscious cooperation, to give JFK a "hot shot" would do the trick just fine, as would sending in a "bimbo" with a cyanide injector in her beehive hairdo. First rule of this as in many other things -- KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid!)

The kinds of scenarios I've seen from conspiracy believers are so complicated and iffy that they make Jimmy Carter's "Operation Eagle Claw" look like a sure-fire, can't-lose winner. Having Oswald be the only shooter makes sense, and comports with what we know of Oswald's personality. The men who've murdered other presidents were generally attention sponges with an exaggerated view of their importance in the scheme of things. Oswald thought he was rightfully a world-shaking hero, instead of the twerp he was, but compared to Charles Guiteau (who shot James Garfield) Oswald was a shrinking violet.

jilles dykstra , June 18, 2018 at 6:46 am GMT
In criminal investigations the first question always is 'who benefits'. The weird thing in political suspicious deaths is that this question is seldom asked.
This is the case with, to name a few, Sikorsky, Kennedy, Palme, Anna Lyndh, Hammarskjöld, Diana, Hess, Pearl Harbour, Sept 11, MH17, MH370, Bernadotte, Barschel, there must be more.

In the Kennedy case, he was killed some two weeks after he had threatened Israel not to sell weapons any more, if they continued building the atomic bomb.

utu , June 18, 2018 at 6:48 am GMT
Both patsies Harvey Lee Oswald and Sirhan Sirhan were selected with respect to the legends, real or synthetic, that could be used in the post assassination story spin off. In both cases the legends were to deflect the attention form the actual conspirators. In the case of Oswald it was his defection to the USSR. Involvement of Soviets in the assassination was an option that was not played in the media in the end but it could have been if the lone nut assassin narrative for some reason could not gain the traction. In the case of Sirham his legend as a disgruntled Palestinian who was upset with RFK's alleged support for Israel was played to the full extent. It was done for two reasons: (1) to decouple JFK assassination from RFK assassination; crazy lone nut Texan American and crazy lone nut Arab Palestinian had only one thing in common: being a crazy lone nut, and (2) paint RFK as a martyr for his pro Israel views. The second spin off was risky because it brought Israel into the story, nevertheless the conspirators thought it was important and took the risk so the could make out of RFK the first (and the only one so far afaik) American politician who died for his pro Israel position. This certainly pushed away any suspicions that Israel might have been involved or could have benefited from his assassination. Sirhan Sirhan legend was also used to foreshadow Palestinian terrorism that began to grow in the wake of the Six Day War of 1967.
Anon [138] Disclaimer , June 18, 2018 at 6:48 am GMT
Try taking a look at 'Prayer Man', most likely the image of Lee Harvey Oswald on the front steps of the TSBD building shortly after the shooting. A good introduction can be found at http://22november1963.org.uk/prayer-man-jfk-assassination
utu , June 18, 2018 at 7:07 am GMT
The 1991 Oliver Stone movie unblocked many Americans to think about and consider the conspiracy behind the assassination. Still four years earlier Stanley Kubrick was reinforcing the meme of Lee Harvey Oswald in Full Metal Jacket:
JohnnyWalker123 , June 18, 2018 at 7:09 am GMT
Excellent article, Ron. Thankyou for writing this.

On his deathbed, CIA Agent E. Howard Hunt confessed to being involved in the JFK assassination. He implicated other intelligence agents and Vice-President LBJ. Watch this short video here in which he confesses.

If anyone wants to understand the JFK assassination in more detail, I highly recommend watching Oliver Stone's movie JFK. Here's a very good part of the movie that explains how Oswald couldn't have shot JFK, as Oswald was behind JFK and JFK's head snaps back and to the left. So the true assassin must've been in the front (his shot knocked JFK's head back) – and couldn't have been Oswald. Watch the video below. "Back and to the left."

Here's an interesting video on how many JFK assassination witnesses died mysterious deaths. Start watching this video from 1:50. Particularly interesting is that on the day when the House tried to get George De Mohrenschildt (a close friend of Oswald and a very prominent socialite in Dallas) to testify, he was found death. The death was ruled a suicide.

Jack Ruby (the Dallas club owner who assasinated Oswald) claimed that LBJ had JFK assassinated. See video below.

He also claimed a conspiracy was keeping him from speaking. See video below.

When JFK was assassinated, there was a man with an umbrella who was right next to the president. It was an extremely sunny day in Dallas on that day. Why was the man holding the umbrella? Reporter Bill O'Reilly reports evidence that the "Umbrella Man" may have used the umbrella to fire a dart into JFK. Interestingly, the CIA had developed a dart weapon before that date. See this video below. Starts at 40 seconds.

Dr. Charles Crenshaw (who treated JFK's bullet wound and went on to become ) claimed that the entry points of 2 of the wounds he observed were in the front of JFK's throat. Therefore, the assassin must've been in the front and couldn't have been Oswald. He also claimed that the wound was tampered with to make it seem the bullet came from behind.

"Dark Journalist" has a very good video on the JFK assassination.

Here's an interesting video of Dan Rather lying about the JFK assassination. This news clip was made shortly after the assassination. Dan Rather told the American viewing public that JFK's head went forward after he was shot. Later, it would be revealed that Dan Rather had lied that day.

By the way, you always hear the Warren Commission found that there was no conspiracy and that Oswald was the "lone gunman." However, in 1976, the House of Representatives investigated the matter and concluded that there was a conspiracy behind the JFK assassination. The assasination involved multiple gunmen. The media never reports this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_Assassinations

The United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) was established in 1976 to investigate the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. The HSCA completed its investigation in 1978 and issued its final report the following year, concluding that Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. In addition to acoustic analysis of a police channel dictabelt recording,[1] the HSCA also commissioned numerous other scientific studies of assassination-related evidence that corroborate the Warren Commission's findings.[2]

JohnnyWalker123 , June 18, 2018 at 7:35 am GMT
LBJ wanted JFK dead sooner than that.

Here's a very persuasive History Channel video on how LBJ had JFK killed.

Also, the military-industrial complex wanted to escalate the war in Vietnam.

By the way, it's sort of interesting how the mysterious Gulf of Tonkin incident led to a huge war in Vietnam.

This video demonstrates how wildly implausible it was that Oswald pulled the trigger. The FBI couldn't replicate Oswald's supposed shooting with their best shooters.

FBI didn't find a palm print on Oswald's rifle. Then, a week later, a Dallas policeman found a palm print on the rifle.

"We're through the looking glass people. White is black – and black is white."

Biff , June 18, 2018 at 7:53 am GMT
@Technomad

One trip to Dealy Plaza, and the Oswald story crumbles. Keep trying though.

LondonBob , June 18, 2018 at 8:00 am GMT
Of course the highly reputable confessions by Chauncey Holt and E Howard Hunt have been studiously ignored.
Brabantian , Website June 18, 2018 at 8:42 am GMT
Nice account of 'getting woke' from Ron Unz quite appreciate the tidbits such as the mention of the once-very-famous Dorothy Kilgallen of the 'What's My Line?' TV show (1950-67)

Counting the shooting of JFK in 1963, and the shooting-wouding of Ronald Reagan in 1981 by a guy whose father was working for George Bush's brother (!), plus the two arguably-staged 'impeachments' of Richard Nixon (ending 1974) and Bill Clinton (ending 1999), you have a 40% removal-programme hit rate on the previous 10 US Presidents.

Maybe even more hidden from public knowledge, is the truth of the Watergate 'Silent Coup' (Colodny / Gettlin book). Bob Woodward was a US Navy intelligence agent under Admiral Maurer, and when Maurer became head of the US Joint Chiefs and thus the entire US military, Woodward was planted at the CIA's Washington Post to be the fake 'brave reporter' for the coup d'état of 'Watergate', entirely a US Joint Chiefs – CIA operation. Bob Woodward was apparently such an idiot re journalism at first he needed lots of remedial coaching to meet minimal standards.

'Deep Throat' was fiction, the CIA had all the info, the CIA fake 'leaker' is another big distraction game getting repeated (Daniel Ellsberg; Deep Throat; Wikileaks Assange who was admitted by both Brzezinski and Netanyahu to be fake, seems he isn't even really 'living' at the London Ecuador Embassy, faker Edward Snowden , first 'leaking' to the CIA's Washington Post, ha!, with Glenn Greenwald posing as the latest Jewish 'brave journalist'; Mossad-historian-supervised 'Panama Papers', etc.)

Another 'impeachment' farce was the Deep State 'Monica Lewinsky' nonsense against Bill Clinton, fired up when Bill balked in nausea, at the thought of ordering the war-crime bombing of Serbia that would kill thousands. For Clinton-Lewinsky, another Jewish figure, Matt Drudge, was propped up to play the Woodward role of 'great investigative reporter' When Clinton consented to approve the war as his way to stay alive, he was 'acquitted' – the bombings of Serbia began shortly afterwards. Clearly, the Deep State cannot even trust its highly pre-vetted White House occupants.

Now that the Unz site is on board with collusion in US President removals, we still have to get Unz site writers woke on the laughably fake 9 'trips to the moon' with 6 alleged 'moon landings' of 1968-72 regarding which director Stanley Kubrick even admitted before in March 1999 before he died, that he faked the 'moon landing' NASA videos (CIA movie studios, Laurel Canyon, California) 50th anniversary of the 'trips to the moon' starts this December a good time for Unz debunking

Laurent Guyénot , June 18, 2018 at 9:07 am GMT
Follow the Jack Ruby trail: If Oswald was "just a patsy," the first thing to do is to investigate on the man who silenced Oswald, thereby preventing any doubts being raised in a court case. Strangely enough, no one (not even Ruby's biographer Seth Kantor) seem to care that Jack Ruby's real name was Jacob Leon Rubenstein.

Allow me to quote from my earlier article, and add a few details: Ruby, the son of Jewish Polish immigrants, was a member of the Jewish underworld. He was a friend of Los Angeles gangster Mickey Cohen, whom he had known and admired since 1946. Cohen was the successor of the famed Benjamin Siegelbaum, aka Bugsy Siegel, one of the bosses of Murder Incorporated.

Cohen was infatuated with the Zionist cause, as he explained in his memoirs: "Now I got so engrossed with Israel that I actually pushed aside a lot of my activities and done nothing but what was involved with this Irgun war". Mickey Cohen was in contact with Menachem Begin, the former Irgun chief, with whom he even "spent a lot of time," according to Gary Wean, former detective sergeant for the Los Angeles Police Department. So there is a direct line connecting Jack Ruby, via Mickey Cohen, to the Israeli terrorist ring, and in particular to Menachem Begin, a specialist in false flag terror. We also know that Ruby phoned Al Gruber, a Mickey Cohen associate, just after Oswald's arrest; no doubt he received then "an offer he couldn't refuse," as they say in the underworld. Ruby's defense lawyer William Kunstler wrote in his memoirs that Ruby told him he had killed Oswald "for the Jews," and Ruby's rabbi Hillel Silverman received the same confession when visiting Ruby in jail.

Probably as a cryptic message to Johnson, whom he expected to pardon him, Ruby made the following odd statements to the Warren Commission: "There will be a certain tragic occurrence happening if you don't take my testimony and somehow vindicate me so my people don't suffer because of what I have done." He said that feared that his act would be used "to create some falsehood about some of the Jewish faith."

According to a declassified US State Department document, Israeli Foreign Minister Golda Meir reacted to the news that Ruby had just killed Oswald with this sentence: "Ruby is alive, Oy vaaboy if we get caught!" (quoted in Alan Hart, Zionism , vol. 2, p. 279).

Laurent Guyénot , June 18, 2018 at 9:27 am GMT
Make it three assassinated Kennedys, with JFK Jr. Hell, make it four, counting his unborn child : On July 20, 1999, the New York Daily News published a piece by Joel Siegel titled: "JFK Jr. Mulled Run for Senate in 2000". The page seems to have just been deleted, but I had saved it, so I reproduce the first lines : "A private poll in 1997 found that John F. Kennedy Jr. was by far the state's most popular Democrat, and two friends said yesterday they believed he would have run for office some day. Earlier this year, in one of the best-kept secret in state politics, Kennedy considered seeking the seat of retiring Sen. Daniel Moynihan " Moynihan was a former Kennedy associate, so it is likely that he would have supported JFK Jr.'s bid. And recall that the same seat had once been held by RFK. So JFK Jr. was walking on his father's and his uncle's footsteps. They saw him coming, and decided to eliminate him before his ambitions even became public. Guess who won the seat, after JFK Jr. died in a mysterious plane crash: Hillary Clinton.

What would JFK Jr. have done next if he had been allowed to walk this path? Well, if you want to know what was on his mind, check some of the covers of his magazine George on https://www.vfiles.com/vfiles/16372 You will see that he was obsessed with "conspiracy theories":

In a special "Conspiracy Issue", October 1998, George published a piece by Oliver Stone, director of the film JFK, titled "Paranoid and Proud of it". Earlier in December 1996, the cover announces an article on "TWA Conspiracy Theories" (about TWA 800). And in March 1997, another conspiracy theory under the title "Who was behind the killing of Yitzhak Rabin?". And so on.

Considering that JFK Jr.'s unborn child also died with him, and if we follow the logic of Ronald Kessler, author of The Sins of the Father: Joseph P. Kennedy and the Dynasty He Founded (1996) (a message to JFK Jr.?), then three generations of Kennedys were punished for "the sins of the father". That fulfills Exodus 20:5: "I, Yahweh your God, am a jealous god and I punish a parent's fault in the children, the grandchildren, and the great-grandchildren among those who hate me."

Chase , June 18, 2018 at 10:03 am GMT
@Not Raul

People conspire all the time. A board of directors gathering for their annual meeting is literally a conspiracy: they are conspiring to plan the company's trajectory over some period of time.

Do people ever conspire nefariously? Well, what is the first thing investigators will do when looking into a company like Enron? That's right, they will subpoena email records, because despite the negative connotation surrounding the term "conspiracy theory," people implicitly sense and really know that *this is exactly the kind of shit that happens all the time*.

For example, the Seth Rich murder, as its official story goes is literally a conspiracy. Two MS-13 members conspired to rob Mr. Rich while he was walking home from a bar. Why is it that people will believe that two people will conspire over a few hundred bucks, but refuse to believe powerful people will conspire over tens or hundreds of billions? Only because of media programming.

Once you unplug from the Matrix, so much that never made sense comes into clarity. Thanks, Mr. Unz for your tireless work and financial contributions to the American Pravda series. I've learned so much and it has been integral to my eyes being opened over the last four years.

kikl , June 18, 2018 at 10:08 am GMT
I think we all know the JFK-assassination was a conspiracy. Oswald was the patsy. But, we do not know for sure who participated in the conspiracy.

The report by the Warren commission was a cover up. CIA Director McCone was "complicit" in a Central Intelligence Agency "benign cover-up" by withholding information from the Warren Commission, according to a report by the CIA Chief Historian David Robarge released to the public in 2014.[24] According to this CIA report, CIA officers had been instructed to give only "passive, reactive, and selective" assistance to the commission, in order to keep the commission focused on "what the Agency believed at the time was the 'best truth' -- that Lee Harvey Oswald, for as yet undetermined motives, had acted alone in killing John Kennedy."

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/jfk-assassination-john-mccone-warren-commission-cia-213197

Witholding evidence in order to cover up a crime is usually done because of involvement in the crime. Thus, it is most likely that the CIA was involved in the Kennedy Assassination.

bj , June 18, 2018 at 10:16 am GMT
What evil consumes the innocents? What witch stages these mind control spectacles? I add one bread crumb to the Ron Unz Trail, through the deep dark forest of the fairy tale of our lives.

No matter who you are, we have a vector for you!

"Lane, it should be noted, was in U.S. Army intelligence in post-war Germany in 1945-47. This is the branch that became the C.I.A. after the war. Lane was paid some $5 million in legal fees by the Liberty Lobby, according to a veteran of the lobby. None of this is widely known among the people who read and support American Free Press. It is important because it shows how a Zionist Jew from the C.I.A. can actually control a movement that purports to be working for the American patriot audience. "

http://www.bollyn.com/the-liberty-lobbys-mark-lane-and-the-jonestown-massacre/

Anonymouse , June 18, 2018 at 11:01 am GMT
Ron's suspicions may be correct. However, I am bothered by two things left out of his article: the identity of the conspirators and their motivation. What was President Kennedy doing that had to be stopped? Fifty-five years have passed without any conspirator's deathbed confession. Gerald Posner's Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of J. F. K. seemed convincing to me when I read it many years ago. One fact that struck me as specially persuasive was that the kindly Quaker woman who was sheltering Marina Oswald and baby saw an ad in the paper for a job at the Book Depository building and pointed it out to Oswald who applied for the job and got it sometime before the route of the Kennedy drive past the building was chosen and published. Perhaps Mr. Unz might share his opinion of Posner's book with us.
Iris , June 18, 2018 at 11:06 am GMT
@syonredux

Take the pain to read actual eyewitness testimonies from medical personnel who attended President Kennedy when taken to Parkland hospital after being shot.

That may stop you from embarrassing yourself defending the ludicrous lone gunman theory.

justagoon , June 18, 2018 at 11:16 am GMT
Hmmm at this rate you'll question whether 19 Arabs with box cutters crashed planes into buildings by about 2049. /sarc

Well better late than never I guess.

jilles dykstra , June 18, 2018 at 11:22 am GMT
Wonder if anyone read the Warren Report. Reading it I got the same feeling as, in the seventies, when I still believed mainstream history, reading Churchill's memoirs: too good to be true. Harold Weisberg, 'Whitewash – the report on the Warren Report', 1965, 1966, New York tears Warren to shreds.
Bardon Kaldian , June 18, 2018 at 11:28 am GMT
It is a sad comment on mental pliability of US public that someone as perspicacious as Ron Unz could have for so long subscribed to "single gunman" (alright, he was not single, Oswald was married) "theory".

Whatever one may think of Stone's JFK, he is doubtless mostly correct in this short interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unpZuynt4Gw

Tyrion 2 , Website June 18, 2018 at 11:38 am GMT
I came of age much more recently and my encounters with JFK and RFK's assassinations were all about supposed conspiracies. If anything, there seems to be a conspiracy to make you think there's a conspiracy.

Furthermore, it is pretty easy to kill someone so, if there was a conspiracy to kill those two, goodness knows why the conspirators would not just use more subtle methods

All of these types of theories always seem to end up with their hypothesiser pointing out inconsistencies in the historical account of incredibly complex events while, at best, only proposing a much more inconsistent alternative.

Conspirator super genius: how shall we kill him?

Conspirator normal: we could give him an aneurysm so he dies in his sleep in the middle of the night. It would be utterly untraceable and medically unsuspicious. Indeed, if we do it when he has one of his girls round, then that will stop further questions.

Conspirator super genius: no, we should stage an assasination in the open. With bullets that might miss, a patsy who might blab or get away and our target could easily survive and take revenge. It will also make everyone suspicious and will need endless effort to keep quiet.

Conspirator B: wtf

CF , June 18, 2018 at 11:43 am GMT
If you examine the first page of JFK's death certificate, (easily done on your search engine) you will see that the President died of "gunshot wounds to the head and neck." and that he was killed by a "High Velocity Rifle". At that time a High Velocity Rifle had a muzzle velocity speed of 2500/600 feet per second, now I believe it is up to 3000 feet per second.

The only weapon associated with Lee Harvey Oswald on the day of the assassination was a Manlicher Carcano 6.5mm as agreed by the Warren Commission, Pozner (Case Closed) and Bugliosi. This rifle is not only notoriously inaccurate but has a muzzle velocity of 2000 feet per second and therefore could not have inflicted the wounds to JFK's head and neck that killed him.

Oswald may have tried to kill the President (personally I doubt it) from the sixth floor of the Book Depository overlooking Dealy Plaza but he didn't because JFK was killed by a High Velocity weapon and Oswald didn't have one.

Case Closed.

[Jun 18, 2018] American Pravda The JFK Assassination, Part I - What Happened, by Ron Unz - The Unz Review

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... JFK and the Unspeakable ..."
"... Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years ..."
"... If the first two dozen pages of the Talbot book completely overturned my understanding of the JFK assassination, I found the closing section almost equally shocking. With the Vietnam War as a political millstone about his neck, President Johnson decided not to seek reelection in 1968, opening the door to a last minute entry into the Democratic race by Robert Kennedy, who overcame considerable odds to win some important primaries. Then on June 4, 1968, he carried gigantic winner-take-all California, placing him on an easy path to the nomination and the presidency itself, at which point he would finally be in a position to fully investigate his brother's assassination. But minutes after his victory speech, he was shot and fatally wounded, allegedly by another lone gunman, this time a disoriented Palestinian immigrant named Sirhan Sirhan, supposedly outraged over Kennedy's pro-Israel public positions although these were no different than those expressed by most other political candidates in America. ..."
"... All this was well known to me. However, I had not known that powder burns later proved that the fatal bullet had been fired directly behind Kennedy's head from a distance of three inches or less although Sirhan was standing several feet in front of him ..."
"... With two Kennedy brothers now dead, neither any surviving members of the family nor most of their allies and retainers had any desire to investigate the details of this latest assassination, and in a number of cases they soon moved overseas, abandoning the country entirely. JFK's widow Jackie confided in friends that she was terrified for the lives of her children, and quickly married Aristotle Onassis, a Greek billionaire, whom she felt would be able to protect them. ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... Sunday Book Review ..."
"... the latest of many intelligent critics who have set out to demolish the tottering credibility of the Warren Commission and draw attention to evidence of a broad and terrible conspiracy that lay behind the assassination of John Kennedy -- and perhaps the murder of Robert Kennedy as well. ..."
"... Summarizing a half-century of conspiracy research, the Talbot and Douglass books together provide a wealth of persuasive evidence that elements of organized crime, individuals with CIA connections, and anti-Castro Cubans were probably participants in the assassination plot. Oswald seems to have been working with various anti-Communist groups and also had significant connections to U.S. intelligence, while his purported Marxism was merely a very thin disguise. With regard to the assassination itself, he was exactly the "patsy" he publicly claimed to be, and very likely never fired a single shot. Meanwhile, Jack Ruby had a long history of ties to organized crime, and surely killed Oswald to shut his mouth. ..."
"... Many others may have suffered a similar fate. Conspirators daring enough to strike at the president of the United States would hardly balk at using lethal means to protect themselves from the consequences of their action, and over the years a considerable number of individuals associated with the case in one way or another came to untimely ends. ..."
"... Less than a year after the assassination, JFK mistress Mary Meyer, the ex-wife of high-ranking CIA official Cord Meyer, was found shot to death in a Washington DC street-killing with no indications of attempted robbery or rape, and the case was never solved. Immediately afterwards, CIA counterintelligence chief James Jesus Angelton was caught breaking into her home in search of her personal diary, which he later claimed to have destroyed. ..."
"... Dorothy Kilgallen was a nationally-syndicated newspaper columnist and television personality, and she managed to wrangle an exclusive interview with Jack Ruby, later boasting to her friends that she would break the JFK assassination case wide open in her new book, producing the biggest scoop of her career. Instead, she was found dead in her Upper East Side townhouse, having apparently succumbed to an overdose of alcohol and sleeping pills, with both the draft text and the notes to her Jack Ruby chapter missing. ..."
"... From childhood, it's always been obvious to me that the MSM is completely dishonest about certain things and over the last dozen years I've become extremely suspicious about a whole range of other issues. But if you'd asked me a couple of years ago whether JFK was killed by a conspiracy, I would have said "well, anything's possible, but I'm 99% sure there's absolutely no substantial evidence pointing in that direction since the MSM would surely have headlined it a million times over." ..."
"... The National Guardian ..."
"... Rush to Judgment ..."
"... A Citizens Dissent ..."
"... , The New York Times ..."
"... Conspiracy Theory in America ..."
"... The Washington Post ..."
"... President John F. Kennedy was indeed killed by a conspiracy, and we are sorry we spent more than a half century suppressing that truth and ridiculing those who uncovered it. ..."
Jun 18, 2018 | www.unz.com

Among other things, occasional references reminded me that I'd previously seen my newspapers discuss a couple of newly released JFK books in rather respectful terms, which had surprised me a bit at the time. One of them, still generating discussion, was JFK and the Unspeakable published in 2008 by James W. Douglass, whose name meant nothing to me. And the other, which I hadn't originally realized trafficked in any assassination conspiracies, was David Talbot's 2007 Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years , focused on the relationship between John F. Kennedy and his younger brother Robert. Talbot's name was also somewhat familiar to me as the founder of Salon.com and a well-regarded if liberal-leaning journalist.

None of us have expertise in all areas, so sensible people must regularly delegate their judgment to credible third-parties, relying upon others to distinguish sense from nonsense. Since my knowledge of the JFK assassination was nil, I decided that two recent books attracting newspaper coverage might be a good place to start. So perhaps a couple of years after watching that Oliver Stone film, I cleared some time in my schedule, and spent a few days carefully reading the combined thousand pages of text.

I was stunned at what I immediately discovered. Not only was the evidence of a "conspiracy" absolutely overwhelming, but whereas I'd always assumed that only kooks doubted the official story, I instead discovered that a long list of the most powerful people near the top of the American government and in the best position to know had been privately convinced of such a "conspiracy," in many cases from almost the very beginning.

The Talbot book especially impressed me, being based on over 150 personal interviews and released by The Free Press , a highly reputable publisher. Although he applied a considerable hagiographic gloss to the Kennedys, his narrative was compellingly written, with numerous gripping scenes. But while such packaging surely helped to explain some of the favorable treatment from reviewers and how he had managed to produce a national bestseller in a seemingly long-depleted field, for me the packaging was much less important than the product itself.

To the extent that notions of a JFK conspiracy had ever crossed my mind, I'd considered the argument from silence absolutely conclusive. Surely if there had been the slightest doubt of the "lone gunman" conclusion endorsed by the Warren Commission, Attorney-General Robert Kennedy would have launched a full investigation to avenge his slain brother.

But as Talbot so effectively demonstrates, the reality of the political situation was entirely different. Robert Kennedy may have begun that fatal morning widely regarded as the second most powerful man in the country, but the moment his brother was dead and his bitter personal enemy Lyndon Johnson sworn in as the new president, his governmental authority almost immediately ebbed away. Longtime FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, who had been his hostile subordinate, probably scheduled for removal in JFK's second term, immediately became contemptuous and unresponsive to his requests. Having lost all his control over the levels of power, Robert Kennedy lacked any ability to conduct a serious investigation.

According to numerous personal interviews, he had almost immediately concluded that his brother had been struck down at the hands of an organized group, very likely including elements from within the U.S. government itself, but he could do nothing about the situation. As he regularly confided to close associates, his hope at the age of 38 was to reach the White House himself at some future date, and with his hands once again upon the levels of power then uncover his brother's killers and bring them to justice. But until that day, he could do nothing, and any unsubstantiated accusations he made would be totally disastrous both for national unity and for his own personal credibility. So for years, he was forced to nod his head and publicly acquiesce to the official story of his brother's inexplicable assassination at the hands of a lone nut, a fairy tale publicly endorsed by nearly the entire political establishment, and this situation deeply gnawed at him. Moreover, his own seeming acceptance of that story was often interpreted by others, not least in the media, as his wholehearted endorsement.

Although discovering Robert Kennedy's true beliefs was a crucial revelation in the Talbot book, there were many others. At most three shots had allegedly come from Oswald's rifle, but Roy Kellerman, the Secret Service agent in the passenger seat of JFK's limousine, was sure there had been more than that, and to the end of his life always believed there had been additional shooters. Gov. Connolly, seated next to JFK and severely wounded in the attack, had exactly the same opinion. CIA Director John McCone was equally convinced that there had been multiple shooters. Across the pages of Talbot's book, I learned that dozens of prominent, well-connected individuals privately expressed extreme skepticism towards the official "lone gunman theory" of the Warren Commission, although such doubts were very rarely made in public or on the record.

For a variety of complex reasons, the leading national media organs -- the commanding heights of "Our American Pravda" -- almost immediately endorsed the "lone gunman theory" and with some exceptions generally maintained that stance throughout the next half-century. With few prominent critics willing to publicly dispute that idea and a strong media tendency to ignore or minimize those exceptions, casual observers such as myself had generally received a severely distorted view of the situation.

If the first two dozen pages of the Talbot book completely overturned my understanding of the JFK assassination, I found the closing section almost equally shocking. With the Vietnam War as a political millstone about his neck, President Johnson decided not to seek reelection in 1968, opening the door to a last minute entry into the Democratic race by Robert Kennedy, who overcame considerable odds to win some important primaries. Then on June 4, 1968, he carried gigantic winner-take-all California, placing him on an easy path to the nomination and the presidency itself, at which point he would finally be in a position to fully investigate his brother's assassination. But minutes after his victory speech, he was shot and fatally wounded, allegedly by another lone gunman, this time a disoriented Palestinian immigrant named Sirhan Sirhan, supposedly outraged over Kennedy's pro-Israel public positions although these were no different than those expressed by most other political candidates in America.

All this was well known to me. However, I had not known that powder burns later proved that the fatal bullet had been fired directly behind Kennedy's head from a distance of three inches or less although Sirhan was standing several feet in front of him . Furthermore, eyewitness testimony and acoustic evidence indicated that at least twelve bullets were fired although Sirhan's revolver could hold only eight, and a combination of these factors led longtime LA Coroner Dr. Thomas Naguchi, who conducted the autopsy, to claim in his 1983 memoir that there was likely a second gunman. Meanwhile, eyewitnesses also reported seeing a security guard with his gun drawn standing right behind Kennedy during the attack, and that individual happened to have a deep political hatred of the Kennedys. The police investigators seemed uninterested in these highly suspicious elements, none of which came to light during the trial. With two Kennedy brothers now dead, neither any surviving members of the family nor most of their allies and retainers had any desire to investigate the details of this latest assassination, and in a number of cases they soon moved overseas, abandoning the country entirely. JFK's widow Jackie confided in friends that she was terrified for the lives of her children, and quickly married Aristotle Onassis, a Greek billionaire, whom she felt would be able to protect them.

Talbot also devotes a chapter to the late 1960s prosecution efforts of New Orleans DA Jim Garrison, which had been the central plot of the JFK film, and I was stunned to discover that the script was almost entirely based on real life events rather than Hollywood fantasy. This even extended to its bizarre cast of assassination conspiracy suspects, mostly fanatically anti-Communist Kennedy-haters with CIA and organized crime ties, some of whom were indeed prominent members of the New Orleans gay demimonde. Sometimes real life is far stranger than fiction.

Taken as a whole, I found Talbot's narrative quite convincing, at least with respect to demonstrating the existence of a substantial conspiracy behind the fatal event.

Others certainly had the same reaction, with the august pages of The New York Times Sunday Book Review carrying the strongly favorable reaction of presidential historian Alan Brinkley. As the Allan Nevins Professor of History and Provost of Columbia University, Brinkley is as mainstream and respectable an academic scholar as might be imagined and he characterized Talbot as

the latest of many intelligent critics who have set out to demolish the tottering credibility of the Warren Commission and draw attention to evidence of a broad and terrible conspiracy that lay behind the assassination of John Kennedy -- and perhaps the murder of Robert Kennedy as well.

The other book by Douglass, released a year later, covered much the same ground and came to roughly similar conclusions, with substantial overlap but also including major additional elements drawn from the enormous volume of extremely suspicious material unearthed over the decades by diligent JFK researchers. Once again, the often bitter Cold War era conflict between JFK and various much harder-line elements of his government over Cuba, Russia, and Vietnam is sketched out as the likely explanation for his death.

Summarizing a half-century of conspiracy research, the Talbot and Douglass books together provide a wealth of persuasive evidence that elements of organized crime, individuals with CIA connections, and anti-Castro Cubans were probably participants in the assassination plot. Oswald seems to have been working with various anti-Communist groups and also had significant connections to U.S. intelligence, while his purported Marxism was merely a very thin disguise. With regard to the assassination itself, he was exactly the "patsy" he publicly claimed to be, and very likely never fired a single shot. Meanwhile, Jack Ruby had a long history of ties to organized crime, and surely killed Oswald to shut his mouth.

Many others may have suffered a similar fate. Conspirators daring enough to strike at the president of the United States would hardly balk at using lethal means to protect themselves from the consequences of their action, and over the years a considerable number of individuals associated with the case in one way or another came to untimely ends.

Less than a year after the assassination, JFK mistress Mary Meyer, the ex-wife of high-ranking CIA official Cord Meyer, was found shot to death in a Washington DC street-killing with no indications of attempted robbery or rape, and the case was never solved. Immediately afterwards, CIA counterintelligence chief James Jesus Angelton was caught breaking into her home in search of her personal diary, which he later claimed to have destroyed.

Dorothy Kilgallen was a nationally-syndicated newspaper columnist and television personality, and she managed to wrangle an exclusive interview with Jack Ruby, later boasting to her friends that she would break the JFK assassination case wide open in her new book, producing the biggest scoop of her career. Instead, she was found dead in her Upper East Side townhouse, having apparently succumbed to an overdose of alcohol and sleeping pills, with both the draft text and the notes to her Jack Ruby chapter missing.

Shortly before Jim Garrison filed his assassination charges, his top suspect David Ferrie was found dead at age 48, possibly of natural causes, though the DA suspected foul play.

During the mid-1970s, the House Select Committee on Assassinations held a series of high-profile hearings to reopen and investigate the case, and two of the witnesses called were high-ranking mafia figures Sam Giancana and Johnny Rosselli, widely suspected of having been connected with the assassination. The former was shot to death in the basement of his home one week before he was scheduled to testify, and the body of the latter was found in an oil-drum floating in the waters off Miami after he had been subpoenaed for an additional appearance.

These were merely a few of the highest-profile individuals with a connection to the Dallas assassination whose lives were cut short in the years that followed, and although the deaths may have been purely coincidental, the full list is rather a long one.

Having read a couple of books that completely upended my settled beliefs about a central event of twentieth century America, I simply didn't know what to think. Over the years, my own writings had put me on friendly terms with a well-connected individual whom I considered a member of the elite establishment, and whose intelligence and judgment had always seemed extremely solid. So I decided to very gingerly raise the subject with him, and see whether he had ever doubted the "lone gunman" orthodoxy. To my total astonishment, he explained that as far back as the early 1990s, he'd become absolutely convinced in the reality of a "JFK conspiracy" and over the years had quietly devoured a huge number of the books in that field, but had never breathed a word in public lest his credibility be ruined and his political effectiveness destroyed.

A second friend, a veteran journalist known for his remarkably courageous stands on certain controversial topics, provided almost exactly the same response to my inquiry. For decades, he'd been almost 100% sure that JFK had died in a conspiracy, but once again had never written a word on the topic for fear that his influence would immediately collapse.

If these two individuals were even remotely representative, I began to wonder whether a considerable fraction, perhaps even a majority, of the respectable establishment had long harbored private beliefs about the JFK assassination that were absolutely contrary to the seemingly uniform verdict presented in the media. But with every such respectable voice keeping so silent, I had never once suspected a thing.

Few other revelations in recent years have so totally overturned my understanding of the framework of reality. Even a year or two later, I still found it very difficult to wrap my head around the concept, as I described in another note to that well-connected friend of mine:

BTW, I hate to keep harping on it, but every time I consider the implications of the JFK matter I'm just more and more astonished.

The president of the US. The heir to one of the wealthiest and most powerful families in America. His brother the top law enforcement officer in the country. Ben Bradlee, one of his closest friends, the fearless crusading editor of one of the nation's most influential media outlets. As America's first Catholic president, the sacred icon of many millions of Irish, Italian, and Hispanic families. Greatly beloved by top Hollywood people and many leading intellectuals.

His assassination ranks as one of the most shocking and dramatic events of the 20th century, inspiring hundreds of books and tens of thousands of news stories and articles, examining every conceivable detail. The argument from MSM silence always seemed absolutely conclusive to me.

From childhood, it's always been obvious to me that the MSM is completely dishonest about certain things and over the last dozen years I've become extremely suspicious about a whole range of other issues. But if you'd asked me a couple of years ago whether JFK was killed by a conspiracy, I would have said "well, anything's possible, but I'm 99% sure there's absolutely no substantial evidence pointing in that direction since the MSM would surely have headlined it a million times over."

Was there really a First World War? Well, I've always assumed there was, but who really knows? .

Our reality is shaped by the media, but what the media presents is often determined by complex forces rather than by the factual evidence in front of their eyes. And the lessons of the JFK assassination may provide some important insights into this situation.

A president was dead and soon afterward his supposed lone assassin suffered the same fate, producing a tidy story with a convenient endpoint. Raising doubts or focusing on contrary evidence might open doors better kept shut, perhaps endangering national unity or even risking nuclear war if the trail seemed to lead overseas. The highest law enforcement officer in the country was the slain president's own brother, and since he seemed to fully accept that simple framework, what responsible journalist or editor would be willing to go against it? What American center of power or influence had any strong interest in opposing that official narrative?

Certainly there was immediate and total skepticism overseas, with few foreign leaders ever believing the story, and figures such as Nikita Khrushchev, Charles DeGaulle, and Fidel Castro all immediately concluded that a political plot had been responsible for Kennedy's elimination. Mainstream media outlets in France and the rest of Western Europe were equally skeptical of the "lone gunman theory," and some of the most important early criticism of U.S. government claims was produced by Thomas Burnett, an expatriate American writing for one of the largest French newsweeklies. But in pre-Internet days, only the tiniest sliver of the American public had regular access to such foreign publications, and their impact upon domestic opinion would have been nil.

Perhaps instead of asking ourselves why the "lone gunman" story was accepted, we should instead be asking why it was ever vigorously challenged, during an era when media control was extremely centralized in establishmentarian hands.

Oddly enough, the answer may lie in the determination of a single individual named Mark Lane, a left-liberal New York City attorney and Democratic Party activist. Although JFK assassination books eventually numbered in the thousands and the resulting conspiracy theories roiled American public life throughout the 1960s and 1970s, without his initial involvement matters might have followed a drastically different trajectory.

From the very first, Lane had been skeptical of the official story, and less than a month after the killing, The National Guardian , a small left-wing national newspaper, published his 10,000 word critique, highlighting major flaws in the "lone gunman theory." Although his piece had been rejected by every other national periodical, the public interest was enormous, and once the entire edition sold out, thousands of extra copies were printed in pamphlet form. Lane even rented a theater in New York City, and for several months gave public lectures to packed audiences.

After the Warren Commission issued its completely contrary official verdict, he began working on a manuscript, and although he faced enormous obstacles in finding an American publisher, once Rush to Judgment appeared, it spent a remarkable two years on the national bestseller lists, easily reaching the #1 spot. Such tremendous economic success naturally persuaded a host of other authors to follow suit, and an entire genre was soon established. Lane later published A Citizens Dissent recounting his early struggles to break the total American "media blackout" against anyone contradicting the official conclusion. Against all odds, he had succeeded in sparking a massive popular uprising sharply challenging the narrative of the establishment.

According to Talbot, "By late 1966, it was becoming impossible for the establishment media to stick with the official story" and the November 25, 1966 edition of Life Magazine , then at the absolute height of its national influence, carried the remarkable cover story "Did Oswald Act Alone?" with the conclusion that he probably did not. The next month , The New York Times announced it was forming a special task force to investigate the assassination. These elements were to merge with the media furor soon surrounding the Garrison investigation that began the following year, an investigation that enlisted Lane as an active participant. However, behind the scenes a powerful media counterattack was also being launched at this same time.

In 2013 Prof. Lance deHaven-Smith, past president of the Florida Political Science Association, published Conspiracy Theory in America , a fascinating exploration of the history of the concept and the likely origins of the term itself. He noted that during 1966 the CIA had become alarmed at the growing national skepticism of the Warren Commission findings, especially once the public began turning its suspicious eyes toward the intelligence agency itself. Therefore, in January 1967 top CIA officials distributed a memo to all their local stations, directing them to employ their media assets and elite contacts to refute such criticism by various arguments, notably including an emphasis on Robert Kennedy's supposed endorsement of the "lone gunman" conclusion.

This memo, obtained by a later FOIA request, repeatedly used the term "conspiracy" in a highly negative sense, suggesting that "conspiracy theories" and "conspiracy theorists" be portrayed as irresponsible and irrational. And as I wrote in 2016,

Soon afterward, there suddenly appeared statements in the media making those exact points, with some of the wording, arguments, and patterns of usage closely matching those CIA guidelines. The result was a huge spike in the pejorative use of the phrase, which spread throughout the American media, with the residual impact continuing right down to the present day.

This possible cause-and-effect relationship is supported by other evidence. Shortly after leaving The Washington Post in 1977, famed Watergate journalist Carl Bernstein published a 25,000 word Rolling Stone cover story entitled "The CIA and the Media" revealing that during the previous quarter century over 400 American journalists had secretly carried out assignments for the CIA according to documents on file at the headquarters of that organization. This influence project, known as "Operation Mockingbird," had allegedly been launched near the end of the 1940s by high-ranking CIA official Frank Wisner, and included editors and publishers situated at the very top of the mainstream media hierarchy.

For whatever reason, by the time I came of age and began following the national media in the late 1970s, the JFK story had become very old news, and all the newspapers and magazines I read provided the very strong impression that the "conspiracy theories" surrounding the assassination were total nonsense, long since debunked, and only of interest to kooks on the ideological fringe. I was certainly aware of the enormous profusion of popular conspiracy books, but I never had the slightest interest in looking at any of them. America's political establishment and its close media allies had outlasted the popular rebellion, and the name "Mark Lane" meant almost nothing to me, except vaguely as some sort of fringe-nut, who very occasionally rated a mention in my mainstream newspapers, receiving the sort of treatment accorded to Scientologists or UFO activists.

Oddly enough, Talbot's treatment of Lane was also rather dismissive, recognizing his crucial early role in preventing the official narrative from quickly hardening into concrete, but also emphasizing his abrasive personality, and almost entirely ignoring his important later work on the issue, perhaps because so much of it had been conducted on the political fringe. Robert Kennedy and his close allies had similarly boycotted Lane's work from the very first, regarding him as a meddlesome gadfly, but perhaps also ashamed that he was asking the questions and doing the work that they themselves were so unwilling to undertake at the time. Douglass's 500 page book scarcely even mentions Lane.

Reading a couple of Lane's books, I was quite impressed by the enormous role he had seemingly played in the JFK assassination story, but I also wondered how much of my impression may have been due to the exaggerations of a possible self-promoter. Then, on May 13, 2016 I opened my New York Times and found nearly a full page obituary devoted to Lane's death at age 89, the sort of treatment these days reserved for only the highest-ranking U.S. Senators or major rap stars. And the 1,500 words were absolutely glowing, portraying Lane as a solitary, heroic figure struggling for decades to reveal the truth of the JFK assassination conspiracy against an entire political and media establishment seeking to suppress it.

I read this as a deep apology by America's national newspaper of record. President John F. Kennedy was indeed killed by a conspiracy, and we are sorry we spent more than a half century suppressing that truth and ridiculing those who uncovered it.

Related Reading:

American Pravda: How the CIA Invented "Conspiracy Theories" American Pravda: Was General Patton Assassinated? Our American Pravda

[Jun 11, 2018] John F. Kennedy and the Question of World Peace

Jun 11, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

I don't normally write about historical anniversaries. They're usually well covered by a plethora of writers much better than I. But today's date marks an event which intersects a project I began working several months ago on the history of nuclear weapons and related policies. Fifty five years ago, today, June 10, President John F. Kennedy delivered a commencement address at American University in Washington, D.C. on what he considered to be the most important matter of his time, indeed for all time: world peace. I read through it a couple of months ago and found it to be well worth remembering, not only for its particular content, but for the direction that Kennedy indicated in those remarks of where he wanted the world to go in.

To begin with, Kennedy clearly rejected the kind of "peace" that the geopoliticians have been taking us towards in recent years. "What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek?" he asked rhetorically. "Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not a peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I'm talking about genuine peace – the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living – the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children – not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women – not merely in our time but peace for all time."

Remember, this was about eight months after the Cuban Missile Crisis. Kennedy was very acutely aware of the danger that nuclear weapons represented. Weapons of such power made no sense, he said, and the accumulation of weapons that could never be used except to keep the peace couldn't possibly be the only way, much less the most efficient way, to keep the peace. "I speak of peace, therefore, as the necessary rational end of rational men," he said.

Kennedy called on his audience to not only look at the leadership of the then-Soviet Union, but also to look inward at our own attitudes "as individuals and as a nation – for our attitudes are as essential as theirs." He rejected the notion that peace was impossible. "By defining our goal more clearly – by making is seem more manageable and less remote – we can help all peoples to see it, to draw hope from it, and to move irresistibly towards it."

Secondly, Kennedy rejected demonization of the Soviet Union. While he found Communism repugnant, he said "we can still hail the Russian people for their many achievements – in science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture and in acts of courage." He also made a number of points which are even more relevant today. "Almost unique among the major world powers we have never been at war with each other," he said. "And no nation in the history of battle ever suffered more than the Soviet Union suffered in the course of the Second World War. At least 20 million lost their lives. Countless millions of homes and farms were burned or sacked. A third of the nation's territory, including nearly two-thirds of its industrial base, was turned into a wasteland – a loss equivalent to the devastation of this country east of Chicago."

Today, Kennedy went on, it is the US and the Soviet Union that are in the most danger of devastation. "All we have built, all we have worked for, would be destroyed in the first 24 hours," he said. "So, let us not be blind to our differences," Kennedy advised, "but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which these differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal."

The remainder of Kennedy's remarks dealt with the arms control efforts of his administration which culminated in his declaration that the US would no longer conduct nuclear tests in the atmosphere. "Such a declaration is no substitute for a formal binding treaty – but I hope it will help us achieve one."

Glenn Seaborg, who was chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission at the time, reports in his 1981 book "Kennedy, Khrushchev and the Test Ban," that the genesis of the speech came from a discussion that Kennedy had with the journalist Norman Cousins. Cousins had been engaged in a series of candid discussions with Khrushchev and had related the content of these discussions to the White House. "I advocated making a breathtaking offer to the Russians and the President said he would think about it..." Cousins recalled.

[Jun 05, 2018] Mourning in America The Day RFK Was Shot in Los Angeles The American Conservative

Notable quotes:
"... Charles F, McElwee III is a writer based in northeastern Pennsylvania. Follow him on Twitter at @CFMcElwee . ..."
Jun 05, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

America had dramatically changed since John F. Kennedy seduced voters with the promises of the New Frontier. A young family, the campaign jingles, the embrace of television, and the prospect of America's first Catholic president injected a sense of patriotic adrenaline into the 1960 campaign. There were "high hopes" for Jack and a sense of cultural validation for Catholics who remembered Al Smith's failed presidential bid in 1928. In 1960, the Everly Brothers and Bobby Darin crooned through the radio, Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird proved a national sensation, and Americans flocked to movies like Spartacus in magnificent downtown theaters.

But the frivolity and innocence, however illusory, were shattered on November 22, 1963. Kennedy's assassination violently shifted America's cultural fault lines. One afternoon accelerated the nation's sociological maladies, intensified its political divisions, and evaporated its black-and-white contentment. Americans proceeded on a Technicolor path of disruption, one that had transformed the nation by the time of Bobby's announcement on March 16, 1968. It was that year when The Doors and Cream blasted from transistor radios, John Updike's Couples landed on the cover of Time , and 2001: A Space Odyssey played in new suburban cinemas. The country had experienced a dervish frenzy, and Bobby was fully aware of his nation's turbulent course.

The country was rocked by young students protesting a worsening war in Vietnam. Racial tension exploded and riots destroyed urban neighborhoods. America's political evolution forever altered its electoral geography. Bobby was embarking on a remarkable campaign that challenged the incumbent president, a man he despised for many years. But the source of this strife stemmed from the White House years of Bobby's brother. "While he defined his vision more concretely and compellingly than Jack had -- from ending a disastrous war and addressing the crisis in the cities to removing a sadly out-of-touch president -- he failed to point out that the war, the festering ghettos, and Lyndon Johnson were all part of Jack Kennedy's legacy," wrote Larry Tye in his biography of Bobby.

For the 1968 primary, Kennedy metamorphosed into a liberal figure with an economic populist message. Kennedy's belated entry turned into an audacious crusade, with the candidate addressing racial injustice, income inequality, and the failure of Vietnam. He balanced this message with themes touching upon free enterprise and law and order. Kennedy hoped to appeal to minorities and working-class whites. He quickly became a messianic figure, and the press embellished his New Democrat image. By late March, Johnson announced that he would not seek reelection during a televised address. Through his departure, Johnson worked to maintain control of the party machine by supporting Hubert Humphrey, his devoted Vice President. But in the following weeks, Kennedy built momentum as he challenged McCarthy in states like Indiana and Nebraska. His performance in both states, where anti-Catholic sentiments lingered, testified to Kennedy's favorable electoral position.

In April 4, Kennedy learned that the Rev. King had been assassinated. He relayed the civil rights leader's death in a black neighborhood in Indianapolis. His words helped spare Indianapolis from the riots that erupted in cities across the country, ultimately leading to nearly 40 people killed and over 2,000 injured. MLK's assassination served as an unsettling reminder to Kennedy's family, friends, campaign aides, and traveling press. During Kennedy's first campaign stop in Kansas, the press corps stopped at a restaurant where the legendary columnist Jimmy Breslin asked, "Do you think this guy has the stuff to go all the way?"

"Yes, of course he has the stuff to go all the way," replied Newsweek's John J. Lindsay. "But he's not going to go all the way. The reason is that somebody is going to shoot him. I know it and you know it. Just as sure as we're sitting here somebody is going to shoot him. He's out there now waiting for him. And, please God, I don't think we'll have a country after it."

Despite what happened in 1963, the Secret Service had yet to provide protection of presidential and vice presidential candidates and nominees during the 1964 election or the 1968 primary. But all the signs were there that Kennedy needed protection. The frenzied crowds increased in size, taking a physical toll on the candidate. In one instance, "he was pulled so hard that he tumbled into the car door, splitting his lip and breaking a front tooth that required capping," writes Nye. "He ended up on a regimen of vitamins and antibiotics to fight fatigue and infection For most politicians, the challenge was to attract crowds; for Bobby, it was to survive them." In California, just 82 days after his announcement, Kennedy met the fate that so many feared.

♦♦♦

Bobby Kennedy was a complicated figure from a family that continues to engage America's imagination. In his autobiography, the novelist Philip Roth, who recently passed away, reflected on Kennedy's assassination:

He was by no means a political figure constructed on anything other than the human scale, and so, the night of his assassination and for days afterward, one felt witness to the violent cutting down not of a monumental force for justice and social change like King or the powerful embodiment of a people's massive misfortunes or a titan of religious potency but rather of a rival -- of a vital, imperfect, high-strung, egotistical, rivalrous, talented brother, who could be just as nasty as he was decent. The murder of a boyish politician of forty-two, a man so nakedly ambitious and virile, was a crime against ordinary human hope as well as against the claims of robust, independent appetite and, coming after the murders of President Kennedy at forty-six and Martin Luther King at thirty-nine, evoked the simplest, most familiar forms of despair.

For those schoolchildren and their parents in June 1968, Kennedy's campaign offered a sense of nostalgia. They remembered the exuberance of his brother's campaign, the optimism of his administration, and the possibilities of the 1960s. For the nation's large ethnic Catholic voting bloc, another Kennedy reminded them of that feeling of validation in the 1960 election. Of course, it had been a tumultuous decade for these voters. They lived in cities that had precipitously declined since JFK's campaign visits in 1960. Railroad stations ended passenger service, theaters closed, factories shuttered, and new highways offered an exodus to suburbia. As Catholics, they prayed for the conversion of Russia, adapted to Vatican II reforms, and adjusted to new parishes in the developing outskirts. Young draftees were shipped off to a catastrophic war, which only intensified their feelings of disillusionment. Their disenchantment raised questions about their sustained support for Democrats. Kennedy may have proved formidable for Nixon in the general election, but the Catholic vote was increasingly up for grabs.

Pat Buchanan understood this electoral opportunity for Republicans. In a 1971 memo, Buchanan argued that Catholics were the largest bloc of available Democratic voters for the GOP: "The fellows who join the K.of C. (Knights of Columbus), who make mass and communion every morning, who go on retreats, who join the Holy Name society, who fight against abortion in their legislatures, who send their kids to Catholic schools, who work on assembly lines and live in Polish, Irish, Italian and Catholic communities or who have headed to the suburbs -- these are the majority of Catholics; they are where our voters are."

In subsequent presidential elections, Catholic voters flocked to Democrats and Republicans. Their electoral preferences were driven by the issues of the moment and often by location. The geographical divide of our politics has only intensified. The 2016 presidential election encapsulated this trend. Voters in Appalachia and the Rust Belt overwhelmingly supported Donald Trump that year. Many of these voters previously supported Obama in both 2008 and 2012. In 1968, these voters likely appreciated Kennedy's campaign message. But the tragedy of the nation is now a loss of optimism -- the belief that tomorrow will be a better day. Americans are overwhelmed by ideological tension and socio-economic angst. The prosperity enjoyed by large metropolitan regions has not spilled over into the heartland. There is no nostalgia for 1968 because countless Americans understand that the nation has failed to address income inequality, job displacement, urban decline, and mass poverty. It was so long ago, but America did lose its innocence on November 22, 1963. Bobby Kennedy's death in 1968 served as a reminder that it would never return.

Charles F, McElwee III is a writer based in northeastern Pennsylvania. Follow him on Twitter at @CFMcElwee .

[Jun 05, 2018] The Political Assassin Who Brought Down RFK

Notable quotes:
"... Northern Observer, someday Israel will go the way of Rhodesia if it's lucky. Many believe Israel orchestrated JFK's death; he insisted on inspecting Dimona for nuclear weapon development. ..."
"... If you look at actual evidence in the case you would understand that Sirhan did not and could not have killed Sen. Kennedy. Just look at autopsy report and it says he was killed by bullets fired and virtual point blank range from below and the back of the head. In addition, sound analysis proves that there were 13 shots fired but the alleged murder weapon only held 8 shots. So let's stop this charade. ..."
Jun 05, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

More troublingly, Robert Kennedy's death occurred within five years of his elder brother's, and under similar circumstances. It is important to recall how unprecedented their deaths were to the generation who witnessed them. If time has removed the shock of the assassinations of the Kennedy brothers, it should not obscure just how anomalous they are. Bad luck may be part of the mythos of the Kennedy family, but lightning does not strike the same place twice, and political assassinations are exceedingly rare in American history. Both Kennedy brothers hurled themselves into the most tumultuous and divisive issues of their time -- Israeli nationalism and anti-communism -- and both appeared to have paid a heavy price.


Miguel June 4, 2018 at 12:01 am

In the first place, I don't think that failure of Robert Kennedy had anything to do with a substantial limitation of the liberal world view, but with another concept, or argument:

The end cannot justify the means because it is the mean, which is a process, which conditionates the end, in itself only an outcome.

Robert Kennedy supported violence made by the Zionist movement, turned into a State, and if you ask me, it was that violence which -no pun intended- backfired against him.

Now, about the out balance between loyalty and allegiance homeland/nation, I think it should be looked at from Sirhan perspective. Yes, he had escaped from what, in his perspective, was zionist persecution, just to end in a country where that persecution was supported actively by some high profile politicians. I am not going to say that murder is right, but some how it had to feel for him as if that anti palestinian israely persecution had reappeared very near to his home.

From that point of view, he wasn't a refuge anymore; the country where he was living had become an acomplice of that persecution.

Maybe, if Robert Kennedy had considered a less bellicist way to support Israel, like sending military support without delivering neither the means nor the command decissions to the government of Israel, but keeping it in the hand of the U.S., who knows.

Pear Conference , says: June 4, 2018 at 8:25 am
This article doesn't quite try to justify Oswald's or Sirhan's actions. But it places them firmly in a political context rather than a criminal one.

It also suggests that JFK and RFK both went too far – that they "hurled themselves into the most tumultuous and divisive issues of their time" and thus bear a degree of responsibility for their own fates.

If we want to debate the merits of arming Israel, or undermining Cuba, then let's have that debate. But this is altogether the wrong way to frame it. I, for one, don't ever want the Overton window on such issues to be shifted by the acts, or even the potential acts, of an assassin.

TTT , says: June 4, 2018 at 9:05 am
Israel twice begged Jordan not to join the war that it was already fighting with Egypt and Syria – a war of aggression and genocide, where Nasser boasted of the impending total destruction of Israel, Egyptian state media spoke of a road from Tel Aviv to Cairo paved in Jewish skulls, and Israel's rabbinate consecrated national parks in case they had to be used for Jewish mass graves.

Sirhan Sirhan's entire identity was wrapped up in the frustrated need for Jewish servitude and inferiority, the bitterness that a second Holocaust had failed. He was exactly like the Klan cops in Philadelphia, Mississippi, murdering Freedom Riders who tried to deprive them of their most cherished resource: assured superiority over their traditional designated victim group.

JLF , says: June 4, 2018 at 10:16 am
Hinted at but ignored is another aspect by which 1968 presaged 2018. In 1968 Bobby Kennedy waited until after Gene McCarthy had challenged LBJ and LBJ had withdrawn from the race before entering. For many (most?) McCarthy backers, Kennedy was an opportunistic, privileged spoiler. In the same way, many of Bernie Sanders' supporters looked upon Hillary Clinton as the privileged spoiler of a Democratic Party establishment that had tried and failed to move the party to the right. The McGovern was followed by Carter, who was followed by Mondale, who was followed by Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, and Hillary. For Democrats, then, it's been fifty years of struggling to find a center, a struggle Republicans pretty much found in Ronald Reagan.
Donald , says: June 4, 2018 at 2:23 pm
The only way one can defend Israel's apartheid policies is by demonizing all of their victims. For examples, see TTT and Northern Observer.
mrscracker , says: June 4, 2018 at 2:27 pm
John Wilkes Booth was wrapped up in bitterness, defeat & a warped loyalty to his homeland, too. It's interesting I guess to examine assassins' motives, but to what point?
Sean , says: June 4, 2018 at 2:33 pm
Northern Observer, someday Israel will go the way of Rhodesia if it's lucky. Many believe Israel orchestrated JFK's death; he insisted on inspecting Dimona for nuclear weapon development.
Going My Way , says: June 4, 2018 at 3:09 pm
Let the many who criticize TAC for not printing pro Israeli essays read this one. Also, read the numerous blogs supporting this thrust. The "small nation" phrase was a tip-off to the author's loyalties. I think this article is more worthy of the New York Times. Let us not forget June 8, 1967, is another anniversary, when the sophisticated and unmarked aircraft and PT boats using napalm of the author's "small nation" attacked the USS Liberty in international water, with complete disregard to the ship's American markings and large US flag. http://www.gtr5.com/ This event received scant coverage on P19 of the aforementioned NYT. "Small nation"; indeed!
TTT , says: June 4, 2018 at 4:01 pm
The only way one can defend Israel's apartheid policies is by demonizing all of their victims.

Sirhan Sirhan is Jordanian – a nation that was invented specifically to be an apartheid state with no Jews at all, forever closed to Jewish inhabitation or immigration. That is his view of normalcy. I'm sorry it's also yours.

Steve Naidamast , says: June 4, 2018 at 4:19 pm
This is pure bunk. The idea that Sirhan Sirhan was the assassin of RFK has been categorically disproven by the analysis of the fatal bullets, which none of came from Sirhan's gun. And RFKs friends and close advisors all knew that he had no love for Israel. Whatever he said in support of Israel was for the media purposes only.
General Manager , says: June 4, 2018 at 4:27 pm
Having worked in Jordan and watched Israelis do business and as tourists (Jewish shrines) there, I saw and heard no antisemitism. From my perspective, there seemed to be a positive relationship. Elat and Aqaba are like sister cities. In fact, there seemed to be high-level cooperation. Keep looking you will find bigotry to justify your positions.
Someone in the crowd , says: June 4, 2018 at 5:56 pm
I completely agree with Steve Naidamast. This article is indeed "pure bunk" because Sirhan Sirhan is a side story. That's why this article, with such an angle, should simply never have been published.
Banger , says: June 4, 2018 at 8:29 pm
If you look at actual evidence in the case you would understand that Sirhan did not and could not have killed Sen. Kennedy. Just look at autopsy report and it says he was killed by bullets fired and virtual point blank range from below and the back of the head. In addition, sound analysis proves that there were 13 shots fired but the alleged murder weapon only held 8 shots. So let's stop this charade.
John Jeffery , says: June 4, 2018 at 9:49 pm
A laughably naive article which toes the CIA and Zionist line.
Donald , says: June 4, 2018 at 9:52 pm
TTT -- yo weren't just talking about Sirhan. I wasn't talking about him at all. I have no sympathy for people who practice terrorism, whether it is done by Palestinians, Jordanians, or the IDF.

[Jun 04, 2018] Ryan Dawson And Michael Collins Piper Israel And JFK

Notable quotes:
"... Final Judgement: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination was originally published 20 years ago in January. Michael Collins Piper in this book argued that the Israelis killed Kennedy. Vanunu endorsed Piper's book. ..."
"... A JFK researcher once wrote that Piper was on to something in his research linking Israel to the assassination of President. But he said that we had to proceed with caution. Because to be accused of anti-Semitism is about the same as being accused of being a child molester. ..."
Jan 24, 2014 | fromthetrenchesworldreport.com

Mordecai Vanunu was the original whistleblower. In 1986 he told the world that Israel had nuclear weapons publishing photos of the secret Dimona works in the British press. He said Prime Minister Ben Gurion ordered the assassination of JFK because the President opposed Israel's acquisition of nuclear weapons. Ben Gurion resigned in protest over JFK's Israeli policies. Vanunu also wrote a letter in 1997 saying that there was even a link between the assassination of Kennedy and Israel's launching of the 1967 war.

Final Judgement: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination was originally published 20 years ago in January. Michael Collins Piper in this book argued that the Israelis killed Kennedy. Vanunu endorsed Piper's book.

The Oliver Stone movie JFK was the kosher version of the assassination. Piper does not dispute that Clay Shaw had connections to the CIA. But the film neglects Shaw's connections to the heart of the Israeli nuclear program. He was on the Board of Directors of Permindex, a Swiss assassination bureau. Permindex is an Israeli front and were not run by the CIA as Oliver Stone had said. A primary shareholder in Permindex was the Banque De Credit International of Geneva, founded by Tibor Rosenbaum, an arms procurer and financier for the Mossad. That bank was used by Meyer Lansky to launder hot money. Permindex was owned by CMC of Rome, which was founded by a Hungarian Jew named George Mandel who had deep connections with Israel and the Mossad. Mandel was the first man to start rumors about Auschwitz being a death camp. The Chairman of the Board at Permindex was Louis Bloomfield, a Canadian Jew and close associate of Edgar Bronfman. He also had long standing connections with the Rothschilds dating back before WW II.

The Stern family funded Clay Shaw's defense. They can be traced back to the Purple Gang of Detroit. The Stern family owned WDSU radio and TV stations in New Orleans. They ran stories on Lee Harvey Oswald who was a member of an FBI front group called the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. This gave Oswald the cover of being a Leftist while spying on American liberals. The Stern family was heavily invested in the NUMEC nuclear plant in Pennsylvania, which was the source of Israel's first nuclear bomb. NUMEC also dumped nuclear waste in Pennsylvania.

Piper said Clay Shaw might have had more to do with CIA-Mossad attempts to assassinate Charles De Gaulle than he did with the assassination of President Kennedy.

Ed Asner played Guy Bannister, the private detective, in the movie JFK. Bannister was a good friend ofKent and Phoebe Courtney. Bannister and the Courtneys were active in conservative politics. But the Courtneys did frustrate the work of people on the Right that the Anti-Defamation League did not like. Joe Pesci played David Ferrie in the movie JFK. He was a pilot and a friend of Lee Harvey Oswald. Bannister, Ferrie and Oswald spied on Leftists in New Orleans. Guy Bannister also was a friend of Botnick who was the head of the New Orleans of ADL office. The Courtneys, Bannister, Ferrie and Lee Harvey Oswald were actively spying on Leftists in New Orleans for the ADL and Botnick.

The producer of JFK was the Israel spy Arnon Milchan who sold nuclear triggers to Israel. A J Weberman, an Israeli citizen, was the first to say that District Attorney Jim Garrison had an unpublished manuscript that charged Israel was behind the assassination of President Kennedy.

John King offered Jim Garrison a judgeship to stop his investigation of Clay Shaw. King was a business partner of Bernie Cornfeld whose Investors Overseas Service was a 2.5 billion dollar fraud. It was a subsidiary of Permindex and was linked to Tibor Rosenbaum and the Mossad.

The London Jewish Chronicle denounced President Kennedy's UN delegation position that displaced Palestinians had the right to return to the land that Israel had illegally taken from them during the 1948 war. The Jewish Chronicle published this in London on November 22, 1963.

Adlai Stevenson, a former Presidential candidate, was the American UN ambassador at the time. Stevenson's son was also a Senator and opposed Israel's excesses. He was critical of Israel sinking the USS Liberty in the 1967 war, which killed 34 American sailors.

Lyndon Johnson said he wanted the USS Liberty to sink to the bottom of the Mediterranean even while the Israelis were attacking the ship. LBJ was sleeping with a former Irgun terrorist, Mathilde Krim. Her husband was one of LBJ's many Jewish advisers.

A JFK researcher once wrote that Piper was on to something in his research linking Israel to the assassination of President. But he said that we had to proceed with caution. Because to be accused of anti-Semitism is about the same as being accused of being a child molester.

.... ...

[Jun 04, 2018] Was LBJ Shacked up with a pretty Zionist when Israel attacked the USS Liberty?

Sep 19, 2014 | truthscooper.wordpress.com

The suggestion that LBJ was shacked up with a Zionist when Israel attacked and tried to sink the USS Liberty in 1967 is not used here as a metaphor, as in "strange bedfellows;" it is meant literally as in shacked up. You see, he was 'close friends" with Arthur and Mathilde Krim and Johnson even built a little cottage on his ranch called "Mathilde's house." No one has a tape of Johnson's doings in his bedroom that night, with the possible exception of J Edgar Hoover, who was famous for such things, and Hoover's secretary destroyed "those" files when he died.

We know LBJ had a different mistress , and in his usual crude manner said he could shall we say "get more sex" than JFK. So was he shacked up with the pretty Zionist or not? You will have to judge on probabilities. In a way, that is not is the big scandal, anyway.

The big scandal is that Israel attacked the USS Liberty as a false flag, to blame it on Egypt at the start of the Six Day War and thus draw the U.S. in openly on Israel's side. The big scandal is that LBJ ordered other ships to NOT help them and 34 men died in a vicious attack that, save for a miracle, did NOT send the ship to the bottom of the sea, killing all on board.

[Jun 04, 2018] Links between LBJ and Mathilde Krim by Philip Weiss

Was she genially attracted to Johnson, or she was on "special mission"?
This "pretty woman" was a former member of Irgun, no more no less: "Danon spent his time "recruiting and carrying out secret Irgun operations throughout Western Europe," and his wife used her bicycle to transport explosives across international borders bound for the Irgun in Palestine– "a seemingly innocent petite and pretty blonde out for a bicycle ride," Neff says."
Also: "At the University of Geneva, Mathilde was a brilliant student of biology and genetics. Appalled by newsreels of Nazi concentration camps in 1945, she sought out Jewish activists, joined the Zionist underground Irgun and spent a summer smuggling guns over the French border for resistance [ sic ] fighters against British rule in Palestine." "Mathilde became so enamored of the Jewish struggle and of Danon's daring undercover operations in Europe that she converted to Judaism and married Danon. Then she, too, became an Irgun agent."
If we approach JFK assassination from cue bono principle it is clear the Israel can be viewed as a few beneficiaries of his death. Especially taking into account the level of Links of LBJ and Israel lobby.
Notable quotes:
"... Warriors for Jerusalem: The Six Days that Changed the Middle East ..."
"... The Samson Option ..."
Jan 18, 2018 | mondoweiss.net

Originally from: The not-so-secret life of Mathilde Krim by Philip Weiss

On January 15, Mathilde Krim, a scientist and socialite, died on Long Island at 91, and the obituaries described her courageous leadership in the fight against AIDS. Krim was incensed by the widespread stigmatization of AIDS victims as somehow deserving the disease, and she worked to lift prejudice that kept our society from taking the illness seriously. (I saw her work for myself, attending a fundraiser at her East Side townhouse back in the 90's).

What the news has not told you about is Krim's other great achievement: helping to swing the White House to Israel's side in the 1960's. The no-daylight policy of U.S. alignment with the Israeli government, so obvious today in Trump's deference to Netanyahu, was born under Mathilde Krim's dear friend Lyndon Johnson. In the feverish weeks surrounding the 1967 war, Krim, who had once emigrated to Israel, and her husband Arthur, a leading fundraiser, were continually at Johnson's side, and advised him on what to say publicly.

"Johnson was the pivotal president for our relationship with Israel and I think Mathilde Krim's sway over Johnson was such that it turned the entire relationship, allowing Israel to continue on, especially after the Six Day War, in a manner that defied not only the U.N. but the whole world with regard to Israel's treatment of the Palestinians," says Martin Brod, a retired systems analyst in New York who has long studied the role of Israel's American friends in cementing the special relationship. Here is that story.

Mathilde Krim was a person of depth, intrigue and compassion. Born Mathilde Galland in 1926 in Italy to parents of Swiss, Italian and Austrian background, she moved with her family to Switzerland as a girl and went on to be a brilliant student, earning a Ph. D. in genetics from the University of Geneva.

When she learned about the Holocaust as a teenager, Krim identified with Jews. She felt as she did for AIDS victims 40 years on, a need to protect them against bigotry, abandonment, and rejection from the wider community.

These feelings led Krim to support Zionist militants during and after the war. The New York Times obituary by Robert D. McFadden includes one reference to her Zionist zeal:

Appalled by newsreels of Nazi concentration camps in 1945, she sought out Jewish activists, joined the Zionist underground Irgun and spent a summer smuggling guns over the French border for resistance fighters against British rule in Palestine.

After earning a bachelor's degree in 1948, she married an Irgun comrade, David Danon, a Bulgarian medical student, and converted to Judaism.

Danon had been exiled by the British from Palestine for his Irgun activities, and Krim saw him as a "dashing and heroic figure" dedicated to a noble cause that had used terrorism to achieve its ends, she said in an interview with the late Donald Neff, a former Time Magazine correspondent, for his book Warriors for Jerusalem: The Six Days that Changed the Middle East (1984).

Krim said she was moved by the "despair" of the Zionists. The blowing up of the King David Hotel in 1946 and the assassination of Lord Moyne in 1944 "represented the depth of the convictions of Danon and the Irgunists, the measure of both their commitment and their despair," Neff related. Danon spent his time "recruiting and carrying out secret Irgun operations throughout Western Europe," and his wife used her bicycle to transport explosives across international borders bound for the Irgun in Palestine– "a seemingly innocent petite and pretty blonde out for a bicycle ride," Neff says.

Mathilde Krim in the lab, undated photo

She and Danon had a daughter and moved to Israel in 1953, but there the marriage ended, and Krim didn't stay an Israeli that long either. She was working as a geneticist at the Weizmann Institute south of Tel Aviv when board member Arthur Krim came to visit. Arthur was a leading entertainment lawyer and studio executive, a former chairman of United Artists and Orion Pictures, and assiduously political. He was an adviser to several Democratic presidents due to his fundraising network, backing traditional Jewish causes: Israel and the U.S. civil rights movement.

"The story was that the head of the Weizmann Institute introduced Mathilde to Arthur Krim, suggesting that he might find her interesting because she spoke many languages and was a very attractive woman," Brod says. "It developed into a romance after she showed him around the institute."

Arthur and Mathilde Krim with President Kennedy, May 1962, at the Krim residence in NY. Photo by Cecil Stoughton.

The two married in 1958, when Mathilde was 32 and Arthur was 48. Mathilde soon moved to New York, and went to work at Sloan Kettering as a researcher. And Arthur became chair of the Democratic National Finance Committee.

Marilyn Monroe singing Happy Birthday, Mr. President in Madison Square Garden in 1962.

It was on that account that Mathilde formed one of the most important relationships of her life. In May 1962 Arthur Krim helped assemble Hollywood names for the famous fundraising gala at the Madison Square Garden at which Marilyn Monroe sang Happy Birthday, Mr. President to Jack Kennedy (a few months before her death). The after-party was held at the Krim mansion, Mathilde Krim related later in an interview with the LBJ Library; and Vice President Lyndon Johnson was an outsider at the party. Mathilde empathized with Johnson and befriended him as he sat on a staircase.

I think he was a great man, that's the best word. And he was imposing. He was not only physically an imposing man, and great. He had a great heart, he had a great intelligence, and he put them both to work, in fantastic ways.

Brod believes that Mathilde Krim was strategic in forming the friendship.

From the day they first met which was at the party for JFK at the Krim residence in the city– from that day forward she speaks proudly of having nurtured a relationship with Johnson because Johnson was not part of the JFK inner circle. I don't think it was an accident that she approached Johnson and developed this ongoing relationship. I have a feeling that from her entry into the United States if not before there was a plan of how she could best serve Israel and she began serving them when she was living in Switzerland in her first marriage and her work with the Stern gang. She had a strong stomach to involve herself with that kind of terror, and she certainly lived up to it here.

The transition from Kennedy to Johnson in 1963 was an important moment in the history of the special relationship.

Kennedy had bridled at the pro-Israel influence. In 1960, his campaign was in trouble when a group of Jewish leaders gave him $500,000 at the Pierre Hotel in New York, and then "interrogated Kennedy stringently on matters affecting Jews and Israel," (as Abba Eban later related ). "As an American citizen [Kennedy] was outraged" by the effort to take "control" of JFK's Middle East policy, his friend the newspaperman Charles Bartlett told Seymour Hersh.

As president, Kennedy maintained some distance from the Israeli government. He supported the right of return of Palestinian refugees and vigorously opposed Israel's acquisition of nuclear weapons. The CIA had obtained evidence of the Israeli nuclear project in the desert at Dimona– claimed to be a fabric factory, Brod says– and in the year before he was assassinated, Kennedy had pushed Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion and his successor, Levi Eshkol, to account for the activities.

His successor had fewer scruples about backing Israel. Johnson's political career was interwoven with Jews, as his wife later reflected, and he saw that nuclear nonproliferation "made for bad politics," as Hersh says in The Samson Option , because it alienated the Jewish community. Johnson ultimately suppressed intelligence reports that Israel was becoming a nuclear power. "By 1968, the President had no intention of doing anything to stop the Israeli bomb," Hersh writes.

Mathilde Krim dances with Johnson at January 20, 1965, inaugural ball following his reelection in 1964.

Mathilde Krim was undoubtedly a factor in that policymaking. Throughout his presidency, the Krims were among Johnson's very closest friends. They had a room in the White House and built a house on Lake Lyndon B. Johnson in the Texas hill country so as to be near his ranch in Stonewall when he was on vacation there. Johnson stayed at their house in New York.

It has been suggested that Mathilde Krim was LBJ's lover. "It was a barely hidden secret in leading government circles in Israel and the United States at the time that Mrs. Krim was extremely close to Lyndon Johnson," Helena Cobban wrote in her blogpost on Krim last week. While Brod points out that Johnson was a "competitive womanizer," according to his aide Bill Moyers, and certainly the president had social opportunities alone with Mathilde Krim.

Mathilde Krim and Lady Bird Johnson with President Johnson in a helicopter en route to the LBJ Ranch from the Krim Ranch, November 1966. Photo by Mike Geissinger of the White House.

But the essence of the relationship was political; and the Krims' influence was apparent throughout the days leading up to the 1967 war, when Johnson signaled to Israel that it had a yellow light to go ahead with the war, a signal "tantamount to a green one," in the view of scholar William Quandt, as it let the Israelis know that the U.S. would not condemn them for launching the war, and if they got into trouble the US would come to their side.

Mathilde Krim was a "key channel" for the Israelis to signal their plans to Johnson and to get signals in return, Cobban writes:

The huge role that Mrs. Krim played in 1967 is well-known to everyone who has seriously studied US-Israeli relations at that time. After all, she was an integral part of a well-oiled pro-Israeli influence movement at the heart of the US political system, and the DC-Tel Aviv signaling process that she was part of worked strongly in Israel's favor to transform not just the Middle East but the whole shape of global politics.

Donald Neff also says that Mathilde Krim's influence swayed American policy: Johnson "left himself more open to a passionately partisan voice than was prudent or even healthy during the accelerating crisis."

Neff's book documents Mathilde Krim's steady presence at Johnson's side that spring. Ten days before the war began, Johnson spent Memorial Day weekend 1967 at his ranch in Texas with the Krims, and regularly received communications about the mounting crisis in the Middle East from Eshkol with the Krims close at hand.

President Lyndon B. Johnson, Arthur Krim, A.W. Moursund, Lady Bird Johnson, Mathilde Krim. At a ranch near Kingsland, Texas, April 13, 1968. White House photo by Mike Geissinger.

"We talked with him all the time about Israel," Krim told Neff. Johnson admired the Israelis because he was a rancher dealing with dry land, she said, and "he had an entirely emotional liking for Jews, for what they had suffered, for the way they had been discriminated against, as he felt he had been discriminated against by the Eastern Establishment."

On June 3, the following Saturday night, the Krims were Johnson's company at a fundraiser at the Waldorf Astoria in New York, intended in part to shore up his support in the Jewish community. Arthur Krim hosted the fundraiser; and Johnson sat between Mathilde Krim and Mary Lasker, another huge contributor to the party (and widow of Albert Lasker, an Israel backer). The legendary fundraiser Abe Feinberg was there, and served as a conduit for the Israeli war plans, reports William Quandt in his book Peace Process .

"[H]e leaned over and whispered in his ear: 'Mr President, it can't be held any longer. It's going to be within the next twenty-four hours."

Two days later, on the morning of June 5, Mathilde Krim was in her bed in her room on the third floor of the White House when Johnson came in to tell her the war had begun. In his book 1967, Tom Segev reported that Johnson was accompanied by two security men and that Krim opened the door in her nightgown. Johnson said, "We are at war," then turned around and left. According to Segev, Johnson was angry. "Until the end of his life he viewed the war as a mistake." (That regret about the war seems to be footnoted by Segev to former national security adviser Walt Rostow's archive).

Later that afternoon, the Jewish community was angered when State Department spokesperson Robert J. McCloskey said at a press conference: "Our position is neutral in thought, word and deed." The statement suggested that the U.S. would do to Israel what it had done under Eisenhower in 1956, and force the country to withdraw from lands it seized in war.

Over the next few days Johnson came under intense pressure to deny McCloskey's assertion. "Seldom, if ever, had a president been subjected or allowed himself to be subjected, to such a concerted campaign as Lyndon Johnson that Wednesday. It was all pro-Israel; Arabs seemed to have no advocates," Neff notes acidly.

Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas phoned Johnson, and Mathilde Krim dictated memos to the president, urging him to repair the damage that McCloskey had done with Jewish Americans.
In one memo that LBJ later read to Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Krim called on the president to make a speech calling "for a permanent peace settlement." Those words meant that the U.S. would not demand an Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories.

In another memo, Krim told the president he did not understand "the resentment still lingering [among Jews] after the McCloskey statement" and the political dangers inherent. She channeled the Israelis and American Jews:

"There are reports of very strong anti-American feelings in Israel -- that Israelis feel they have won the war not with the U.S. but despite the U.S. In the Jewish community it is very difficult to explain the coincidence of the statement and the beginning of hostilities. The Jews are a people with a persecution complex and they understood the statement of the State Dept. to mean that in an hour of gravest danger to them that this country disengaged itself That is why they reacted so violently

"There is great danger that the Jewish rally to be held tomorrow in Lafayette Square here will be anti-Johnson, rather than a pro-Israel demonstration. Even Minister [Ephraim] Evron [at the Israeli embassy] says things are going out of hand."

She advised Johnson that he could "salvage" the situation if he made a "very strong statement." Krim then went back to New York City, but her last call to the White House June 7 was at a minute before midnight, Neff reports.

She was back at Johnson's side on the weekend, which he spent at Camp David preparing a speech that he would give on Monday, June 12, "which was to establish the nation's official policy in the Middle East," Neff says. Johnson read drafts of his speech Saturday night at dinner with the Krims and others, "inserting additions and making changes, also accepting comments and suggestions from all at the table," according to notes in the Presidential Daily Diary. Also commenting at that dinner: Australian Prime Minister Harold Holt. Such was Mathilde Krim's status.

Johnson gave the speech on Monday morning, and issued five principles of peace in the region, beginning with "security for all nations in the region." And though the list included "justice for the refugees," Johnson did not call on Israel to withdraw– not till all principles were attained.

[Jun 03, 2018] Did Israel Kill the Kennedys by Laurent Guyénot

The most valuable part is the comments. They, while biased, given a very good overview of the complexity of the issues and the US political system and political clans that seen power within it.
I think more powerful interests the Israel were involved. Israel would never do this on their own. Now more then 50 years after JFK assassination I have suspicion that probably this murder will never be solved although several plausible hypothesis were already establish (the role on LBJ and CIA, especially Angleton, are two most prominent). The theory tht Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone assassin theory is discredited, but there is no consensus about what should replace it other then consensus that CIA played an important role and there was understand that LBJ will cover this up.
A really interesting quote from comments: " I think Gary Wean was correct, there was a plot to stage a fake assassination attempt on JFK within which the actual assassination was hidden, presumably overseen by Angleton. Too many who knew better were looking the other way, and their effective complicity made them very interested in a cover up.
Notable quotes:
"... In March 1964, he had a face-to-face conversation with mobster Jimmy Hoffa, his sworn enemy, whom he had battled for ten years ..."
"... Robert also asked his friend Daniel Moynihan to search for any complicity in the Secret Service, responsible for the President's security ..."
"... And of course, Robert suspected Johnson, whom he had always mistrusted, as Jeff Shesol documents in Mutual Contempt: Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and the Feud that Defined a Decade (1997). ..."
"... Robert also contacted a former MI6 officer who had been a friend of his family when his father was Ambassador in London. This British retired officer in turn contacted some trusted friends in France, and arrangements were made for two French Intelligence operatives to conduct, over a three-year period, a quiet investigation that involved hundreds of interviews in the United States. Their report, replete with innuendo about Lyndon Johnson and right-wing Texas oil barons, was delivered to Bobby Kennedy only months before his own assassination in June of 1968. ..."
"... "President Kennedy's assassination was the work of magicians. It was a stage trick, complete with accessories and fake mirrors, and when the curtain fell, the actors, and even the scenery disappeared. [ ] the plotters were correct when they guessed that their crime would be concealed by shadows and silences, that it would be blamed on a 'madman' and negligence." ..."
"... Garrison was allowed to view Abraham Zapruder's amateur film, confiscated by the FBI on the day of the assassination. This film, despite evident tampering, shows that the fatal shot came from the "grassy knoll" well in front of the President, not from the School Book Depository located behind him, where Oswald was supposed to be shooting from. ..."
"... He refrained from openly supporting Garrison, believing that since the outcome of the investigation was uncertain, it could jeopardize his plans to reopen the case later, and even weaken his chances of election by construing his motivation as a family feud. ..."
"... In conclusion, there can be little doubt that, had he been elected president, Robert Kennedy would have done everything possible to reopen the case of his brother's assassination, in one way or another. This fact certainly did not escape John's murderers. They had no other option but to stop him. This first conclusion is a sufficient reason to conduct a comparative analysis of both Kennedy assassinations, in search of some converging clues that might lead us to the trail of a common mastermind. We begin with Robert's assassination. ..."
"... Even if we assume that Sirhan did kill Robert Kennedy, a second aspect of the case raises question: according to several witnesses, Sirhan seemed to be in a state of trance during the shooting. ..."
"... In 2008, Harvard University professor Daniel Brown, a noted expert in hypnosis and trauma memory loss, interviewed Sirhan for a total of 60 hours, and concluded that Sirhan, whom he classifies in the category of "high hypnotizables," acted unvoluntarily under the effect of hypnotic suggestion: "His firing of the gun was neither under his voluntary control, nor done with conscious knowledge, but is likely a product of automatic hypnotic behavior and coercive control." [17] Jacqui Goddard, "Sirhan Sirhan, assassin of Robert F.Kennedy, launches new campaign for freedom 42 years later," The Telegraph, December 3, 2011, on www.telegraph.co.uk/search/ ..."
"... We know that in the 1960s, American military agencies were experimenting on mental control. Dr Sidney Gottlieb, son of Hungarian Jews, directed the infamous CIA MKUltra project, which, among other things, were to answer questions such as: "Can a person under hypnosis be forced to commit murder?" according to a declassified document dated May 1951. [18] Colin Ross, Bluebird: Deliberate Creation of Multiple Personality by Psychiatrists , Manitou Communications, 2000,summary on www.wanttoknow.info/bluebird10pg ..."
"... hypnotize him into becoming ..."
"... programmed killer" ..."
"... If Sirhan was hypnotically programmed, the question is: Who had some interest in having a visceral anti-Zionist Palestinian blamed for the killing of Robert Kennedy? Israel, of course. But then, we are faced with a dilemma, for why would Israel want to kill Robert Kennedy if Robert Kennedy was supportive of Israel, as the mainstream narrative goes? ..."
"... Robert had not been, in his brother's government, a particularly pro-Israel Attorney General: He had infuriated Zionist leaders by supporting an investigation led by Senator William Fulbright of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations aimed at registering the American Zionist Council as a "foreign agent" subject to the obligations defined by the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, which would had considerably hindered its efficiency (after 1963, the AZD escaped this procedure by changing its status and renaming itself AIPAC) [21] The Israel Lobby Archive, www.irmep.org/ila/forrel/ . ..."
"... Robert Kennedy's death had not been a bad thing for the precious "American-Israeli relationship." Rather, it was a great loss for the Arab world, where Bobby was mourned just as had his brother John before him. ..."
"... But there is plenty of evidence that Angleton, who was also the head of the CIA "Israel Office," was a Mossad mole. According to his biographer Tom Mangold, "Angleton's closest professional friends overseas [ ] came from the Mossad and [ ] he was held in immense esteem by his Israeli colleagues and by the state of Israel, which was to award him profound honors after his death." [24] Tom Mangold, Cold Warrior: James Jesus Angleton: the CIA's Master Spy Hunter, Simon & Schuster, 1991, p. 318. No less that two monuments were dedicated to him at memorial services in Israel during ceremonies attended by chiefs of Israeli Intelligence and even a future Prime Minister. [25] Michael Howard Holzman, James Jesus Angleton, the CIA, and the Craft of COunterintelligence, University of Massachusetts Press, 2008, p. 153. ..."
"... Oswald's assassin is known as Jack Ruby, but few people know that his real name was Jacob Leon Rubenstein, and that he was the son of Jewish Polish immigrants. Ruby was a member of the Jewish underworld. He was a friend of Los Angeles gangster Mickey Cohen, whom he had known and admired since 1946. ..."
"... there is a direct line connecting Jack Ruby, via Mickey Cohen, to the Israeli terrorist ring, and in particular to Menachem Begin, a specialist in false flag terror. We also know that Ruby phoned Al Gruber, a Mickey Cohen associate, just after Oswald's arrest; no doubt he received then "an offer he couldn't refuse," as they say in the underworld. ..."
"... a single bullet supposed to have caused seven wounds to Kennedy and John Connally sitting before him in the limousine, and later found in pristine condition on a gurney in Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas. ..."
"... Five months later, Kennedy's death relieved Israel of all pressure (diplomatic or otherwise) to stop its nuclear program. Faced with Johnson's complete lack of interest in that issue, John McCone resigned from the CIA in 1965, declaring: "When I cannot get the President to read my reports, then it's time to go." ..."
"... Kennedy's determination to stop Israel's Dimona project was only part of the "Kennedy problem". During his first months in the White House, Kennedy committed himself by letters to Nasser and other Arab heads of State to support UN Resolution 194 for the right of return of Palestinian refugees. Ben-Gurion reacted with a letter to the Israeli ambassador in Washington, intended to be circulated among Jewish American leaders, in which he stated: ..."
"... "Israel will regard this plan as a more serious danger to her existence than all the threats of the Arab dictators and Kings, than all the Arab armies, than all of Nasser's missiles and his Soviet MIGs. [ ] Israel will fight against this implementation down to the last man.'" [43] Quoted in George and Douglas Ball, The Passionate Attachment: America's Involvement With Israel, 1947 to the Present , W.W. Norton & Co., 1992, p. 51. ..."
"... After Kennedy's death, American foreign policy was reversed again, without the American public being aware of it. Johnson cut the economic aid to Egypt, and increased the military aid to Israel, which reached 92 million dollars in 1966, more than the total of all previous years combined. ..."
"... Several investigators have identified Lyndon Johnson, Kennedy's vice-president, as the mastermind of the Kennedy assassination. It is, at least, beyond doubt that the plotters acted with the foreknowledge that Johnson, who automatically stepped in as head of State after Kennedy's death, would cover them. ..."
"... Johnson's privileged control over the Navy is an important aspect of the case because the Navy was critical in the setting up and in the cover-up of the plot. ..."
"... Lee Harvey Oswald had been recruited by the Navy and not by the CIA. He was a Marine, and as a Marine he had worked for the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI). ..."
"... at the Naval Hospital in Washington, under the control of Navy officers, that Kennedy's autopsy was performed, after his body had been literally stolen at gunpoint from Parkland Hospital in Dallas. The report of this autopsy stated that the fatal bullet had entered the back of Kennedy's skull, which contradicted the testimonies of twenty-one members of the Dallas hospital staff who saw two entry bullet-wounds on the front of Kennedy's body. This was critical because Oswald was presumably shooting from behind Kennedy, and could not possibly have caused these bullet wounds. ..."
"... It is noteworthy that Johnson had actually taken advantage of his connections in the Navy to participate in the greatest corruption case ever recorded at that time. His accomplice Fred Korth was forced to resign as Navy Secretary in November 1963, only weeks before the Dallas coup, after the Justice Department headed by Robert Kennedy had implicated him in a fraud involving a $7 billion contract for the construction of 1,700 TFX military aircraft by General Dynamics, a Texan company. Johnson's personal secretary, Bobby Baker, was charged in the same case. ..."
"... Because of this mounting scandal and other suspicions of corruption, Kennedy was determined to change Vice-President for his upcoming reelection campaign. ..."
"... President's visit, Nixon publicized the rumor of Johnson's removal, and the Dallas Morning News was reporting on November 22 nd : "Nixon Predicts JFK May Drop Johnson." Instead, Johnson became president that very day. ..."
"... According to his biographer Robert Caro, Johnson was a man thirsting "for power in its most naked form, for power not to improve the lives of others, but to manipulate and dominate them, to bend them to his will." ..."
"... Jack Ruby, whom Nixon identified a one of "Johnson's boys," according to former Nixon operative Roger Stone ..."
"... He said that feared that his act would be used "to create some falsehood about some of the Jewish faith," but added that "maybe something can be saved [ ], if our President, Lyndon Johnson, knew the truth from me." [49] Read Ruby's deposition on jfkmurdersolved.com/ruby.htm With such words, Ruby seems to be trying to send a message to Johnson through the Commission, or rather a warning that he might spill the beans about Israel's involvement if Johnson did not intervene in his favor. We get the impression that Ruby expected Johnson to pardon him. ..."
"... It is on record, thanks to Kennedy insider Arthur Schlesinger ( A Thousand Days: John Kennedy in the White House, 1965), that the two men who convinced Kennedy to take Johnson as his running mate, were Philip Graham and Joseph Alsop, respectively publisher and columnist of the Washington Post , and strong supporters of Israel. ..."
"... Thanks to JFK's death, Israel was also able to carry out its plan to annex Palestinian territories beyond the boundaries imposed by the United Nations Partition plan. By leaning on Pentagon and CIA hawks, Johnson intensified the Cold War and created the climate of tension which Israel needed in order to demonize Egyptian president Nasser and reinforce its own stature as indispensable ally in the Middle East. ..."
"... During the Six Day War of 1967, Israel managed to triple its territory, while creating the illusion of acting in legitimate defense. The lie could not deceive American Intelligence agencies, but Johnson had given a green light to Israel's attack, and even authorized James Angleton of the CIA to give Israel the precise positions of the Egyptian air bases, which enabled Israel to destroy them in just a few hours. ..."
"... Meanwhile, Johnson, from the White House, intervened personally to prohibit the nearby Sixth Fleet from rescuing the USS Liberty after the crew, despite the initial destruction of its transmitters, had managed to send off an SOS. ..."
"... The USS Liberty affair was suppressed by a commission of inquiry headed by Admiral John Sidney McCain II, Commander-in-Chief of US Naval Forces in Europe (and Father of Arizona Senator John McCain III). Johnson accepted Israel's spurious "targeting error" explanation. In January 1968 he invited the Israeli Prime Minister, Levi Eshkol, to Washington, and warmly welcomed him to his Texas ranch. What's more, Johnson rewarded Israel by lifting the embargo on offensive military equipment: US-made tanks and aircraft immediately flowed to Tel Aviv. ..."
"... Let's now conclude our overview of the evidence: beside the fact that John and Robert were brothers, their assassinations have at least two things in common: Lyndon Johnson and Israel. ..."
"... Laurent Guyénot is the author of JFK-9/11: 50 years of Deep State , Progressive Press, 2014 , and From Yahweh to Zion: Jealous God, Chosen People, Promised Land Clash of Civilizations , 2018. ($30 shipping included from Sifting and Winnowing, POB 221, Lone Rock, WI 53556). ..."
"... With my limited studies on the JFK murder I came to the same conclusion: Piper was essentially correct, but you fill up the case of Robert Kennedy in a convincing way. Maybe Meyer Lansky could be mentioned, he probably had some role. But the issue was the bomb. ..."
"... I think Gary Wean was correct, there was a plot to stage a fake assassination attempt on JFK within which the actual assassination was hidden, presumably overseen by Angleton. Too many who knew better were looking the other way, and their effective complicity made them very interested in a cover up. ..."
"... Israel was created by the British oligarchs as a bridgehead in the Middle East. Furthering Israel was/is furthering the interests of those oligarchs (who ran the British Empire which morphed to the Anglo-American Empire). JFK was critical of Israel. If someone killed him, it the Anglo-American deep state. Israel likely pulled the trigger. Let's remember what the fake father of Modern Zionism who admired Cecil Rhodes, Theodor Herl said: "England will get ten million agents for her greatness and influence." ..."
"... In spite of the mendacious narrative regurgitated in the West about the war of 1967, it was Israel who planned and attacked its neighbors. The seizing of the Golan Heights, the West Bank and Gaza were objectives Israel couldn't achieve in 1948 and deterring Nasser, an objective failed in 1956. The only problem Israel had was: would another US President intervene. Norman Finkelstein, who's research on 1967 is to date unchallenged successfully, showed that Israel sent diplomats to Washington ..."
"... Cuba casinos and crime were run by Meyer Lansky. You immediately get the Israel connection as he was a great fried of Israel. Cuban gangsters are implied in the conspiracy to kill JFK, but that is a link to the theory of Piper. To find the high level perpetrators it is only enough to ask what important US politics changed when LBJ become the President. Towards Cuba or gangsters, no. ..."
"... Did Israel kill the Kennedys? It is entirely possible. In fact, any conspiracy theory that links the murders that does not see the Israelis and American Jews involved is almost certainly a waste of time. But here is what is essential: if Israel and/or American Jews 'did it,' you can bet your every penny and the lives of your children, spouse, and siblings that America's WASP Deep State was behind it all. ..."
"... This article is simply bizarre. If the CIA didn't do it why is it still sanitizing the files 55 years later? ..."
"... LBJ's negotiation with Warren is a matter of historical record. He told Warren that if he didn't stick with the official bullshit story, Cuba's responsibility would lead to war entailing nuclear war with Russia. ..."
"... John, Robert and Ted Kennedy were all extremely friendly to Israel and extremely supportive of the interests of diaspora Jews. They led the Democratic Party away from the old-left emphasis on economic justice and peace, towards the new-left emphasis on issues of race and sex. ..."
"... They weakened the labor unions with their campaign against the Teamsters, they supported tax cuts for the very wealthy, their support for increased immigration was hostile to the economic interests of the American working class, and they supported an intensification of the cold war against the Soviet Union. They even knowingly lied about an imaginary "missile gap", in order to present the Democratic Party as more hawkish than Eisenhower's Republicans. ..."
"... In response to the Suez Crisis, Khrushchev's Soviet Union definitively became the patron of Israel's Arab enemies. Simultaneously, Khrushchev was overseeing a Thermidorian reaction against the excesses of early Bolshevism in eastern Europe. Stalin was denounced, Matyas Rakosi was exiled, Kaganovich was purged from the Politburo, Solzhenitsyn was released from the gulags, and the Hungarian counter-revolutionaries were treated less harshly than they would have been in the days of Lenin and Trotsky. A new Bukharinite, almost semi-nationalist, form of communism developed in eastern Europe – far less deadly, and with jobs and patronage more fairly distributed among the various ethnicities ..."
"... I have no desire to defend the Jews, or Judaism, or Zionism, or the State of Israel, but the charges that they were involved with the Kennedy assassinations are completely without merit and ought to be repugnant to decent people. The fact that they were directly responsible for the attack on the USS Liberty is more than enough reason to despise the Israelis; they do not need to be beaten with every club or charged with every crime. To do so is vindictive and paranoid and shameful, and I cannot be sanguine about the motives of those who would whip themselves and others into such a frenzy. ..."
"... Here's Mathilde Krim with a soirée of Fine Folks to include LBJ & Lady Bird. She certainly made the rounds. Definitely an Intelligence Operative considering her prodigious network of contacts ..."
"... Not Israel exactly but the banker clans that created Israel with US wealth and still own monopolies in banking, media, and drugs legal and illegal. Kennedy was put in office because they thought he was just a skirt chasing son of a bootlegger that would not interfere with the Globalist agenda. Kind of like Bill Clinton. Then he starts talking about "secret societies" and backing off the constant war agenda. And he fostered a trusting relationship with Russia, trying to really be president. He is the last one to try that. ..."
"... I recently bought a book about Lansky's Havana operations from Cuba. Before the revolution by Castro Lansky run the crime empire there. It is also written of his connections to Israel, which you can check even from Wikipedia. We all get our information from books and documents. This book was rather OK concerning facts. Lansky lost a lot when Castro came to power. In 1963 Lansky had a very good reason to want the USA to attack Cuba to gain his empire. Besides, he run the USA organized crime at that time and had reasons not to like Kennedys actions against organized crime. ..."
"... Behind the JFK and RFK assassinations is the Allen Dulles gang: Richard Helms, David Atlee Phillips, and James Jesus Angleton. ..."
"... Oswald was a CIA asset since his time as Marine serving at the US Atsugi base in Japan. Researcher HP Albarelli connects Oswald to right-wing Agency operative and pedophile David Ferrie as far back as the early 1950s. Oswald was also part of Angleton's false defector program, which inserted him into the USSR in the late 1950s. ..."
"... The willingness of so many revisionists to make saints out of the Kennedys -- which on any objective reading they clearly were not -- is by itself sufficient to discover the all-too-human wellsprings of their motivation. You have a beef with Israel, with the CIA, with Lyndon Johnson, with the whole American Deep State. I get that; I'm no fan of these people, either. But I'm not going to pervert my entire view of history so as to cast them in the role of the eternal villain. Self-deception is not only bad for your psychological health, it's also very politically inexpedient. You will never accomplish anything by this method. ..."
"... Garbage. Oswald was impersonated in Mexico. He didn't try to kill Walker. ..."
"... The most likely scenario is of course that the assassinations met the needs of not only Israel/Mossad, but of the U.S. oligarchs/Wall Street, European oligarchs, and the U.S. deep state forces of the CIA/Pentagon. It isn't an "either/or" with the Mossad vs the CIA as to who is the culprit, but rather that everyone benefited by these assassinations. From the U.S. Joint Chiefs who wanted to end JFK's efforts to stop the Cold War, to Mossad who wanted carte blanche Israeli power in the Middle East AND the bomb, to the CIA which most definitely did not want to be "splintered into a thousand pieces and scattered to the winds" – you have a set of powerful interests that converge and all benefit by these deaths. ..."
"... The whole debate of whether Israel is the tail wagging the dog misses the point that the very creation of Israel was all about helping the Western colonial powers maintain neo-colonial power in the Middle East as their former colonies were being liberated post-WWII. ..."
"... all these parties not only benefited, but also knew each other's secrets and operated in coordination to make these events happen, and to sew intrigue and endless questions in their wake. ..."
"... the CIA had planned a faked failed assassination coup to force JFK into acting against Castro, but was double-crossed. This fits the scenario which I also believe for 9/11. http://rockthetruth.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-911-triple-cross.html And I liked Janney's book. ..."
"... Next we have to look what changed in the US policy after the successful assassination, since it had to have some goal. The USA did not attack Cuba, so that was not the goal. The USA forgot Israel's nuclear bomb project, so that was the goal. (Go through the other alternatives and discard.) ..."
"... Because local Jews & pro-Israel bunch are not equivalent to "deep state". It is true that Zionist Jews are now more influential than ever, but they do not "own" US nor direct most currents of US policy. Being 2% of US population, Jews are perhaps 20-25% among American elites (which, evidently, is not the majority), and most of them are liberals who are not involved in shaping of American middle east politics. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld . were/are American imperialists, and not some Jewish puppets. ..."
"... It is bizarre to consider that Israelis would even think of, let alone try to execute US president, just because he gave them slap on the wrist at some point. ..."
"... And, in 1963, Zionist Jews (and all US Jews) were much less influential then today, after 5 decades that have, beginning with counter-cultural 60s, multiculturalism & Vietnam war, transformed US beyond recognition. Back in 50s/early 60s they had just wanted to assimilate into society as quickly as possible & minimize traces of their ethnic identity, while Israel was a schnorrer, beggar economy trying to survive & keep a low profile. ..."
"... That Golda Meir or Ben Gurion would even contemplate anything similar is simply weird: https://www.haaretz.com/.premium-golda-meir-had-doubts-on-kennedy-death-1.5292291 ..."
"... According to Stephen Green, for the purposes of this internal memorandum, Kent defined "acquisition" by Israel as either (a) a detonation of a nuclear device with or without the possession of actual nuclear weapons, or (b) an announcement by Israel that it possessed nuclear weapons, even without testing. Kent's primary conclusion was that an Israeli bomb would cause 'substantial damage to the U.S. and Western position in the Arab world. ..."
"... Thus it was that John F. Kennedy informed Israel, in no uncertain terms, that he intended – first and foremost – to place America's interests – not Israel's interests – at the center of U.S. Middle East policy. ..."
"... Here's just one example of the CIA trying to clean out the jewish Israeli agents at the CIA. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/355/661/500422/ ..."
"... JFK was killed by somebody. This somebody had power to modify Audiograph data in 1970ies. This data was available to CIA, FBI and the Warren Commission members, maybe also to others. CIA had dealings with mafia concerning assassination of Castro. The mafia that had been in Havana was Lansky's mafia. Thus, CIA had dealings with Lansky's gangsters. Dulles, LBJ and Angleton did not like JFK's policies, especially towards Israel. Israel was weak at that time, but had friends in the US, like Lansky, Angleton, LBJ, Dulles. Together these might have pulled the assassination, but even together they could not make the coverup by media. There had to be media and the US media has a tendency to silence one topic only. No President can control the media, the CIA can influence, but not control, mafia cannot control media. Only one power can do it and does it. ..."
"... [It's not good commenting policy to produce a continuing series of lengthy totally unsourced excerpts, spread over series of different comments, which makes it difficult for others to avoid them. They have now been consolidated, but you should stop this sort of bad behavior.] ..."
"... In case of JFK it is pretty obvious that Israel was the greatest beneficiary of his death because of JFK determination to stop Israel's nuclear program. Some correspondence of JFK with PM's of Israel is available on line. Israel defense doctrine was formulate to be based on what later was called Samson Option. In 1963 Israel still cooperated with France on its secret nuclear program. ..."
"... JFK definitively was set on stopping Israel nuclear program which Israel was conducting in secret cooperation with France. After strong letter on May 18, 163 letter PM Ben Gurion preferred to resign than to answer the letter ..."
"... During that same 1962-63 period Senator William J. Fulbright of Arkansas, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, convened hearings on the legal status of the American Zionist Council (AZC). The Committee uncovered evidence that the Jewish Agency, a predecessor to the state of Israel, operated a massive network of financial "conduits" which funnelled funds to U.S. Israel lobby groups. As a result, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy (RFK) ordered the AZC to openly register and disclose all of its foreign funded lobbying activity in the United States. The attempt was subsequently thwarted first by the Israel lobby itself and then by the death of President Kennedy which lead to growing concerns regarding the impact of the ever-growing Zionist influence on U.S. policy making decisions. On April 15, 1973, Fulbright -- who lost his Senate seat the following year -- had no qualms about boldly announcing on CBS Face the Nation that : "Israel controls the U.S. Senate. The Senate is subservient, much too much; we should be more concerned about U.S. interests rather than doing the bidding of Israel. The great majority of the Senate of the U.S. -- somewhere around 80% -- is completely in support of Israel; anything Israel wants; Israel gets. This has been demonstrated time and again, and this has made [foreign policy] difficult for our government." ..."
"... While it is quite plausible that the Zionist entity and the CIA regime have congruent criminal interests, this is not what Guyanot theorizes. He imagines a CIA that sets up all the preconditions for a coup, without actually meaning to go through with it, and a foreign devil that unexpectedly takes it all and runs with it. That's idiotic. It also happens to be CIA's boilerplate excuse for all their grave crimes. There's nothing new up there. What's worse, it's plagiarized from Langley fops and jarheads. It's not just stupid, but stupid in a telltale way. ..."
Jun 03, 2018 | www.unz.com

... ... ...

As Lance deHaven-Smith has remarked in Conspiracy Theory in America:

"It is seldom considered that the Kennedy assassinations might have been serial murders. In fact, in speaking about the murders, Americans rarely use the plural, 'Kennedy assassinations'. [ ] Clearly, this quirk in the Kennedy assassination(s) lexicon reflects an unconscious effort by journalists, politicians, and millions of ordinary Americans to avoid thinking about the two assassinations together, despite the fact that the victims are connected in countless ways." [1] Lance deHaven-Smith, Conspiracy Theory in America , University of Texas Press, 2013,kindle 284-292.

John and Robert were bound by an unshakable loyalty. Kennedy biographers have stressed the absolute dedication of Robert to his elder brother. Robert had successfully managed John's campaign for the Senate in 1952, then his presidential campaign in 1960. John made him not only his Attorney General, but also his most trusted adviser, even on matters of Foreign or Military affairs. What John appreciated most in Robert was his sense of justice and the rectitude of his moral judgment. It is Robert, for example, who encouraged John to fully endorse the cause of the Blacks' civil rights movement [2] John Lewis' testimony is in the PBS documentary American Experience Robert F. Kennedy. .

Given this exceptional bond between the Kennedy brothers, what is the probability that the two Kennedy assassinations were unrelated? Rather, we should start with the assumption that they are related. Basic common sense suggests that the Kennedy brothers have been killed by the same force, and for the same motives. It is, at least, a logical working hypothesis that Robert was eliminated from the presidential race because he had to be prevented from reaching a position where he could reopen the case of his brother's death. Both his loyalty to his brother's memory, and his obsession with justice, made it predictable that, if he reached the White House, he would do just that. But was there, in 1968, any clear indication that he would?

Did Bobby plan to reopen the investigation on his brother's assassination?

The question has been positively answered by David Talbot in his book Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years , published in 2007 by Simon & Schuster. Robert had never believed in the Warren Report's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole assassin of his brother. Knowing too well what to expect from Johnson, he had refused to testify before the Warren Commission. When its report came out, he had no choice but to publicly endorse it, but "privately he was dismissive of it," as his son Robert Kennedy, Jr. remembers [3] Associated Press, "RFK children speak about JFK assassination," January 12, 2013, on www.usatoday.com . To close friends who wondered why he wouldn't voice his doubt, he said: "there's nothing I can do about it. Not now." [4] David Talbot, Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years , Simon & Schuster, 2007, p. 278-280, 305.

From 22 November 1963, Robert was alienated and monitored by Johnson and Hoover. Although still Attorney General, he knew he was powerless against the forces that had killed his brother. Yet he lost no time beginning his own investigation; he first asked CIA director John McCone, a Kennedy friend, to find out if the Agency had anything to do with the plot, and came out convinced that it hadn't. In March 1964, he had a face-to-face conversation with mobster Jimmy Hoffa, his sworn enemy, whom he had battled for ten years, and whom he suspected of having taken revenge on his brother. Robert also asked his friend Daniel Moynihan to search for any complicity in the Secret Service, responsible for the President's security [5] David Talbot, Brothers, op. cit. , 2007, p. 21-22. . And of course, Robert suspected Johnson, whom he had always mistrusted, as Jeff Shesol documents in Mutual Contempt: Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and the Feud that Defined a Decade (1997).

In fact, a mere week after JFK's death, November 29, 1963, Bill Walton, a friend of the Kennedys, travelled to Moscow and passed to Nikita Khrushchev, via a trusted agent who had already carried secret communications between Khrushchev and John Kennedy, a message from Robert and Jacqueline Kennedy; according to the memo found in the Soviet archives in the 90s by Alexandr Fursenko and Timothy Naftali ( One Hell of a Gamble , 1998), Robert and Jackie wanted to inform the Soviet Premier that they believed John Kennedy had been "the victim of a right-wing conspiracy," and that "the cooling that might occur in U.S.-Soviet relations because of Johnson would not last forever." [6] David Talbot, Brothers, op. cit., p. 25-7.

ORDER IT NOW

Robert also contacted a former MI6 officer who had been a friend of his family when his father was Ambassador in London. This British retired officer in turn contacted some trusted friends in France, and arrangements were made for two French Intelligence operatives to conduct, over a three-year period, a quiet investigation that involved hundreds of interviews in the United States. Their report, replete with innuendo about Lyndon Johnson and right-wing Texas oil barons, was delivered to Bobby Kennedy only months before his own assassination in June of 1968. After Bobby's death, the last surviving brother, Senator Ted Kennedy, showed no interest in the material. The investigators then hired a French writer by the name of Hervé Lamarr to fashion the material into a book, under the pseudonym of James Hepburn. The book was first published in French under the title L'Amérique brûle, and was translated under the title Farewell America: The Plot to Kill JFK . Its conclusion is worth quoting:

"President Kennedy's assassination was the work of magicians. It was a stage trick, complete with accessories and fake mirrors, and when the curtain fell, the actors, and even the scenery disappeared. [ ] the plotters were correct when they guessed that their crime would be concealed by shadows and silences, that it would be blamed on a 'madman' and negligence." [7] James Hepburn, Farewell America: The Plot to Kill JFK, Penmarin Books, 2002, p. 269.

Robert had planned to run for the American Presidency in 1972, but the escalation of the Vietnam War precipitated his decision to run in 1968. Another factor may have been the opening of the investigation by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison in 1967. Garrison was allowed to view Abraham Zapruder's amateur film, confiscated by the FBI on the day of the assassination. This film, despite evident tampering, shows that the fatal shot came from the "grassy knoll" well in front of the President, not from the School Book Depository located behind him, where Oswald was supposed to be shooting from.

When talk of the investigation began, Kennedy asked one of his closest advisors, Frank Mankievitch, to follow its developments, "so if it gets to a point where I can do something about this, you can tell me what I need to know." He confided to his friend William Attwood, then editor of Look magazine, that he, like Garrison, suspected a conspiracy, "but I can't do anything until we get control of the White House." [8] David Talbot, Brothers, op. cit., p. 312-314. He refrained from openly supporting Garrison, believing that since the outcome of the investigation was uncertain, it could jeopardize his plans to reopen the case later, and even weaken his chances of election by construing his motivation as a family feud.

In conclusion, there can be little doubt that, had he been elected president, Robert Kennedy would have done everything possible to reopen the case of his brother's assassination, in one way or another. This fact certainly did not escape John's murderers. They had no other option but to stop him. This first conclusion is a sufficient reason to conduct a comparative analysis of both Kennedy assassinations, in search of some converging clues that might lead us to the trail of a common mastermind. We begin with Robert's assassination.

Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian motivated by hatred of Israel?

Just hours after Robert's assassination, the press was able to inform the American people, not only of the identity of the assassin, but also of his motive, and even of his detailed biography. [9] Extract of TV news in the documentary film Evidence of Revision: Part 4: The RFK assassination as never seen before , 01:11:42 Twenty-four-year-old Sirhan Bishara Sirhan was born in Jordania, and had moved to the United States when his family was expelled from West Jerusalem in 1948. After the shooting, a newspaper clipping was found in Sirhan's pocket, quoting favorable comments made by Robert regarding Israel and, in particular, what sounded like an electoral commitment: "The United States should without delay sell Israel the 50 Phantom jets she has so long been promised." Handwritten notes by Sirhan found in a notebook at his home confirmed that his act had been premeditated and motivated by his hatred of Israel.

That became the story line of the mainstream media from day one. Jerry Cohen of the Los Angeles Times wrote a front page article, saying that Sirhan is "described by acquaintances as a 'virulent' anti-Israeli," (Cohen changed that into "virulent anti-semite" in an article for the The Salt Lake Tribune ), and that: " Investigation and disclosures from persons who knew him best revealed [him] as a young man with a supreme hatred for the state of Israel." Cohen infers that "Senator Kennedy [ ] became a personification of that hatred because of his recent pro-Israeli statements." Cohen further revealed that:

"About three weeks ago the young Jordanian refugee accused of shooting Sen. Robert Kennedy wrote a memo to himself, [ ] The memo said: 'Kennedy must be assassinated before June 5, 1968' -- the first anniversary of the six-day war in which Israel humiliated three Arab neighbors, Egypt, Syria and Jordan." [10] Jerry Cohen, "Yorty Reveals That Suspect's Memo Set Deadline for Death," Los Angeles Times, June 6, 1968, pages 1 and 12, on latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedailymirror/2008/06/june-6-1968.html. Jerry Cohen, "Jerusalem-Born Suspect Called An Anti-Semite," The Salt Lake Tribune , June 6, 1968, on www.newspapers.com. See also Harry Rosenthal, "Senator Kennedy's support for Israel promoted decision declares Sirhan," The Telegraph, March 5, 1969, on news.google.com

After September 11, 2001, the tragedy of Robert's assassination was installed into the Neocon mythology of the Clash of Civilizations and the War on Terror the story. Sirhan became a precursor of Islamic terrorism on the American soil. In a book entitled The Forgotten Terrorist, Mel Ayton, who specializes in debunking conspiracy theories, claims to present "a wealth of evidence about [Sirhan's] fanatical Palestinian nationalism," and to demonstrate that "Sirhan was the lone assassin whose politically motivated act was a forerunner of present-day terrorism" (as written on the back cover).

In 2008, on the 40 th anniversary of Robert's death, Sasha Issenberg of the Boston Globe recalled that the death of Robert Kennedy was "a first taste of Mideast terror." He quotes Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz (best known as Jonathan Pollard's lawyer), as saying:

"I thought of it as an act of violence motivated by hatred of Israel and of anybody who supported Israel. [ ] It was in some ways the beginning of Islamic terrorism in America. It was the first shot. A lot of us didn't recognize it at the time." [11] Sasha Issenberg, "Slaying gave US a first taste of Mideast terror," Boston Globe, June 5, 2008, on www.boston.com

The fact that Sirhan was from a Christian family was lost on Dershowitz. The Jewish Forward took care to mention it on the same occasion, only to add that Islamic fanaticism ran in his veins anyway:

"But what he shared with his Muslim cousins -- the perpetrators of September 11 -- was a visceral, irrational hatred of Israel. It drove him to murder a man whom some still believe might have been the greatest hope of an earlier generation."

" Robert Kennedy was the first American victim of modern Arab terrorism," the Forward journalist hammered; "Sirhan hated Kennedy because he had supported Israel." [12] Jeffrey Salkin, "Remember What Bobby Kennedy Died For," Forward.com, June 5, 2008. Also Michael Fischbach, "First Shot in Terror War Killed RFK," Los Angeles Times, June 02, 2003, on articles.latimes.com

This leitmotiv of the public discourse begs the question: Was Bobby really a supporter of Israel? But before we answer that question, there is on more pressing one:

Did Sirhan really kill Bobby?

If we trust official statements and mainstream news, the assassination of Robert Kennedy is an open-and-shut case. The identity of the killer suffers no discussion, since he was arrested on the spot, with the smoking gun in his hand. In reality, ballistic and forensic evidence show that none of Sirhan's bullets hit Kennedy.

According to the autopsy report of Chief Medical Examiner-Coroner Thomas Noguchi, Robert Kennedy died of a gunshot wound to the brain, fired from behind the right ear at point blank range, following an upward angle. Nogushi restated his conclusion in his 1983 memoirs, Coroner . Yet the sworn testimony of twelve shooting witnesses established that Robert had never turned his back on Sirhan and that Sirhan was five to six feet away from his target when he fired.

Tallying all the bullet impacts in the pantry, and those that wounded five people around Kennedy, it has been estimated that at least twelve bullets were fired, while Sirhan's gun carried only eight. On April 23, 2011, attorneys William Pepper and his associate, Laurie Dusek, gathered all this evidence and more in a 58-page file submitted to the Court of California, asking that Sirhan's case be reopened. They documented major irregularities in the 1968 trial, including the fact that the bullet tested in laboratory to be compared to the the one extracted from Robert's brain had not been shot by Sirhan's revolver, but by another gun, with a different serial number; thus, instead of incriminating Sirhan, the ballistic test in fact proved him innocent. Pepper has also provided a computer analysis of audio recordings during the shooting, made by engineer Philip Van Praag in 2008, which confirms that two guns are heard. [13] Frank Morales, "The Assassination of RFK: A Time for Justice!" June 16, 2012, on www.globalresearch.ca; watch on YouTube, "RFK Assassination 40 th Anniversary (2008) Paul Schrade on CNN."

The presence of a second shooter was signaled by several witnesses and reported on the same day by a few news media. There are strong suspicions that the second shooter was Thane Eugene Cesar, a security guard hired for the evening, who was stuck behind Kennedy at the moment of the shooting, and seen with his pistol drawn by several witnesses. One of them, Don Schulman, positively saw him fire. Cesar was never investigated, even though he did not conceal his hatred for the Kennedys, who according to his recorded statement, had "sold the country down the road to the commies." [14] Philip Melanson, The Robert F. Kennedy Assassination: New Revelations On the Conspiracy And Cover-Up, S.P.I. Books , 1994, p. 25. For a full overview, watch Shane O'Sullivan's 2007 investigative documentary RFK Must Die: The Assassination of Bobby Kennedy. For more detail, read his book Who Killed Bobby? The Unsolved Murder of Robert F. Kennedy , Union Square Press, 2008. See also Don Schulman's testimony in The Second Gun (1973), from 42 min 40.

Even if we assume that Sirhan did kill Robert Kennedy, a second aspect of the case raises question: according to several witnesses, Sirhan seemed to be in a state of trance during the shooting. More importantly, Sirhan has always claimed, and continues to claim, that he has never had any recollection of his act:

"I was told by my attorney that I shot and killed Senator Robert F. Kennedy and that to deny this would be completely futile, [but] I had and continue to have no memory of the shooting of Senator Kennedy."

He also claims to have no memory of "many things and incidents which took place in the weeks leading up to the shooting." [15] In a parole hearing in 2011, failing to convince the judges for the fourteenth time. Watch on YouTube, "Sirhan Sirhan Denied Parole": www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsm1hKPI9EU Some repetitive lines written of a notebook found in Sirhan's bedroom, which Sirhan recognizes as his own handwriting but does not remember writing, are reminiscent of automatic writing. [16] Shane O'Sullivan, Who Killed Bobby? The Unsolved Murder of Robert F. Kennedy , Union Square Press, 2008, p. 5, 44, 103.

Psychiatric expertise, including lie-detector tests, have confirmed that Sirhan's amnesia is not faked. In 2008, Harvard University professor Daniel Brown, a noted expert in hypnosis and trauma memory loss, interviewed Sirhan for a total of 60 hours, and concluded that Sirhan, whom he classifies in the category of "high hypnotizables," acted unvoluntarily under the effect of hypnotic suggestion: "His firing of the gun was neither under his voluntary control, nor done with conscious knowledge, but is likely a product of automatic hypnotic behavior and coercive control." [17] Jacqui Goddard, "Sirhan Sirhan, assassin of Robert F.Kennedy, launches new campaign for freedom 42 years later," The Telegraph, December 3, 2011, on www.telegraph.co.uk/search/

We know that in the 1960s, American military agencies were experimenting on mental control. Dr Sidney Gottlieb, son of Hungarian Jews, directed the infamous CIA MKUltra project, which, among other things, were to answer questions such as: "Can a person under hypnosis be forced to commit murder?" according to a declassified document dated May 1951. [18] Colin Ross, Bluebird: Deliberate Creation of Multiple Personality by Psychiatrists , Manitou Communications, 2000,summary on www.wanttoknow.info/bluebird10pg According to Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman, author of Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel's Targeted Assassinations (Random House, 2018), in 1968, an Israeli military psychologist by the name of Benjamin Shalit had concocted a plan to take a Palestinian prisoner and " brainwash and hypnotize him into becoming a programmed killer" aimed at Yasser Arafat. [19] David B. Green, "Brainwashing and Cross-dressing: Israel's Assassination Program Laid Bare in Shocking Detail," Haaretz, February 5, 2018.

If Sirhan was hypnotically programmed, the question is: Who had some interest in having a visceral anti-Zionist Palestinian blamed for the killing of Robert Kennedy? Israel, of course. But then, we are faced with a dilemma, for why would Israel want to kill Robert Kennedy if Robert Kennedy was supportive of Israel, as the mainstream narrative goes?

Was Robert Kennedy really a friend of Israel?

The dilemma rests on a misleading assumption, which is part of the deception. In fact, Robert Kennedy was definitely not pro-Israel. He was simply campaigning in 1968. As everyone knows, a few good wishes and empty promises to Israel are an inescapable ritual in such circumstances. And Robert's statement in an Oregon synagogue, mentioned in the May 27 Pasadena Independent Star-News article found in Sirhan's pocket, didn't exceed the minimal requirements. Its author David Lawrence had, in an earlier article entitled "Paradoxical Bob," underlined how little credit should be given to such electoral promises: "Presidential candidates are out to get votes and some of them do not realize their own inconsistencies."

All things considered, there is no ground for believing that Robert Kennedy would have been, as president of the US, particularly Israel-friendly. The Kennedy family, proudly Irish and Catholic, was known for its hostility to Jewish influence in politics, a classic theme of anti-Kennedy literature, best represented by the 1996 book by Ronald Kessler with the highly suggestive title, The Sins of the Father: Joseph P. Kennedy and the Dynasty He Founded. [20] Ronald Kessler, The Sins of the Father: Joseph P. Kennedy and the Dynasty He Founded, Hodder & Stoughton, 1996.

Robert had not been, in his brother's government, a particularly pro-Israel Attorney General: He had infuriated Zionist leaders by supporting an investigation led by Senator William Fulbright of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations aimed at registering the American Zionist Council as a "foreign agent" subject to the obligations defined by the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, which would had considerably hindered its efficiency (after 1963, the AZD escaped this procedure by changing its status and renaming itself AIPAC) [21] The Israel Lobby Archive, www.irmep.org/ila/forrel/ .

In conclusion, it is only with outstanding hypocrisy that The Jewish Daily Forward could write, on the 40th anniversary of Bobby's death:

"In remembering Bobby Kennedy, let us remember not just what he lived for, but also what he died for -- namely, the precious nature of the American-Israeli relationship." [22] Jeffrey Salkin, "Remember What Bobby Kennedy Died For , " op. cit. .

Robert Kennedy's death had not been a bad thing for the precious "American-Israeli relationship." Rather, it was a great loss for the Arab world, where Bobby was mourned just as had his brother John before him.

Of course, the fact that the Zionist media lied when granting Robert Kennedy some posthumous certificate of good will toward Israel, and thereby provided Israel with a fake alibi, is not a sufficient reason for concluding that Israel murdered Robert. Even the fact that the masterminds of the plot chose as their programmed instrument an anti-Zionist Palestinian, and thereby stirred a strong anti-Palestinian feeling among Americans at the same time as getting rid of Robert, does not prove that Israel was involved. What is still lacking for a serious presumption is a plausible motive.

The motive of Robert's assassination must be found, not in what Robert publicly declared in an Oregon synagogue during his presidential campaign, but rather in what he confided only to his most close friends: his intention to reopen the investigation on his brother's death. Our next question, therefore, is: What would an unbiased investigation, conducted under the supervision of Robert in the White House, have revealed?

Did the CIA assassinate Kennedy?

It is obvious to anybody just vaguely informed that a genuine investigation would first establish that Oswald was a mere "patsy" , as he said himself, a scapegoat prepared in advance to be blamed for the crime and then be slaughtered without a trial. We will not here review the evidence that contradicts the official thesis of the lone gunman. It can be found in numerous books and documentary films.

Just as notorious is the theory that the plot to kill Kennedy originated from a secret network within the CIA, in collusion with extremist elements in the Pentagon. That conspiracy theory looms the largest in books, articles and films that have been produced since John Kennedy died.

That CIA-Pentagon theory, as I will call it (add the military-industrial complex if you wish) has a major flaw in the motive ascribed to the killers: besides getting rid of Kennedy, the theory goes, the aim was to create a pretext for invading Cuba, something the CIA had always pushed for and Kennedy had refused to do (the Bay of Pigs fiasco). With Oswald groomed as a pro-Castro communist, the Dallas shooting was staged as a false flag attack to be blamed on Cuba. But then, why did no invasion of Cuba followed Kennedy's assassination? Why was the pro-Castro Oswald abandoned by the Warren Commission in favor of the lone nut Oswald? Those who address the question, like James Douglass in his JFK and the Unspeakable , credit Johnson with preventing the invasion. Johnson, we are led to understand, had nothing to do with the assassination plot, and thwarted the plotters' ultimate aim to start World War III. This is to ignore the tremendous amount of evidence accumulated against Johnson for fifty years, and documented in such groundbreaking books as Phillip Nelson's LBJ: The Mastermind of JFK's Assassination (2010) or Roger Stone's The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ (2013).

Another weakness in the CIA-Pentagon theory is the lack of agreement about the mastermind of the plot. In fact, one of the names that comes up most often is James Jesus Angleton, the head of Counter-Intelligence within the CIA, about whom Professor John Newman writes in Oswald and the CIA :

"In my view, whoever Oswald's direct handler or handlers were, we must now seriously consider the possibility that Angleton was probably their general manager. No one else in the Agency had the access, the authority, and the diabolically ingenious mind to manage this sophisticated plot." [23] Michael Collins Piper, False Flag, op. cit., p. 78.

But there is plenty of evidence that Angleton, who was also the head of the CIA "Israel Office," was a Mossad mole. According to his biographer Tom Mangold, "Angleton's closest professional friends overseas [ ] came from the Mossad and [ ] he was held in immense esteem by his Israeli colleagues and by the state of Israel, which was to award him profound honors after his death." [24] Tom Mangold, Cold Warrior: James Jesus Angleton: the CIA's Master Spy Hunter, Simon & Schuster, 1991, p. 318. No less that two monuments were dedicated to him at memorial services in Israel during ceremonies attended by chiefs of Israeli Intelligence and even a future Prime Minister. [25] Michael Howard Holzman, James Jesus Angleton, the CIA, and the Craft of COunterintelligence, University of Massachusetts Press, 2008, p. 153.

Another aspect must be taken into account: if the trail of the CIA is such a well-trodden path among Kennedy researchers, it is because it has been cut and marked by the mainstream media themselves, as well as by Hollywood. And that began even before the assassination, on October 3, 1963, with an article by the New York Times' chief Washington correspondent Arthur Krock. The article denounced the CIA's "unrestrained thirst for power" and quotidian unnamed "very high official" who claimed that the White House could not control the CIA, and that:

"If the United States ever experiences an attempt at a coup to overthrow the Government, it will come from the CIA and not the Pentagon. The agency represents a tremendous power and total unaccountability to anyone." [26] "Assassination studies Kennedy knew a coup was coming," on Youtube. Image of Arthur Krock's article is shown on www.youtube.com/watch?v=snE161QnL1U at 1:36.

In such a way, The New York Times was planting a sign, a month and a half before the Dallas killing, pointing to the CIA as the most likely instigator of the upcoming coup. The sign said: "The President is going to fall victim of a coup, and it will come from the CIA."

One month after Kennedy's assassination, it was the turn of the Washington Post to use a very similar trick, by publishing an op-ed signed by Harry Truman, in which the former president said he was "disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment." "I never had any thought when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations," at the point of becoming across the globe "a symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue [ ] there are now some searching questions that need to be answered." [27] "Harry Truman Writes: Limit CIA Role to Intelligence," Washington Post, December 22, 1963, quoted in Mark Lane, Last Word: My Indictment of the CIA in the Murder of JFK , Skyhorse Publishing, 2011 , p. 246. Truman was hinting at the CIA's role in toppling foreign governments and assassinating elected leaders abroad. But given the timing of his article, one month to the day after Dallas, it could only be understood by anyone with ears to hear, and at least subliminally by the rest, as an indictment of the CIA in the Kennedy assassination. This article, widely reprinted in the 1970s after the creation of the Church Committee and the House Select Committee on Assassinations, is regarded as Truman's whistleblowing. Yet its mea culpa style is quite unlike Truman; that is because it was not written by Truman, but by his longtime assistant and ghostwriter, a Russian born Jew named David Noyes, whom Sidney Krasnoff calls "Truman's alter ego" in his book, Truman and Noyes: Story of a President's Alter Ego (1997). Truman probably never saw the article prior to its publication in the Washington Post morning edition, but he may be responsible for its deletion from the afternoon print runs. [28] Thomas Troy, "Truman on CIA," September 22, 1993, on www.cia.gov ; Sidney Krasnoff, Truman and Noyes: Story of a President's Alter Ego, Jonathan Stuart Press, 1997.

So the two most influential American newspapers, while ostensibly defending the official theory of the lone gunman, have planted directional signs pointing to the CIA. Most Kennedy truthers have followed the signs with enthusiasm.

In the 70s, the mainstream media and publishing industry played again a major role in steering conspiracy theorists toward the CIA, while avoiding any hint of Israeli involvement. One major contributor to that effort was A. J. Weberman, with his 1975 book Coup d'État in America: The CIA and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, co-authored by Michael Canfield . According to the New York Jewish Daily Forward (December 28, 2012), Weberman had "immigrated to Israel in 1959 and has dual American-Israeli citizenship," and is "a close associate of Jewish Defense Organization founder Mordechai Levy, whose fringe group is a spin-off of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane's militant right-wing Jewish Defense League." Weberman acknowledged Neocon Richard Perle's assistance in his investigation. [29] Michael Collins Piper, False Flags: Template for Terror, American Free Press, 2013, p. 67. The Weberman-Canfield book contributed to the momentum that led the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) to reinvestigate in 1976 the murders of JFK and Dr. Martin Luther King.

It is also in this context that Newsweek journalist Edward Jay Epstein published an interview of George De Mohrenschildt, a Russian geologist and consultant for Texan oilmen who had befriended Oswald and his Russian wife in Dallas in 1962. In this interview, De Mohrenschildt admitted that Oswald had been introduced to him at the instigation of Dallas CIA agent J. Walton Moore. [30] James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, Touchstone, 2008 , p. 46. That piece of information is dubious for several reasons: First, Moore was officially FBI rather than CIA. Second, De Mohrenschildt was in no position to confirm or deny the words that Epstein ascribed to him: he was found dead a few hours after giving the interview. In fact, De Mohrenschildt's interview published by Epstein contradicts De Mohrenschildt's own manuscript account of his relationship to Oswald, revealed after his death. [31] George de Mohrenschilldt, I am a Patsy! on jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo4/jfk12/hscapatsy.htm De Mohrenschildt's death was ruled a suicide. The Sheriff's report mentions that in his last months he complained that "the Jews" and "the Jewish mafia" were out to get him. [32] Read the Sheriff's Office report on mcadams.posc.mu.edu/death2.txt Needless to say, Epstein didn't mention anything about this. More suspicions arise from the fact that Epstein's main source for his 1978 book, Legend: the Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswald , was James Jesus Angleton, who was actively spreading disinformation at the time of the HSCA, defending the theory that Oswald was a KGB agent with CIA connections.

That Israeli agents have been instrumental in spreading conspiracy theories targeting the CIA is also evidenced by Oliver Stone's film JFK released in 1991, starring Kevin Costner in the role of New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison. This film, which shook public opinion to the point of motivating the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, was produced by Arnon Milchan, described in a 2011 biography as being from his youth "one of the most important covert agents that Israeli intelligence has ever fielded," involved in arms smuggling from the US to Israel. [33] Meir Doron, Confidential: The Life of Secret Agent Turned Hollywood Tycoon – Arnon Milchan , Gefen Books, 2011, p. xi. In 2013 Milchan publicly revealed his extended activity as a secret agent of Israel, working in particular to boost Israel's nuclear program. [34] Stuart Winer, "Hollywood producer Arnon Milchan reveals past as secret agent," The Times of Israel, November 25, 2013, on www.timesofisrael.com ; Meir Doron, Confidential: The Life of Secret Agent Turned Hollywood Tycoon – Arnon Milchan , Gefen Books, 2011, p. xi It is therefore no wonder that Stone's film gives no hint of the Mossad connection that Garrison stumbled upon.

Who killed JFK?

By a strange paradox, the authors who stand for the consensual conspiracy theory of a CIA plot against Kennedy build their case on the biography of Oswald, while at the same time claiming that Oswald had almost nothing to do with the killing. If Oswald was "just a patsy," as he publicly claimed, the quest for the real culprits must logically begin by investigating the man who silenced Oswald.

Oswald's assassin is known as Jack Ruby, but few people know that his real name was Jacob Leon Rubenstein, and that he was the son of Jewish Polish immigrants. Ruby was a member of the Jewish underworld. He was a friend of Los Angeles gangster Mickey Cohen, whom he had known and admired since 1946. Cohen was the successor of the famed Benjamin Siegelbaum, aka Bugsy Siegel, one of the bosses of Murder Incorporated . Cohen was infatuated with the Zionist cause, as he explained in his memoirs: "Now I got so engrossed with Israel that I actually pushed aside a lot of my activities and done nothing but what was involved with this Irgun war". [35] Mickey Cohen, In My Own Words , Prentice-Hall, 1975, p. 91-92. Mickey Cohen was in contact with Menachem Begin, the former Irgun chief, with whom he even "spent a lot of time," according to Gary Wean, former detective sergeant for the Los Angeles Police Department. So there is a direct line connecting Jack Ruby, via Mickey Cohen, to the Israeli terrorist ring, and in particular to Menachem Begin, a specialist in false flag terror. We also know that Ruby phoned Al Gruber, a Mickey Cohen associate, just after Oswald's arrest; no doubt he received then "an offer he couldn't refuse," as they say in the underworld. [36] Michael Collins Piper, Final Judgment: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy , American Free Press, 6 th ed., ebook 2005, p. 133-155, 226. Ruby's defense lawyer William Kunstler wrote in his memoirs that Ruby told him he had killed Oswald "for the Jews," and Ruby's rabbi Hillel Silverman received the same confession when visiting Ruby in jail. [37] William Kunstler, My Life as a Radical Lawyer , Carol Publishing, 1994, p. 158; Steve North, "Lee Harvey Oswald's Killer 'Jack Ruby' Came From Strong Jewish Background," The Forward , November 17, 2013, on forward.com

That is not all. At every levels of the conspiracy to kill Kennedy, we also find the fingerprints of the Israeli deep state. JFK's trip to Dallas, being officially "non political," was sponsored by a powerful business group known as the Dallas Citizens Council, dominated by Julius Schepps, "a wholesale liquor distributor, member of every synagogue in town, and de facto leader of the Jewish community," as described by Bryan Edward Stone in The Chosen Folks: Jews on the Frontiers of Texas. [38] Bryan Edward Stone, The Chosen Folks: Jews on the Frontiers of Texas, University of Texas Press, 2010, p. 200. Kennedy was on his way to the reception organized in his honor when he was shot.

The "host committee" inviting Kennedy was chaired by another influential figure of the wealthy Jewish community in Dallas: advertising executive and PR man Sam Bloom. According to former British Intelligence Officer Colonel John Hughes-Wilson, it was Bloom who suggested to the Police "that they move the alleged assassin [Oswald] from the Dallas police station to the Dallas County Jail in order to give the newsmen a good story and pictures." Oswald was shot by Ruby during this transfert. Hughes-Wilson adds that, "when the police later searched Ruby's home, they found a slip of paper with Bloom's name, address and telephone number on it." [39] John Hughes-Wilson, JFK-An American Coup d'État: The Truth Behind the Kennedy Assassination, John Blake, 2014.

After the Dallas tragedy, Israel's sayanim were also busy fabricating the official lie. Apart from its chairman Earl Warren, chosen for his figurative role as Chief Justice, all key people in the investigative Commission were either personal enemies of Kennedy -- like Allen Dulles, the CIA director fired by Kennedy in 1961 -- or ardent Zionists. The man who played the key role in fabricating the government lie purveyed by the Warren Commission was Arlen Specter, the inventor of what came to be called the "magic bullet" theory: a single bullet supposed to have caused seven wounds to Kennedy and John Connally sitting before him in the limousine, and later found in pristine condition on a gurney in Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas. Specter, who with an ironic touch of chutzpah titled his autobiography Passion for Truth, was the son of Russian Jewish immigrants, and, at his death in 2012, was mourned by the Israeli government as "an unswerving defender of the Jewish State," and by AIPAC, as "a leading architect of the congressional bond between our country and Israel." [40] Natasha Mozgovaya, "Prominent Jewish-American politician Arlan Specter dies at 82," Haaretz, October 14, 2012, on www.haaretz.com.

So, at all stages of the plot, we find a Zionist cabal including business men, politicians and Irgun-connected gangsters, not forgetting media executives, all devoted to Israel.

The most plausible motive for Israel to kill Kennedy has been revealed by two books: Seymour Hersh's The Samson Option in 1991, then Avner Cohen's Israel and the Bomb in 1998, and the lead has been followed up in 2007 by Michael Karpin in The Bomb in the Basement. What these investigators reveal is that Kennedy, informed by the CIA in 1960 of the military aim pursued at the Dimona complex in the Negev desert, was firmly determined to force Israel to renounce it. With that purpose in mind, he replaced CIA Director Allen Dulles by John McCone, who had, as Eisenhower's chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), leaked to The New York Times the truth about Israel's Dimona project; the story was printed on December 19, 1960, weeks before Kennedy was to take office. As Alan Hart writes, "there can be no doubt that Kennedy's determination to stop Israel developing its own nuclear bomb was the prime factor in his decision to appoint McCone." [41] Alan Hart, Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, vol. 2: David Becomes Goliath, Clarity Press, 2009 , p. 273. Then Kennedy urged Ben-Gurion to allow regular inspections of Dimona, first verbally in New York in 1961, and later through more and more insistent letters. In the last one, cabled June 15, 1963 to the Israeli ambassador with instruction to hand it personally to Ben-Gurion, Kennedy demanded Ben-Gurion's agreement for an immediate visit followed by regular visits every six months, otherwise "this Government's commitment to and support of Israel could be seriously jeopardized." [42] Warren Bass, Support any Friend: Kennedy's Middle East and the Making of the U.S.-Israel Alliance, 2003, p. 219. The result was unexpected: Ben-Gurion avoided official reception of the letter by announcing his resignation on June 16. As soon as the new Prime Minister Levi Eshkol took office, Kennedy sent him a similar letter, dated July 5, 1963, to no avail. Did Ben-Gurion resign in order to deal with Kennedy from another level?

Five months later, Kennedy's death relieved Israel of all pressure (diplomatic or otherwise) to stop its nuclear program. Faced with Johnson's complete lack of interest in that issue, John McCone resigned from the CIA in 1965, declaring: "When I cannot get the President to read my reports, then it's time to go."

Kennedy's determination to stop Israel's Dimona project was only part of the "Kennedy problem". During his first months in the White House, Kennedy committed himself by letters to Nasser and other Arab heads of State to support UN Resolution 194 for the right of return of Palestinian refugees. Ben-Gurion reacted with a letter to the Israeli ambassador in Washington, intended to be circulated among Jewish American leaders, in which he stated:

"Israel will regard this plan as a more serious danger to her existence than all the threats of the Arab dictators and Kings, than all the Arab armies, than all of Nasser's missiles and his Soviet MIGs. [ ] Israel will fight against this implementation down to the last man.'" [43] Quoted in George and Douglas Ball, The Passionate Attachment: America's Involvement With Israel, 1947 to the Present , W.W. Norton & Co., 1992, p. 51.

Kennedy behaved warmly toward Nasser, Israel's worst enemy. Historian Philip Muehlenbeck writes:

"While the Eisenhower administration had sought to isolate Nasser and reduce his influence through building up Saudi Arabia's King Saud as a conservative rival to the Egyptian president, the Kennedy administration pursued the exact opposite strategy." [44] Philip Muehlenbeck, Betting on the Africans: John F. Kennedy's Courting of African Nationalist Leaders, Oxford UP, 2012.

After Kennedy's death, American foreign policy was reversed again, without the American public being aware of it. Johnson cut the economic aid to Egypt, and increased the military aid to Israel, which reached 92 million dollars in 1966, more than the total of all previous years combined.

For 50 years, the Israeli trail in the Kennedy assassination has been smothered, and anyone who mentioned it was immediately ostracized. American congressman Paul Findley nevertheless dared write in March 1992 in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs : "It is interesting to note that in all the words written and uttered about the Kennedy assassination, Israel's intelligence agency, the Mossad, has never been mentioned." One single author has seriously investigated that trail: Michael Collins Piper, in his 1995 book Final Judgment: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy. Piper was largely ignored by the mainstream of the Kennedy truth movement. But his work has made its way nevertheless. In 2013, Martin Sandler wrote about Piper's work in his edition of letters by Kennedy, which included those addressed to Ben-Gurion about Dimona: "Of all the conspiracy theories, it remains one of the most intriguing." It is, in fact, a theory widespread in Arab countries. [45] Listen to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi on the topic on www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV4kvhs8I8E

The case against Lyndon Johnson

Several investigators have identified Lyndon Johnson, Kennedy's vice-president, as the mastermind of the Kennedy assassination. It is, at least, beyond doubt that the plotters acted with the foreknowledge that Johnson, who automatically stepped in as head of State after Kennedy's death, would cover them. The context of national crisis enabled him to bully both Justice and the press while achieving his life's ambition. Johnson not just benefitted from the plot; he participated in its elaboration. As a former senator from Texas, he could mobilize high-ranked accomplices in Dallas to prepare the ambush. Johnson also had his men in the Navy. In 1961, Texan senator John Connally had been appointed as Navy Secretary at the request of Johnson. When Connally resigned eleven months later to run for governor of Texas, Johnson convinced Kennedy to name another of his Texan friends, Fred Korth.

Johnson's privileged control over the Navy is an important aspect of the case because the Navy was critical in the setting up and in the cover-up of the plot. First, contrary to a widespread but erroneous belief, Lee Harvey Oswald had been recruited by the Navy and not by the CIA. He was a Marine, and as a Marine he had worked for the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI).

Secondly, it is at the Naval Hospital in Washington, under the control of Navy officers, that Kennedy's autopsy was performed, after his body had been literally stolen at gunpoint from Parkland Hospital in Dallas. The report of this autopsy stated that the fatal bullet had entered the back of Kennedy's skull, which contradicted the testimonies of twenty-one members of the Dallas hospital staff who saw two entry bullet-wounds on the front of Kennedy's body. This was critical because Oswald was presumably shooting from behind Kennedy, and could not possibly have caused these bullet wounds.

It is noteworthy that Johnson had actually taken advantage of his connections in the Navy to participate in the greatest corruption case ever recorded at that time. His accomplice Fred Korth was forced to resign as Navy Secretary in November 1963, only weeks before the Dallas coup, after the Justice Department headed by Robert Kennedy had implicated him in a fraud involving a $7 billion contract for the construction of 1,700 TFX military aircraft by General Dynamics, a Texan company. Johnson's personal secretary, Bobby Baker, was charged in the same case.

Because of this mounting scandal and other suspicions of corruption, Kennedy was determined to change Vice-President for his upcoming reelection campaign. [46] Phillip Nelson, LBJ: The Mastermind of JFK's Assassination, XLibris, 2010, p. 372. While in Dallas the day before the President's visit, Nixon publicized the rumor of Johnson's removal, and the Dallas Morning News was reporting on November 22 nd : "Nixon Predicts JFK May Drop Johnson." Instead, Johnson became president that very day.

Many Americans immediately suspected Johnson's involvement in the Dallas coup, especially after the publication in 1964 of a book by James Evetts Haley, A Texan Looks at Lyndon , which portrayed Johnson as deeply corrupt. According to his biographer Robert Caro, Johnson was a man thirsting "for power in its most naked form, for power not to improve the lives of others, but to manipulate and dominate them, to bend them to his will." [47] Quoted in Phillip Nelson, LBJ: The Mastermind, op. cit. , p. 17.

The evidence incriminating Johnson does not conflict with the evidence against Israel, quite the contrary. First, both trails converge in the person of Jack Ruby, whom Nixon identified a one of "Johnson's boys," according to former Nixon operative Roger Stone. [48] Patrick Howley, "Why Jack Ruby was probably part of the Kennedy conspiracy," The Daily Caller, March 14, 2014, on dailycaller.com The hypothesis that Ruby acted on Johnson's orders is a likely explanation for some of his odd statements to the Warren Commission:

"If you don't take me back to Washington tonight to give me a chance to prove to the President that I am not guilty, then you will see the most tragic thing that will ever happen." "There will be a certain tragic occurrence happening if you don't take my testimony and somehow vindicate me so my people don't suffer because of what I have done."

He said that feared that his act would be used "to create some falsehood about some of the Jewish faith," but added that "maybe something can be saved [ ], if our President, Lyndon Johnson, knew the truth from me." [49] Read Ruby's deposition on jfkmurdersolved.com/ruby.htm With such words, Ruby seems to be trying to send a message to Johnson through the Commission, or rather a warning that he might spill the beans about Israel's involvement if Johnson did not intervene in his favor. We get the impression that Ruby expected Johnson to pardon him.

Yet Johnson did nothing to get Ruby out of jail. Ruby's sense of betrayal would explain why in 1965, after having been sentenced to life imprisonment, Ruby implicitly accused Johnson of Kennedy's murder in a press conference: "If [Adlai Stevenson] was Vice-President there would never have been an assassination of our beloved President Kennedy." [50] See on YouTube, "Jack Ruby Talks."

Ruby died from a mysterious disease in his prison in 1967.

A Crypto-Zionist president?

Ruby is not the only link between Johnson and Israel, far from it. In truth, Johnson had always been Israel's man. His electoral campaigns had been funded since 1948 by Zionist financier Abraham Feinberg, who happened to be president of the Americans for Haganah Incorporated, which raised money for the Jewish militia. It is the same Feinberg who, after the Democratic primaries in 1960, made the following proposal to Kennedy, as Kennedy himself later reported to his friend Charles Bartlett: "We know your campaign is in trouble. We're willing to pay your bills if you'll let us have control of your Middle East policy." Bartlett recalls that Kennedy was deeply upset and swore that, "if he ever did get to be President, he was going to do something about it." [51] Seymour Hersh, The Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy , Random House, 1991, p. 94-97.

It is on record, thanks to Kennedy insider Arthur Schlesinger ( A Thousand Days: John Kennedy in the White House, 1965), that the two men who convinced Kennedy to take Johnson as his running mate, were Philip Graham and Joseph Alsop, respectively publisher and columnist of the Washington Post , and strong supporters of Israel. [52] Arthur Schlesinger, A Thousand Days: John Kennedy in the White House (1965), Mariner Books, 2002, p. 56; Alan Hart, Zionism, vol. 2, op. cit., p. 257. Schlesinger doesn't reveal Graham and Alsop's arguments, and states that Kennedy's final decision "defies historical reconstruction" -- a curious statement for a historian so well informed on the topic. But Evelyn Lincoln, Kennedy's personal secretary for twelve years, had her own idea about it. She believed that Kennedy was blackmailed with proofs of his many infidelities to his wife: " Jack knew that Hoover and LBJ would just fill the air with womanizing." Whatever the details of the blackmail, Kennedy once confided to his assistant Hyman Raskin, as an apology for taking Johnson, "I was left with no choice [ ] those bastards were trying to frame me. They threatened me with problems and I don't need more problems." [53] Phillip Nelson, LBJ: The Mastermind, op; cit. , p. 320.

In 2013, Associated Press reported about newly released tapes from Johnson's White House office showing LBJ's "personal and often emotional connection to Israel," and pointed out that under Johnson, "the United States became Israel's chief diplomatic ally and primary arms supplier." An article from the 5 Towns Jewish Times "Our First Jewish President Lyndon Johnson?" recalls Johnson's continuous support of Jews and Israel in the 1940s and 50s, and concludes: "President Johnson firmly pointed American policy in a pro-Israel direction." The article also mentions that, "research into Johnson's personal history indicates that he inherited his concern for the Jewish people from his family. His aunt Jessie Johnson Hatcher, a major influence on LBJ, was a member of the Zionist Organization of America." And, in an additional note: "The line of Jewish mothers can be traced back three generations in Lyndon Johnson's family tree. There is little doubt that he was Jewish." [54] Morris Smith, "Our First Jewish President Lyndon Johnson? – an update!!," 5 Towns Jewish Times, April 11, 2013, on 5tjt.com.

Whatever was the reason of Johnson's loyalty to Israel, it is a fact that, thanks to Johnson, Israel could continue its military nuclear program undisturbed, and acquire its first atomic bomb around 1965. Historian Stephen Green writes: "Lyndon Johnson's White House saw no Dimona, heard no Dimona, and spoke no Dimona when the reactor went critical in early 1964." [55] Stephen Green, Taking Sides: America's Secret Relations With a Militant Israel, William Morrow & Co., 1984, p. 166.

Thanks to JFK's death, Israel was also able to carry out its plan to annex Palestinian territories beyond the boundaries imposed by the United Nations Partition plan. By leaning on Pentagon and CIA hawks, Johnson intensified the Cold War and created the climate of tension which Israel needed in order to demonize Egyptian president Nasser and reinforce its own stature as indispensable ally in the Middle East.

During the Six Day War of 1967, Israel managed to triple its territory, while creating the illusion of acting in legitimate defense. The lie could not deceive American Intelligence agencies, but Johnson had given a green light to Israel's attack, and even authorized James Angleton of the CIA to give Israel the precise positions of the Egyptian air bases, which enabled Israel to destroy them in just a few hours.

Four days after the start of the Israeli attack, Nasser accepted the ceasefire request from the UN Security Council. It was too soon for Israel, which had not yet achieved all its territorial objectives. On June 8, 1967, the USS Liberty, a NSA spy ship stationed in international waters off Sinai, was bombed, strafed and torpedoed during 75 minutes by Israeli Mirage jets and three torpedo boats, with the obvious intention of sinking it without leaving any survivors. (Even the rescue channels were machine-gunned.) Meanwhile, Johnson, from the White House, intervened personally to prohibit the nearby Sixth Fleet from rescuing the USS Liberty after the crew, despite the initial destruction of its transmitters, had managed to send off an SOS.

The attack would have been blamed on Egypt if it had succeeded, that is, if the ship had sunk and its crew had all died. The operation would then have given Johnson a pretext for interveening on the side of Israel against Egypt.

But it failed. The USS Liberty affair was suppressed by a commission of inquiry headed by Admiral John Sidney McCain II, Commander-in-Chief of US Naval Forces in Europe (and Father of Arizona Senator John McCain III). Johnson accepted Israel's spurious "targeting error" explanation. In January 1968 he invited the Israeli Prime Minister, Levi Eshkol, to Washington, and warmly welcomed him to his Texas ranch. What's more, Johnson rewarded Israel by lifting the embargo on offensive military equipment: US-made tanks and aircraft immediately flowed to Tel Aviv.

This failed false flag attack is evidence of the secret complicity of Johnson and Israel, implying high treason on the part of Johnson.

Conclusion

Let's now conclude our overview of the evidence: beside the fact that John and Robert were brothers, their assassinations have at least two things in common: Lyndon Johnson and Israel.

First, their deaths are precisely framed by Johnson's presidency, which was also the context for other political assassinations, such as Martin-Luther King's. Johnson was in control of the State during the two investigations on John and Robert's murders.

Secondly, in both cases, we find the fingerprints of Israel's deep state. In the case of Robert, it is the choice of the manipulated patsy, which was obviously meant to disguise Robert's assassination as an act of hatred against Israel. In the case of John, it it is the identity of the man asked to kill the patsy, a Jewish gangster linked to the Irgun.

Johnson and Israel, the two common elements in the Kennedy assassinations, are themselves closely linked, since Johnson can be considered as a high-level sayan, a man secretly devoted to Israel, or owned by Israel, to the point of committing high treason against the nation he had been elected to lead and protect.

The causal link between the two assassinations then becomes clear: even if Robert had been pro-Israel, which he was not, Israel and Johnson would still have had a compelling reason to eliminate him before he got to the White House, where he could -- and would -- reopen the investigation on his brother's death.

What should have been obvious from the start now appears brightly clear: in order to solve the mystery of the assassination of John Kennedy, one has simply to look into the two other assassinations which are connected to it: the assassination of Lee Harvey Oswald, the man whose trial could have exposed the hoax and possibly put the plotters into the light, and the assassination of Robert Kennedy, the man who would have reopened the case if he had lived. And both these assassinations bear the signature of Israel.

At his death in 1968, Robert Kennedy left eleven orphans, not counting John's two children, whom he had somewhat adopted. John's son, John F. Kennedy Jr., aka John John, who had turned three the day of his father's funeral, embodied the Kennedy myth in the heart of all Americans. The route seemed traced for him to become president one day. He died on July 16, 1999, with his pregnant wife and his sister-in-law, when his private plane suddenly and mysteriously nose-dived into the ocean a few seconds after he had announced his landing on the Kennedy property in Massachusetts.

John John had long been portrayed as a superficial, spoiled and harmless young man. But that image was as misleading as young Halmet's in Shakespeare's play. John had serious interest in mind, and, at age 39, he was just entering politics. In 1995 he founded George magazine, which seemed harmless until it began to take an interest in political assassinations. In March 1997, George published a 13-page article by the mother of Yigal Amir, the convicted assassin of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. The article was supporting the thesis of a conspiracy by the Israeli far-right. So JFK Jr. was eliminated while following in the footsteps of his father, entering politics through the door of journalism and taking an interest in the crimes of the Israeli deep state. Canadian-Israeli journalist Barry Chamish believes John Kennedy Jr. was assassinated precisely for that. [56] Barry Chamish, "The Murder of JFK Jr – Ten Years Later," www.barrychamish.com (also on: www.rense.com/general87/tenyrs.htm).

The nonsensical notion of a mysterious curse on the Kennedy family is an obvious smoke screen. The unsolved murders of JFK and his two legitimate heirs -- his younger brother and his only son -- require a more rational explanation. The sense that the official stories about their deaths amount to a huge cover-up is obsessing the American psyche, a bit like a repressed family secret affecting the whole personality from a subconscious level.

President John Kennedy and his brother are heroic, almost Christ-like figures, in the heart of a growing community of citizens who have become aware of the disastrous longtime effect of their assassinations. Only when the American public at large come to grips with the truth of their deaths and honor their legacy and sacrifice will America have a chance to be redeemed and be great again.

Laurent Guyénot is the author of JFK-9/11: 50 years of Deep State , Progressive Press, 2014 , and From Yahweh to Zion: Jealous God, Chosen People, Promised Land Clash of Civilizations , 2018. ($30 shipping included from Sifting and Winnowing, POB 221, Lone Rock, WI 53556). Footnotes

[1] Lance deHaven-Smith, Conspiracy Theory in America , University of Texas Press, 2013,kindle 284-292.

[2] John Lewis' testimony is in the PBS documentary American Experience Robert F. Kennedy.

[3] Associated Press, "RFK children speak about JFK assassination," January 12, 2013, on www.usatoday.com

[4] David Talbot, Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years , Simon & Schuster, 2007, p. 278-280, 305.

[5] David Talbot, Brothers, op. cit. , 2007, p. 21-22.

[6] David Talbot, Brothers, op. cit., p. 25-7.

[7] James Hepburn, Farewell America: The Plot to Kill JFK, Penmarin Books, 2002, p. 269.

[8] David Talbot, Brothers, op. cit., p. 312-314.

[9] Extract of TV news in the documentary film Evidence of Revision: Part 4: The RFK assassination as never seen before , 01:11:42

[10] Jerry Cohen, "Yorty Reveals That Suspect's Memo Set Deadline for Death," Los Angeles Times, June 6, 1968, pages 1 and 12, on latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedailymirror/2008/06/june-6-1968.html. Jerry Cohen, "Jerusalem-Born Suspect Called An Anti-Semite," The Salt Lake Tribune , June 6, 1968, on www.newspapers.com. See also Harry Rosenthal, "Senator Kennedy's support for Israel promoted decision declares Sirhan," The Telegraph, March 5, 1969, on news.google.com

[11] Sasha Issenberg, "Slaying gave US a first taste of Mideast terror," Boston Globe, June 5, 2008, on www.boston.com

[12] Jeffrey Salkin, "Remember What Bobby Kennedy Died For," Forward.com, June 5, 2008. Also Michael Fischbach, "First Shot in Terror War Killed RFK," Los Angeles Times, June 02, 2003, on articles.latimes.com

[13] Frank Morales, "The Assassination of RFK: A Time for Justice!" June 16, 2012, on www.globalresearch.ca; watch on YouTube, "RFK Assassination 40 th Anniversary (2008) Paul Schrade on CNN."

[14] Philip Melanson, The Robert F. Kennedy Assassination: New Revelations On the Conspiracy And Cover-Up, S.P.I. Books , 1994, p. 25. For a full overview, watch Shane O'Sullivan's 2007 investigative documentary RFK Must Die: The Assassination of Bobby Kennedy. For more detail, read his book Who Killed Bobby? The Unsolved Murder of Robert F. Kennedy , Union Square Press, 2008. See also Don Schulman's testimony in The Second Gun (1973), from 42 min 40.

[15] In a parole hearing in 2011, failing to convince the judges for the fourteenth time. Watch on YouTube, "Sirhan Sirhan Denied Parole": www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsm1hKPI9EU

[16] Shane O'Sullivan, Who Killed Bobby? The Unsolved Murder of Robert F. Kennedy , Union Square Press, 2008, p. 5, 44, 103.

[17] Jacqui Goddard, "Sirhan Sirhan, assassin of Robert F.Kennedy, launches new campaign for freedom 42 years later," The Telegraph, December 3, 2011, on www.telegraph.co.uk/search/

[18] Colin Ross, Bluebird: Deliberate Creation of Multiple Personality by Psychiatrists , Manitou Communications, 2000,summary on www.wanttoknow.info/bluebird10pg

[19] David B. Green, "Brainwashing and Cross-dressing: Israel's Assassination Program Laid Bare in Shocking Detail," Haaretz, February 5, 2018.

[20] Ronald Kessler, The Sins of the Father: Joseph P. Kennedy and the Dynasty He Founded, Hodder & Stoughton, 1996.

[21] The Israel Lobby Archive, www.irmep.org/ila/forrel/

[22] Jeffrey Salkin, "Remember What Bobby Kennedy Died For , " op. cit. .

[23] Michael Collins Piper, False Flag, op. cit., p. 78.

[24] Tom Mangold, Cold Warrior: James Jesus Angleton: the CIA's Master Spy Hunter, Simon & Schuster, 1991, p. 318.

[25] Michael Howard Holzman, James Jesus Angleton, the CIA, and the Craft of COunterintelligence, University of Massachusetts Press, 2008, p. 153.

[26] "Assassination studies Kennedy knew a coup was coming," on Youtube. Image of Arthur Krock's article is shown on www.youtube.com/watch?v=snE161QnL1U at 1:36.

[27] "Harry Truman Writes: Limit CIA Role to Intelligence," Washington Post, December 22, 1963, quoted in Mark Lane, Last Word: My Indictment of the CIA in the Murder of JFK , Skyhorse Publishing, 2011 , p. 246.

[28] Thomas Troy, "Truman on CIA," September 22, 1993, on www.cia.gov ; Sidney Krasnoff, Truman and Noyes: Story of a President's Alter Ego, Jonathan Stuart Press, 1997.

[29] Michael Collins Piper, False Flags: Template for Terror, American Free Press, 2013, p. 67.

[30] James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, Touchstone, 2008 , p. 46.

[31] George de Mohrenschilldt, I am a Patsy! on jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo4/jfk12/hscapatsy.htm

[32] Read the Sheriff's Office report on mcadams.posc.mu.edu/death2.txt

[33] Meir Doron, Confidential: The Life of Secret Agent Turned Hollywood Tycoon – Arnon Milchan , Gefen Books, 2011, p. xi.

[34] Stuart Winer, "Hollywood producer Arnon Milchan reveals past as secret agent," The Times of Israel, November 25, 2013, on www.timesofisrael.com ; Meir Doron, Confidential: The Life of Secret Agent Turned Hollywood Tycoon – Arnon Milchan , Gefen Books, 2011, p. xi

[35] Mickey Cohen, In My Own Words , Prentice-Hall, 1975, p. 91-92.

[36] Michael Collins Piper, Final Judgment: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy , American Free Press, 6 th ed., ebook 2005, p. 133-155, 226.

[37] William Kunstler, My Life as a Radical Lawyer , Carol Publishing, 1994, p. 158; Steve North, "Lee Harvey Oswald's Killer 'Jack Ruby' Came From Strong Jewish Background," The Forward , November 17, 2013, on forward.com

[38] Bryan Edward Stone, The Chosen Folks: Jews on the Frontiers of Texas, University of Texas Press, 2010, p. 200.

[39] John Hughes-Wilson, JFK-An American Coup d'État: The Truth Behind the Kennedy Assassination, John Blake, 2014.

[40] Natasha Mozgovaya, "Prominent Jewish-American politician Arlan Specter dies at 82," Haaretz, October 14, 2012, on www.haaretz.com.

[41] Alan Hart, Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, vol. 2: David Becomes Goliath, Clarity Press, 2009 , p. 273.

[42] Warren Bass, Support any Friend: Kennedy's Middle East and the Making of the U.S.-Israel Alliance, 2003, p. 219.

[43] Quoted in George and Douglas Ball, The Passionate Attachment: America's Involvement With Israel, 1947 to the Present , W.W. Norton & Co., 1992, p. 51.

[44] Philip Muehlenbeck, Betting on the Africans: John F. Kennedy's Courting of African Nationalist Leaders, Oxford UP, 2012.

[45] Listen to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi on the topic on www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV4kvhs8I8E

[46] Phillip Nelson, LBJ: The Mastermind of JFK's Assassination, XLibris, 2010, p. 372.

[47] Quoted in Phillip Nelson, LBJ: The Mastermind, op. cit. , p. 17.

[48] Patrick Howley, "Why Jack Ruby was probably part of the Kennedy conspiracy," The Daily Caller, March 14, 2014, on dailycaller.com

[49] Read Ruby's deposition on jfkmurdersolved.com/ruby.htm

[50] See on YouTube, "Jack Ruby Talks."

[51] Seymour Hersh, The Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy , Random House, 1991, p. 94-97.

[52] Arthur Schlesinger, A Thousand Days: John Kennedy in the White House (1965), Mariner Books, 2002, p. 56; Alan Hart, Zionism, vol. 2, op. cit., p. 257.

[53] Phillip Nelson, LBJ: The Mastermind, op; cit. , p. 320.

[54] Morris Smith, "Our First Jewish President Lyndon Johnson? – an update!!," 5 Towns Jewish Times, April 11, 2013, on 5tjt.com.

[55] Stephen Green, Taking Sides: America's Secret Relations With a Militant Israel, William Morrow & Co., 1984, p. 166.

[56] Barry Chamish, "The Murder of JFK Jr – Ten Years Later," www.barrychamish.com (also on: www.rense.com/general87/tenyrs.htm).


Biff , June 3, 2018 at 5:26 am GMT

Truman was hinting at the CIA's role in toppling foreign governments and assassinating elected leaders abroad.

Motive and the means to get it done. I always thought the CIA was suspect, but obviously there are more angles to the story. Good article.

Wizard of Oz , June 3, 2018 at 5:31 am GMT
My interest in this is as the reader of a good thriller which I can excuse myself spending time on because it is just possible that I shall learn something about the real world including important levels of government. So no dog in any fight. But I am alerted to conventional journalistic slickness by such foolishness as the snide and inaccurate statement that Alan Dershowitz is best known as counsel for Jonathan Pollard. Also the slippery statement that a connection between the two brothers' assassinations should be "assumed". (Obviously it is worth asking a few questions such as "could there be common motives but that sort of intelligent lateral thinking is not what the author was talking about).

Arthur J. Schlesinger is mentioned so why not his careful journal record of what RFK had to say about his brother's assassination. A recent NYRB article suggests that, while he didn't think much of the Warren Commission's work, his suspicions only extended to Cuba and "gangsters".

A recent TV series (not mentioned here) using recently declassified material does strongly suggest that Oswald was relying for support on a group if fiercely anti-Castro Cubans who had been infiltrated by a Castro man. Not difficult to see why in the end he might have thought he was a patsy. Also there is no mention here of the at least plausible theory that the fatal bullet was one accidentally fired by a Secret Serviceman in the car behind.

The total rubbish about JFK Jr's plane crash also serves to undermine credibility and support the view that this is written by someone suffering a severe case of confirmation bias.

j2 , June 3, 2018 at 5:44 am GMT
A very good article. With my limited studies on the JFK murder I came to the same conclusion: Piper was essentially correct, but you fill up the case of Robert Kennedy in a convincing way. Maybe Meyer Lansky could be mentioned, he probably had some role. But the issue was the bomb.
Al Moenee , June 3, 2018 at 6:15 am GMT
The truth is that Robert Kennedy was much despised by Israel and its Jewish-American lobby of the time, the American Zionist Council (AZC) and was considered a major foe. After many months of back and forth, on Oct 11, 1963 the New York law firm representing the AZC received a formal written demand from Attorney General RFK's office to immediately (72 hours) proceed to register as foreign agents under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938. Forms for said registration accompanied the letter. This would have upended the AZC's operations and rendered it or any subsequent Israeli lobby (AIPAC) – near powerless.
LondonBob , June 3, 2018 at 6:59 am GMT
The JFK assasination is a very interesting whodunnit and the couple of books I have read on it led to me to the very same conclusion as the author. A lot of credit must go to Piper. I think Gary Wean was correct, there was a plot to stage a fake assassination attempt on JFK within which the actual assassination was hidden, presumably overseen by Angleton. Too many who knew better were looking the other way, and their effective complicity made them very interested in a cover up.
Hiram of Tyre , June 3, 2018 at 7:06 am GMT
Israel was created by the British oligarchs as a bridgehead in the Middle East. Furthering Israel was/is furthering the interests of those oligarchs (who ran the British Empire which morphed to the Anglo-American Empire). JFK was critical of Israel. If someone killed him, it the Anglo-American deep state. Israel likely pulled the trigger. Let's remember what the fake father of Modern Zionism who admired Cecil Rhodes, Theodor Herl said: "England will get ten million agents for her greatness and influence."

A parallel could also be established between the killing of JFK and the "Six-Day War" of 1967

In 1954, Israeli teamed with the Muslim Brotherhood to plant explosives in American and British offices to start a civil war to prompt the presence of British troops. The failed terror plot was known as the "Lavon Affair".

In 1956, Israel (supported by Britain and France) invaded Egypt to retake the Suez Canal nationalized by Nasser. Deterring Nasser who had crushed the Muslim Brotherhood (a British machination aimed at keeping Muslim nations backwards culturally and economically ( https://bit.ly/2J06YDO )) was also another primary objective. Einsenhower was the one who tenaciously worked on removing Israel from Egypt but it didn't come easy:

1956-1957: England and France removed their troops following Einsenhower's advise but Israel did not. As a result, Eisenhower joined the 75 countries at the UN General Assembly (February 1957) to pass a resolution against Israel's occupation of Egyptian territory. Despite that, Israel still refused to remove its troops. It made Einsenhower reach out to the Congress but it was heavily bought out by Zionists and the end-result was to no avail.. When that failed, Einsenhower met with congressional leaders to gather support but even they were in support of Israel. Einsenhower then went on TV to make the case public. After which he threatened Israel with sanctions (including the $40M of tax deductible donations and $60M of private bonds). Making the case public and threatening economically worked – Israel withdrew its troops.

The failed invasion was a major blow to Britain (who's PM resigned) France and Israel (who destroyed everything on its way out).

In spite of the mendacious narrative regurgitated in the West about the war of 1967, it was Israel who planned and attacked its neighbors. The seizing of the Golan Heights, the West Bank and Gaza were objectives Israel couldn't achieve in 1948 and deterring Nasser, an objective failed in 1956. The only problem Israel had was: would another US President intervene. Norman Finkelstein, who's research on 1967 is to date unchallenged successfully, showed that Israel sent diplomats to Washington

http://mondoweiss.net/2017/06/provoked-fighting-survival/

"No repeat of Einsehower's repudication".

We all know who followed JFK. None other than absolute bent-over to Israel, Lyndon Johnson.

-- -- --

If I could make a parallel on the Palestinians: it's "interesting" how they always found themselves in the spotlight of major plots, killings and terror acts after the creation of the British Zionist State known as Israel. One has to only remember the airplane hijackings, Munich, etc. Coincidentally, most of those Palestinians were all led by the infamous Abu Nidal – who was never apprehended while the rest of the Palestinians were either killed or arrested.

The case of 9/11 wasn't any different. The five dancing Israelis, who were "documenting the event" from New Jersey proclaimed – while being arrested:

"We are Israelis. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are your problem."

Ari Ben-Menashe, in his book "Profits of War : Inside the Secret U.S.-Israeli Arms Network" spoke of the CIA and the Mossad covertly training Palestinians in Yugoslavia to have them attack Western targets. The ultimate goal was to draw negative attention and sentiment against their cause.

Mike Sylwester , Website June 3, 2018 at 7:08 am GMT
Most of the information was from the book Nemesis: The True Story of Aristotle Onassis, Jackie O, and the Love Triangle That Brought Down the Kennedys , by Peter Evans.

In December 1971 Aristotle Onassis's ex-wife Tina met with their daughter Christina to ask her to stop bad-mouthing her current husband Stavros Niarchos, a man long hated by Aristotle Onassis. Christina was Niarcho's niece and step-daughter, since he had been married to Tina's sister Eugenie and was now married to Tina herself. Among the accusations that Christina kept repeating about Niarchos was that he had murdered Eugenie. In order to give Christina a broader perspective, Tina informed Christina that her father Aristotle had financed the assassination of Robert Kennedy.

The next day Christina passed this information on to her brother Alexander Onassis, who subsequently placed some related papers into a safe-deposit box. After that, Alexander told his lover Fiona Thyssen that these papers would prevent his father Aristotle from harming Fiona, a woman long hated by Aristotle Onassis. Since Fiona was 16 years older than Alexander, Aristotle considered her to be a gold-digger and wanted her out of Alexander's life.

Several months later Alexander showed some of his papers to Yannis Georgakis, a lawyer who was close to the entire Onassis family. The papers included photocopies of pages from the notebooks of Sirhan Sirhan, who had assassinated Robert Kennedy. During the weeks before the assassination, Sirhan would place himself into a hypnotic state and write stream-of-conscious thoughts into a notebook. On one page Sirhan had written at the center of a roundel, amid Arabic writing, the single name Fiona . On another page he had written 2 Narkos! . On a third page, between the lines One Hundred thousand Dollars and Dollars and One Hundreds , Sirhan had written in Arabic: they should be killed , next to which he had written the number three .

It was obvious to Tina, Christina and Alexander that for some reason Sirhan had been hypnotized into a fixation on killing three people -- Fiona Thyssen, Stavros Niarchos, and Robert Kennedy -- who had long been fiercely hated by Aristotle Onassis.

=====

[MORE]
In the fall of 1974 a 34-year-old photographer Helene Gaillet was stranded in Paris on her way to a job in Africa, because the job was canceled. A year earlier she had met Aristotle Onassis at a dinner party in New York, and he had told her to call him if she ever needed a place to stay in Paris. She called his number but was told he was away on his private island, Skorpios, in the Aegean Sea. Several minutes later, however, Onassis returned her call and invited her to join him in Skorpios. He would fly her there at his own expense. She accepted his invitation and subsequently spent several days with him there.

During that time they had a short affair, which included a series of intimate conversations about their lives. By that time his health was failing (he died four months later), so he was in a confessional mood. During one of those conversations he told her, "You know, Helene, I put up the money for Bobby Kennedy's murder."

=====

In May 1968 the above-mentioned lawyer Yannis Georgakis was serving as the chief executive officer of Olympic Airways, which was owned by Aristotle Onassis. Georgakis was informed by a Mossad official serving in Israel's embassy in Paris that Onassis was meeting regularly in Paris with a Palestinian terrorist named Mahmoud Hamshari. About a week later Onassis informed Georgakis that a Palestinian terrorist group had demanded $1.2 million in protection money from Olympic Airlines, threatening to blow up the company's airliners if the money was not paid. Onassis said he had reached an agreement with Hamshari and now needed $200,000 from the company's funds to pay the first installment of the protection money. Onassis assured Georgakis that the subsequent installment payments would be arranged "off the books" and channeled through Onassis's Panama corporations.

Reluctantly, Georgakis agreed to provide the $200,000. He asked to be included in any future negotiations between Onassis and Hamshari, but Onassis assured him that the entire agreement had already been settled and that no further negotiations should occur.

Onassis flew to New York with the $200,000 in cash. He put all the money into a shopping bag and gave it to his long-time chauffeur, Roosevelt Zanders, who personally delivered the money to someone in an apartment at United Nations Plaza. As instructed by Onassis, Zanders did not ask for a receipt for the money.

To be continued.
Continued from my previous comment at 7:08 a.m.

=====

In January 1954 Aristotle Onassis signed a secret agreement with Saudi Arabia's finance minister. The agreement basically said that Onassis would provide Saudi Arabia with its own fleet of oil tankers. Saudi Arabia expected that its ownership of such a fleet would help that country to become independent of Western petroleum companies, to earn a fuller share of profits, and eventually to nationalize the entire industry on its territory. Onassis expected to earn hundreds of millions of dollars for his role in the arrangement.

Despite the secrecy, however, the US Government soon learned of the deal and during the following months employed a variety of methods to undermine it. The US Justice Department found fault with Onassis's past purchases of oil tankers and subsequently seized his tankers and also money he had earned from those tankers. In February 1954 the Justice Department arrested Onassis himself and charged him with criminal conspiracy to buy the tankers illegally. The State Department pressured the Saudi government to disassociate itself from Onassis. Arrangements were made for Peru to seize nine of Onassis's whaling ships. One of Onassis's business associates was pressured to sue Onassis for swindling him out of $200,000 and to accuse Onassis of paying a $350,000 bribe to the Saudi finance minister. Eventually in October 1954 King Saud decided not to sign the agreement, which therefore became void. All these developments almost bankrupted Onassis.

Most of Onassis's anger about the collapse of the Saudi deal was misdirected toward Robert Kennedy, who in 1954 was a 29-year-old attorney working on the staff of a Senate subcommittee. One of Kennedy's investigations for the subcommittee had raised accusations about shipping business that some Greek companies conducted with Red China, but this issue did not involve Onassis in particular. Kennedy did not play any apparent role in the seizure of Onassis's assets or in his arrest. The business associate who sued Onassis hired as an expert witness an accountant who had worked for Robert's father Joseph Kennedy for many years, but that accountant had no direct association with Robert Kennedy himself.

In fact Robert Kennedy had nothing at all to do with the US Government's discovery of Onassis's Saudi deal. The CIA station in Athens had been informed about it by another Greek shipper, Stavros Niarchos, who was Onassis's brother-in-law (the two men were married to two sisters). Niarchos had heard about the deal from Onassis's wife Tina, who was involved in a love affair with Niarchos.

In order to protect the real source of its information, the CIA cleverly encouraged Onassis's initial reaction that the deal had been exposed during Kennedy's investigation of the Greek shippers who did business with Red China. For example, the accountant of Robert Kennedy's father was apparently moved into and out of the lawsuit in order to inflame Onassis's suspicions about Kenned's role in the matter. Niarchos himself certainly collaborated in the continuing effort to divert Onassis's anger away from himself and onto Kennedy. And in the following years Kennedy himself publicly criticized Onassis on many occasions, which further enraged Onassis.

=====

In the early 1960s Onassis became closely involved in several business enterprises with a fellow Greek ex-patriot, Spyros Skouras, who had immigrated to the United States in 1912. Skouras became a movie producer and during that career, he clashed angrily several times with Joseph Kennedy, who was also a movie producer. In May 1962 Skouras's movie studio was losing millions of dollars in the filming of Cleopatra and Something's Got to Give . The latter movie starred Marilyn Monroe, who was extraordinarily capricious and absent during the filming. In conversations with Onassis, Skouras blamed Monroe's misbehavior on Robert Kennedy, her secret lover. Skouras knew about this affair (and about Monroe's earlier affair with John Kennedy) and informed Onassis.

Exasperated by the problems and losses caused by these two films, Skouras decided to leave the movie business and to establish a shipping business. Onassis invested $10 million in Skouras's shipping business, which intended to introduce new loading and unloading technology that would require far fewer longshoremen. Because of this manpower issue, Onassis became involved in negotiations with Jimmy Hoffa, the chief of the Teamsters labor union and also a hater of Robert Kennedy, who was then the US Attorney General.

During this same time, Onassis began a love affair with Lee Radziwill, the younger sister of Jacqueline Kennedy. Lee and her husband Prince Stanislas Radziwill were each divorced from previous spouses when they married each other, so they married in a civil wedding instead of a Roman Catholic wedding. Since John Kennedy was now President of the United States, Robert Kennedy used the family's prestige to try to convince the Catholic Church to annul the Radziwills' previous marriages. This effort (and the Kennedy family's reputation) was endangered by publicity about Lee's affair with Onassis, and so Robert Kennedy phoned Onassis directly and asked him to stay away from Lee. Onassis responded with the words, "Bobby, you and Jack fuck your movie queen [Monroe] and I'll fuck my princess [Radziwill]." Onassis thus revealed to Robert Kennedy that he knew about the Kennedy-Monroe affairs, which were still very secret.

Also during this same time, Hoffa learned (perhaps from Onassis) about the Kennedy brothers' affairs with Monroe and so he bugged Monroe's home and telephones to record related conversations. Through these recordings, Hoffa learned that Monroe and Robert Kennedy had met in Monroe's home on August 4, 1962, a few hours before she died of an overdose and that some of Kennedy's associates had subsequently entered her house during the period between her death and the notification of the police. Hoffa apparently hinted to Onassis about the existence of these tape recordings, since Onassis asked Monroe's publicist whether he knew anything about them, offering to pay big money to buy them.

=====

During the following months Robert Kennedy communicated subtle threats in order to pressure Onassis to stay away from Lee Radziwill. The main thrust of these threats was that Kennedy would exploit his position as US Attorney General to cause legal problems for Onassis and his businesses. This pressure backfired, as Onassis arranged for Radziwill to live blatantly with him on his yacht. The feud escalated dramatically in September 1963, when Jackie herself also moved onto the yacht for a few weeks in order to convalesce from a miscarriage. Robert Kennedy responded by continuing his subtle threats against Onassis, and Onassis responded by seducing Jacqueline on the yacht.

Refreshed by her affair with Onassis, Jacqueline returned to the White House. A few weeks later, on November 22, 1963, John Kennedy was assassinated. At Jacqueline's invitation, Onassis came and stayed in the White House during the funeral days. Robert Kennedy confronted Onassis in the White House, and they eventually engaged in a ridiculous argument that embarrassed Onassis in front of the other guests. Kennedy wrote up a written statement for Onassis to sign, promising to donate half of his wealth to the poor, and Onassis signed the paper with Greek words that nullified the promise.

In the months following the assassination, Jacqueline wanted to quickly marry Onassis, but this desire was discouraged by Robert Kennedy, who now headed the Kennedy family. Robert Kennedy managed to prevent the marriage as long as he lived. He was assassinated on June 5, 1968. Onassis then married Jacqueline on October 20.

=====

To be continued.
Continued from my previous comments.

=====

In January 1968 David Karr arranged for Mahmoud Hamshari, also known as Dr. Michel Hassner, to be introduced to Aristotle Onassis. Karr introduced Dr. Michel Hassner to Onassis's circle as an expert in aviation finance who would propose a restructuring of the debt of Onassis's Olympic Airline. Eventually, Hamshari (aka Hassner), using money provided by Onassis, arranged for Sirhan Sirhan to assassinate Robert Kennedy.

David Karr had known Onassis since 1956. Karr worked in many varied jobs during his life, but at that time he managed a public relations company that specialized in helping companies that were involved in proxy fights in corporate takeovers. It might be more accurate to say that Karr was specialized in performing dirty tricks for his clients. He collected and distributed (or threatened to distribute) scandalous information about his clients' opponents. By 1967 Onassis was using Karr for a variety of secret tasks; in that year, for example, he asked Karr to ask Soviet officials about possibly supplying crude oil for a refinery he considered building near Athens. Onassis's closest associates wondered about that assignment, because Karr had no expertise related to the petroleum business or to the Soviet Union. Onasssis's trust in Karr was a mystery.

At some point in his own past, while working as a movie producer in Hollywood, Karr had become acquainted with William Joseph Bryan, Jr., a local hypnotist. Bryan's American Institute of Hypnosis treated people in the film industry for alcohol and drug additions, and he had served as the technical adviser on the filming of the movie The Manchurian Candidate. Karr gave Bryan's phone number to Hamshari and advised him to visit Bryan. Karr later said he referred Hamshari to Bryan because Hamshari complained that he suffered headaches whenever he visited Los Angeles, which he did frequently during 1967 and 1968.

==============

In the summer of 1979 Karr contacted Leslie Linder, a former movie agent, whom Karr had known while he worked in the movie business. Karr wanted Linder to represent his proposed memoirs, which would include a revelation that Onassis had played a key role in the assassination of Robert Kennedy. Linder was interested and scheduled another discussion of the proposal again with the added participation of Oscar Beuselinck, a London lawyer.

In the meantime, Karr departed for a business meeting in Moscow, where he planned to open a big hotel. He remarked that he had all the evidence of the Onassis story in Paris, and he promised to call Linder and Beuselinck as soon as he returned from Moscow.

Karr was found dead in his Paris apartment on the morning of July 7, 1979. He had a fractured larynx, and blood was found on his pillow. A forensic examination concluded he had died of a heart attack, but his widow Evia Karr and his business partner Ronnie Driver insist that Karr was murdered by agents of the Palestine Liberation Organization.

Continued from my previous comments

=====

Mahmoud Hamshari was born in a village near Jaffa in 1939 and eventually became an important official in the Palestinian Fatah. In June 1967, following the Six-Day War, he attended a Fatah meeting in Damascus to discuss further strategy. The meeting's participants represented a broad scope of attitudes within Fatah, and Hamshari appeared to be among the most aggressive. When he spoke, he focused his anger on US support of Israel and proposed actions that would attack the US. In particular, he proposed the Fatah "kill a high-profile American on American soil" in order to make the US "think twice about backing the Jews."

This proposal seemed to earn little explicit support at the meeting, so Hamshari then proposed that the organization greatly increase its fund-raising activities in the US, in order to manipulate the US to support the Palestinians too. Fatah apparently adopted this proposal and assigned Hamshari himself to implement it, operating under the supervision of Fatah's intelligence chief, Abu Iyad (Salah Khalef). In the following months, Hamshari began to travel to Europe and the United States, using several false names, including Dr. Michel Hassner. Late in 1967 a Fatah official gave Hamshari a list of Palestinian immigrants living in Los Angeles. The list had been acquired from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which had records on the Sirhan family, then living in Los Angeles.

=====

In some unknown circumstances, Dr. Hassner (Hamshari) began to associate frequently with David Karr, a mysterious associate of Aristotle Onassis. Karr did not introduce Hassner to Onassis directly, but instead introduced him indirectly into Onassis's nner circle as an investment consultant for Arab Bank, specializing in the restructuring of airline debts. Such expertise was of interest because Onassis's Olympic airline was struggling with debts. A meeting between Hassner and Onassis was scheduled for a day in January 1968 in Paris, but Onassis left for Athens unexpectedly right before the meeting. Therefore Hassner met instead with several members of Onassis's inner circle. The airline's chief executive officer, Yannis Georgakis, was not informed about the meeting by Onassis and so did not participate.

At this meeting, Hassner revealed to the group that he had been approached by a Palestinian terror group who demanded that the airline pay $350,000 to the group so that they not blow up bombs on Olympic airliners. Hassner said he was acting only as an honest broker, a facilitator, and did not know the identities of the terrorists, who had contacted him through the Palestine National Fund.

After Onassis returned to Paris, he began to meet frequently in Paris with Hassner, the two alone. Between meetings, Hassner sometimes traveled to Los Angeles and back. Karr says that during this period he gave Hassner the phone number of a Los Angeles hypnotist named William Joseph Bryan, Jr.

Georgakis, the CEO of Olympic, heard about Hassner for the first time in May 1968. He heard about him not from Onassis, but from a Mossad official stationed at the Israeli embassy in Paris. Onassis himself informed Georgakis about a week later, saying that he had already decided to pay $1.2 million (no longer just $350,000) to Hassner and that Georgakis should provide the first $200,000 in cash from Olympic funds. Georgakis complied, and Onassis subsequently flew with the cash to New York, where his chauffeur delivered it to an apartment at United Nations Plaza.

=====

To be continued.

Allow me to conclude with one more passage.

=====

On the evening of June 4, 1968, an itinerant Christian preacher named Jerry Owen (he himself said) parked a horse trailer outside the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles, where Robert Kennedy's campaign organization had scheduled its anticipated victory following the California primary elections. Later that night, Sirhan assassinated Kennedy in the hotel. The next day, Owen reported to the Los Angeles police that he had picked up Sirhan and a young woman hitchhiking on June 3. During the course of that meeting, Owen said, Sirhan had agreed to buy a horse from Owen on the night of June 4 in the hotel parking lot. That deal, explained Owen, was why he himself had parked his horse trailer in the parking lot and why Sirhan had four one-hundred-dollar bills in his pocket when he was arrested. Owen further surmised that Sirhan intended to use the horse trailer as a get-away vehicle.

The Police basically dismissed Owen's report as a publicity stunt. (In 1970 this incident was examined in a lawsuit that Owen filed against a television station. During that trial, several witnessed testified that Owen had become acquainted with Sirhan at the Corona race track, where on one occasion a few weeks before the assassination Owen had given Sirhan a large wad of cash)

Immediately after he was arrested, Sirhan declared that "I did it for my country." Within a few minutes, though, he began avoiding any discussion of his motive. He instead wanted to talk with the investigating policemen about Albert DeSalvo, the so-called Boston Strangler. Later, Sirhan claimed that he had no memory of anything about the assassination, about his intention, about his notebooks, or about the act itself. During his trial he reluctantly allowed his lawyers to construct a legal defense of diminished responsibility due to mental illness.

Sirhan was not hypnotized by himself or anyone else in order to manipulate him to assassinate Robert Kennedy. Even without the hypnosis, Sirhan was willing and eager to assassinate Kennedy because of the latter's support for Israel. The initial purpose of Sirhan's self-hypnosis was to focus his mind and bolster courage for this difficult mission. Eventually, though, the hypnosis served also as a legal excuse to try to avoid execution. The notebook served as evidence that he was often in deep trances and so plausibly had no memory of the assassination. Also, the hypnosis deflected political blame from the Palestinian cause as Sirhan's main motivation.

Sirhan hoped that if he could avoid execution, then eventually he would be freed in a prisoner swap forced by Palestinian terrorists. He was sentenced to death, but later that sentence was commuted when the Supreme Court declared the death penalty to be unconstitutional.

Sirhan mentioned Albert DeSalvo repeatedly in his notebooks and at the police station immediately after his arrest. DeSalvo had been hypnotized by a Los Angeles hypnotist named William Joseph Bryan. After he died in 1977, a couple of prostitutes whom he frequently hired told investigators that he sometimes bragged that he had hypnotized Albert DeSalvo and Sirhan Sirhan.

Colin Wright , Website June 3, 2018 at 7:49 am GMT
' Given this exceptional bond between the Kennedy brothers, what is the probability that the two Kennedy assassinations were unrelated? '

On the face of it, the probability would be about the same as it would be if they hadn't been particularly close.

Heros , June 3, 2018 at 8:33 am GMT
"Did the Rothschilds kill the Kennedies" FIFY.

They most certainly did. They stole US enriched plutonium and triggers for Israel's continuing illegal nuclear weapons programs. They also whipped up the entire cold war and the Vietnam war as a cover for the genocide and theft of Palestine. They passed nuclear weapons research through jews like the Rosenbergs and Pollard to their other puppet, the USSR, so that the US and the entire planet could be kept under their strategy of tension while they set up the capital of the planet in Jerusalem.

But that is all merely frosting on the cake. This family and its satellites started the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the US war of northern aggression, the Spanish-American war, WWI, WWII, the Korean War and is directly responsible for the never ending wars for Eretz Israel. With their Havara agreement, this family set up all the jews that it deemed racially inferior to suffer through WWII in Europe while it forced the National Socialists to set up training centers to train young Zionist Übermenschen in all facets of German technology before shipping them, with their belongings, tools and equipment to Palestine. It is also amazing that immediately after the war they twisted Germany's arm into resuming the shipments of technology, power stations, trains and ships.

Israel clearly is not a legal state in any sense of the word. It is the capital of by far the worlds largest crime syndicate. It is a scourge to all humanity.

Greg Bacon , Website June 3, 2018 at 8:46 am GMT
Jack Ruby's real name was Jacob Rubenstein , a Chosen One who participated in the horrendous murder of a beloved US president.

If you read those CIA docs released last Fall, there was one page that specifically mentioned that Jews were involved in JFK's murder.

"We now have plenty of money–our new backers are Jews–as soon as we or (they) take care of Kennedy."

Go to page 64 of this file:

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32241845.pdf

JFK had also told an aide that Israel would have the 'bomb' over his dead body. Well, Israel has the bomb and control of the USA, thanks to their murders of the Kennedy's and the masterminding of the 9/11 False Flag.

But if you point this out, you'll get hit with a barrage of anti-Semite slurs, accusing one of being a neo-Nazi or worse, all the while never discussing what you just wrote.

j2 , June 3, 2018 at 9:07 am GMT
@Wizard of Oz

"A recent NYRB article suggests that, while he didn't think much of the Warren Commission's work, his suspicions only extended to Cuba and "gangsters"."

Cuba casinos and crime were run by Meyer Lansky. You immediately get the Israel connection as he was a great fried of Israel. Cuban gangsters are implied in the conspiracy to kill JFK, but that is a link to the theory of Piper. To find the high level perpetrators it is only enough to ask what important US politics changed when LBJ become the President. Towards Cuba or gangsters, no.

Felix Krull , June 3, 2018 at 11:20 am GMT
Thank you for not resorting to clickbait headlines.
Jake , June 3, 2018 at 11:29 am GMT
Did Israel kill the Kennedys? It is entirely possible. In fact, any conspiracy theory that links the murders that does not see the Israelis and American Jews involved is almost certainly a waste of time. But here is what is essential: if Israel and/or American Jews 'did it,' you can bet your every penny and the lives of your children, spouse, and siblings that America's WASP Deep State was behind it all.
Beefcake the Mighty , June 3, 2018 at 11:44 am GMT
FYI: https://archive.org/details/FinalJudgment
Florin 74 , June 3, 2018 at 12:05 pm GMT
read "Final Judgment" by Michael Collins Piper.

Johnson's involvement in the USS Liberty incident (an effort to lie us into a war for Israel) should not be viewed in isolation.

http://americanfreepress.net/PDF/Final_Judgment.pdf

Tono Bungay , June 3, 2018 at 12:16 pm GMT
Once this guy writes, "Given this exceptional bond between the Kennedy brothers, what is the probability that the two Kennedy assassinations were unrelated? Rather, we should start with the assumption that they are related. Basic common sense suggests that the Kennedy brothers have been killed by the same force, and for the same motives," there is really no point in reading further. If his reasoning is so weak and silly as this, what confidence can a reader have in anything else he might come up with? Two women tried to kill Gerald Ford in 1975; does "basic common sense suggest" that they represented "the same force"? Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King were both killed in 1968; does that suggest their murders were related? This guy belongs on Infowars.
Aardvark , June 3, 2018 at 12:33 pm GMT
@Heros

I had long thought the shareholders of the Federal Reserve (FR) were behind the assasination. Kennedy had signed the executive order to forbid the FR from charging interest on its fraud money. He had also proposed the issuance of United States Notes backed by silver. This would have denied the FR a lot of future income.

Later events by Johnson surely indicated he was at least a water boy for the FR. Johnson went on to sign the coin act that removed silver from dimes and quarters and reduced the amount of silver in fifty cent coins. He also removed the gold cover requirement for Federal Reserve notes.

At the very least there were two reasons to get rid of Kennedy; stop the Dimona project and remove jeopardy to FR income.

Aardvark , June 3, 2018 at 12:42 pm GMT
@Aardvark

I meant to say stop Kennedy from halting the Dimona project.

Miro23 , June 3, 2018 at 12:43 pm GMT

It is the same Feinberg who, after the Democratic primaries in 1960, made the following proposal to Kennedy, as Kennedy himself later reported to his friend Charles Bartlett: "We know your campaign is in trouble. We're willing to pay your bills if you'll let us have control of your Middle East policy."

Whatever the details of the blackmail, Kennedy once confided to his assistant Hyman Raskin, as an apology for taking Johnson, "I was left with no choice [ ] those bastards were trying to frame me. They threatened me with problems and I don't need more problems."

I wonder if Trump is confiding in anyone? If he is, it would be interesting to hear what he's saying.

The Alarmist , June 3, 2018 at 12:54 pm GMT
@quasi_verbatim

"We all know that Jack and Bobby were killed by lone nutcases three years apart and there can't possibly be any connection between them. Stop messing about with the Official Narrative."

Maybe the Magic Bullet got Bobby too.

In any case, the involvement of Israel would explain why the complete JFK assassination files will never see the light of day. Even the CIA doesn't have that kind of clout.

Wizard of Oz , June 3, 2018 at 1:11 pm GMT
@j2

My comment was about the author's failure to take account of one of tbe best sources for what RFK thought and proposed. Obviously that suggests the question whether it was sloppy research or dishonest suppression.

As to your Meyer Lansky point you do not indicate whether you have any serious claim to knowing anything useful about him and/or his connection to Israel but surely it is rubbish to talk of his interest in Cuban casinos being relevant. Really!? In 1963? And anyway you would only be making sense if you were asserting – with reason – that RFK felt constrained to use to his friend Schlesinger "Cubans or gangsters" as code for Israel.

Or, conceivably you think RFK didn't know what you know about the involvement of Israel but wanted a further inquiry which might have produced an embarrassing truth about Israel. Really?

DESERT FOX , June 3, 2018 at 1:20 pm GMT
Not only did Israel kill JFK and RFK but they also killed JFKjr. with a bomb on his plane and the Israelis did 911 and by the way the Israeli attack on the USS LIBERTY where 34 dead and 174 were wounded in brutal attack on an American ship and every one of these diabolical act proved over and over again that Israel and the Zionists control America lock stock and gun barrel.

America is an Israeli slavery colony and the America military is a proxy arm of the IDF to fight Israels wars .

Bardon Kaldian , June 3, 2018 at 1:24 pm GMT
This whole article on Israeli angle is simply preposterous.

If the Dimona project was so crucial, there were numerous other options for Israel to try to persuade JFK to let them proceed with their project. To try to latch JFK's supposedly adamant decision onto one or two documents is absurd: politicians frequently change their opinions & actions and there is no proof that JFK considered Dimona to be such a big deal, make-or-break of anything.

Then, Israelis would, even if this were true, be more prone too blackmail JFK- mostly about his sexual escapades, or try to, say, eliminate him in a clandestine manner (poisoning or something similar).

No, the JFK assassination was a public execution, a coup by the deep state (in modern parlance) in front of the whole world, the message being: we can do whatever we want & you can't do anything about it.

vinteuil , June 3, 2018 at 1:29 pm GMT
@Heros

This family and its satellites started the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the US war of northern aggression, the Spanish-American war, WWI, WWII, the Korean War

Hmmm – sounds like a family of winners. So how do I sign up with them?

Jon Baptist , June 3, 2018 at 1:39 pm GMT
@j2

Lansky killed Kennedy for Israel and for mob interests within the U.S. Knock off one president and reap multiple benefits. Lansky was a fanatical Zionist as well as a crime boss. The JFK hit is all about Permindex and the Lansky-Marcello connection.

The following is from 'Final Judgement' by Michael Collins Piper. "Tibor Rosenbaum was one of the godfathers of the state of Israel and the first director for finance and supply for Israel's intelligence agency, the Mossad. Rosenbaum was a prime financial angel behind the Permindex corporation. His Swiss banking concern, the Banque De Credit International, also served as the chief European money laundry or the global crime syndicate of Miami-based crime chief Meyer Lansky."

Yaras, a friend of Jack Ruby, was the hitman. Oswald was heavily intertwined as well.

Lyndon Johnson must have completely known that the hit would take place because he immediately dropped all operations JFK implemented regarding Israel.

j2 , June 3, 2018 at 1:58 pm GMT
@Tono Bungay

"Given this exceptional bond between the Kennedy brothers, what is the probability that the two Kennedy assassinations were unrelated? If his reasoning is so weak and silly as this, what confidence can a reader have in anything else he might come up with?"

I do not find it silly at all. Assuming that the Kennedys were close (which is most probably true), then if JFK was worried about Israel's atom bomb program, Robert almost certainly knew about it and shared JFK's opinion. He may not have known who was behind the JFK assassination, but he would very probably have opened the case. If the case is honestly studied, it is immediately seen as a conspiracy. I confirmed it easily to myself by analyzing the Dictabelt data: more than one shooter. As the likely culprit is very probably to be found by checking what changed in the US policy (and what changed was the US attitude to the Israel bomb), the argument of the article becomes quite strong: the purpose of the second assassination was very possibly to cover the first assassination. I find it purely logical, not silly.

ChuckOrloski , June 3, 2018 at 2:11 pm GMT
@Biff

Biff wisely reflected: "I always thought the CIA was suspect, but obviously there are more angles to the story."

Hi Biff,

This article author, Laurent Guyenot, did an admirable job at attempting to distance CIA involvement from Israeli intelligence, and the killing of JFK, pursuant coup, overturning a US election.

Not so with author Peter Janney who wrote the terrific book, "Mary's Mosaic." He focused upon CIA James Jesus Angleton's Israeli-cozy career & deadly pre/post assassination undertakings prior to November 23, 1963.

F.y.i, Biff, perhaps you're aware about the Fall 1964 murder (unsolved!) of Mary Pinchot Meyer, CIA Cord Meyer Jr.' ex-wife and JFK flame?

Unfortunately, Israeli interest & involvement in JFK's killing escaped Peter Janney's survey. Nonetheless, below is Mr. Janet's very sound description about CIA Counterintelligence Chief James Angleton's mad pursuit to locate & confiscate the diary of the dead, Mary Pinchot Meyer.

Subsequently, I do not endorse a "Rush to Judgement" that exonerates the CIA from the treasonous Kennedy murders.

Thanks a lot, Biff! Please refer to video below?

redmudhooch , June 3, 2018 at 2:21 pm GMT
They threatened to assassinate 0bama if he got out of line: Atlanta Jewish Times featured a column by its owner-publisher suggesting that U.S.-based Israeli Mossad agents might someday need to "order a hit" on the president of the United States.

On Jan. 13 the Atlanta Jewish Times featured a column by its owner-publisher suggesting that Israel might someday need to "order a hit" on the president of the United States. In the column, publisher Andrew Adler describes a scenario in which Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu would need to "give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel." The purpose? So that the vice president could then take office and dictate U.S. policies that would help the Jewish state "obliterate its enemies." Adler wrote that it is highly likely that the idea "has been discussed in Israel's most inner circles."

He threatened the fake Jews narrative on Hitler too:

http://time.com/4711687/john-f-kennedy-diary-hitler/

From JFK diary. The diary reveals that during his time in Berlin, Kennedy wrote about visiting Hitler's bunker only months after Germany surrendered in the Second World War.

"You can easily understand how that within a few years Hitler will emerge from the hatred that surrounds him now as one of the most significant figures who ever lived," Kennedy wrote in his diary in 1945.

"He had boundless ambition for his country which rendered him a menace to the peace of the world, but he had a mystery about him in the way he lived and in the manner of his death that will live and grow after him," he added. "He had in him the stuff of which legends are made."

"The room where Hitler is supposed to have met his death showed scorched walls and traces of fire," he wrote. "There is no complete evidence, however, that the body that was found was Hitler's body."

"The Russians doubt that he is dead," Kennedy added. JFK was visiting Europe after a stint in the Navy.

Screwed up world we live in when these frauds are our #1 ally, according to the traitors in DC.
We shoulda destroyed them after USS Liberty incident, 9/11 and the mass murder that followed would have been prevented.

Cold N. Holefield , Website June 3, 2018 at 2:27 pm GMT
@Aardvark

He had also proposed the issuance of United States Notes backed by silver. This would have denied the FR a lot of future income.

No, he did not. Your statement is not factually incorrect. It's indefensible. It further muddies already muddied water.

Debunking the Federal Reserve
Conspiracy Theories (and other financial myths)

[MORE]

To understand exactly what Kennedy's order was trying to do, we must understand the purpose of the legislation which gave the order its underlying authority. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 (ch. 25, 48 Stat 51) to which Kennedy refers permits the President to issue silver certificates in various denominations (mostly $1, $2, $5, and $10) and in any total volume so long as the Treasury has enough silver on hand to redeem the certificates for a specific quantity and fineness of silver and that the total volume of such currency does not exceed $3 billion. The Silver Purchase Act of 1934 (ch. 674,48 Stat 1178) also grants this power to the Treasury Secretary subject to similar limitations. Nowhere in the text of the order is a quantity of money mentioned, so it is unclear how Marrs arrived at his $4.2 billion figure. Moreover, the President could not have authorized such a large issue because it would have exceeded the statutory limit.2
As economic activity grew in the fifties and sixties, the public demand for low denomination currency grew, increasing the Treasury's need for silver to back additional certificate issues and to mint new coins (dimes, quarters, half-dollars). However, during the late fifties the price of silver began to rise and reached the point that the market value of the silver contained in the coins and backing the certificates was greater than the face value of the money itself.2

To conserve the Treasury's silver needs, the Silver Purchase Act and related measures were repealed by Congress in 1963 with Public Law 88-36. Following the repeal, only the President could authorize new silver certificate issues, and no longer the Treasury Secretary. The law, signed by Kennedy himself, also permits the Federal Reserve to issue small denomination bills to replace the outgoing silver certificates (prior to the act, the Fed could only issue Federal Reserve Notes in larger denominations). The Treasury's shrinking silver stock could then be used to mint coins only and not have to back currency. The repeal left only the President with the authority to issue silver certificates, however it did permit him to delegate this authority. E.O. 11,110 does this by transferring the authority from the President to the Treasury
Secretary.2

E.O. 11,110 did not create authority to issue new silver certificates, it only affected who could give the order. The purpose of the order was to facilitate the reduction of certificates in circulation, not to increase them. In October 1964 the Treasury ceased issuing them entirely. The Coinage Act of 1965 (PL 89-81) ended the practice of using silver in most U.S. coins, and in 1968 Congress ended the redeemability of silver certificates (PL 90-29). E.O. 11,110 was never reversed by President Johnson and remained on the books until 1987 when there was a general cleaning-up of executive orders (E.O. 12,608, 9/9/87). However, by this time the remaining legislative authority behind E.O. 11,110 had been repealed by Congress with PL 97-258 in 1982.2

In summary, E.O. 11,110 did not create new authority to issue additional silver certificates. In fact, its intention was to ease the process for their removal so that small denomination Federal Reserve Notes could replace them in accordance with a law Kennedy himself signed. If Kennedy had really sought to reduce Federal Reserve power, then why did he sign a bill that gave the Fed still more power?

Tyrion 2 , June 3, 2018 at 2:31 pm GMT
@Hiram of Tyre

If I could make a parallel on the Palestinians: it's "interesting" how they always found themselves in the spotlight of major plots, killings and terror acts after the creation of the British Zionist State known as Israel.

But not 9/11 that was perpetrated by inconveniently Saudi terrorists hosted thousands of miles away from Palestine in Nowheresville, Afghanistan.

Cold N. Holefield , Website June 3, 2018 at 2:32 pm GMT
Great article. Well-researched and well-presented. It's a convincing case. It reveals the CIA was compromised in favor of Israel. That was then and this is now.No doubt the Israeli termites have completely consumed the structure. I would have to imagine at this point the CIA is a dupe division of Mossad and it's so inundated with Israeli Moles to rid the undemocratic organization of the infestation would be tantamount to playing whack-a-mole. The only option is to burn it to the ground. Destroy it, end it, and jail the majority of its members, past and present, for High Treason.
Echoes of History , June 3, 2018 at 2:35 pm GMT
Thermonuclear Blackmail.

One other purpose of Israeli nuclear weapons , not often stated, but obvious, is their "use" on the United States .

THE THIRD TEMPLE'S HOLY OF HOLIES:
ISRAEL'S NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Warner D. Farr, LTC, U.S. Army
The Counterproliferation Papers
Future Warfare Series No. 2
USAF Counterproliferation Center
Air War College
Air University
Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama
September 1999

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cpc-pubs/farr.htm

Hansel and Gretel, open that oven door again, before the hook-nose witch eats any more of our children.

prusmc , Website June 3, 2018 at 2:36 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz

Johnson, IMHO, worst President in US history. HE DID MORE LASTING DAMAGE than even Obama. But the Kennedy myth is overdrawn. If JFK had lived he would have been reelected but not by a Johnsonian o landslide. Consequently, Congress would have kept him in check. If HHH had been his VP, Kennedy would have got less out of Congress than with Johnson ( who knew where the bodies were buried).
The real tragedy is not that Kennedy was so good; it was that Johnson was so bad. Had Bobby won in 1968, he would have torn the country apart worse than Johnson. There are so many loose ends in this feature it is hard to find where to start. But it is clear that this person believes that for a few years we Americans had Gods living amongst us.
The curse of the whole Kennedy family was raised by Teddy while successfully avoiding blame and guilt for Mary Jo's unfortunate accident. However, the author brings the curse to life again while seeming to reject it concerning JFK, junior's plane crash disappearance. Could pilot error by lack of experience and failure to heed weather forecast advice have had any role in this family's continuing misadventures?
Is there any explanation for anything negative happening to this clan that can not be blamed on Jews, right-wing extremists, Cosa Nostra, CIA, the Navy, military intelligence or talk radio?

Cold N. Holefield , Website June 3, 2018 at 2:41 pm GMT
@Jake

you can bet your every penny and the lives of your children, spouse, and siblings that America's WASP Deep State was behind it all.

Certainly complicit. The article does seem to give a pass to the CIA, but if the CIA is everything it's cracked up to be, it had to know about this and the author even indicates some of its more influential agents were cooperative with Mossad so in the least it was compromised and therefore complicit in High Treason. If it didn't know, the CIA should have been abolished then & there but it certainly should be abolished now.

schrub , June 3, 2018 at 2:44 pm GMT
Who hasn't been mentioned so far is the very beautiful and brilliant Mathilde Krim. Krim was LBJ's mistress in the 1960s. She also just happened to be a fanatical supporter of the interests of Israel. In the late 1940s, she had been an active promoter of the Israeli terror group The Irgun. Mathilde was also most likely a Mossad agent with long-time contacts to the highest levels of the Israeli government.

I would have loved to hear the "pillow talk" between these two total opposites: the incredibly crude, totally uncultured and flabby LBJ and the cultured, slim, sleek and highly educated Krim. You can bet that she was able to supply Israel with a constant supply of all sorts of top secret information that she was able to extract out of her bedmate. Maybe she also gave advice to LBJ about who exactly to assassinate or what transgressions by Israel for LBJ to ignore (like the USS Liberty attack).

Mathilde Krim's husband was the very wealthy Arthur Krim, one of the most powerful and active supporters of Israel in the USA. Mathilde Krim's relationship with LBJ was most likely known about by her husband but was "overlooked" by him because of its huge value to Israel as both as a source of information as well as for its potential use as blackmail. (You can bet that somewhere in Israel is a vault full of movies taken of their bedroom activities.)

The heads of MSM at the time apparently knew all about the relationship between Krim and LBJ but "wisely" chose to ignore it just as they had done for JFK and his affairs.

You can also bet that Krim dropped her boyfriend LBJ like a hot potato once he left office and was no longer of use to her friends.

Here is a highly sanitized Wikipedia entry about her: No mention is made of her "friendship" with LBJ. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathilde_Krim

gsjackson , June 3, 2018 at 2:58 pm GMT
@ChuckOrloski

I've often wondered to what extent the CIA is Zionized and acting in concert with Israel, and how long it has been that way. Anecdotally: I had two students at the University of Wisconsin who interviewed with the CIA. Both were NY Jews who ardently supported Israel, and I do mean ardently. This piece was an eye opener for me. I read all about Angleton in The Devil's Chessboard, but nothing about his connection with Israel. And LBJ a Jew??

Anon [219] Disclaimer , June 3, 2018 at 3:03 pm GMT
This article is simply bizarre. If the CIA didn't do it why is it still sanitizing the files 55 years later? Surely this article (which contains numerous basic errors (for example, there were never two entry wounds seen on the front of JFK's body, only a neck wound) is either written by an ignorant hack or more likely a CIA hack's imaginative narrative designed to confuse the idiots. For a start try the Kennedy and King website hosted by Jim D'Eugenio and spend a few years getting the facts before taking this rubbish seriously.
Heros , June 3, 2018 at 3:12 pm GMT
@vinteuil

Its actually quite easy. Promise your first born and swear complete and total obeisance, and you are in the club. But remember, never refuse to partake in the ceremonies and sacrifices. And don't ever even think about backing out of your oath to give up your first born, otherwise expect the same as what happened to Heath Ledger or Kurt Kobain.

Jewaroo , June 3, 2018 at 3:25 pm GMT
When Langley wants to take that CIA smell off their official line, they use a foreign source. Guyenot's act is boilerplate disinfo, reinterpreting the obvious with double-reverse psychology.

Like, Truman's editorial, assiduously suppressed by Dulles himself, was a diabolical head-fake. And But but but no invasion of Cuba followed Kennedy's assassination!! CIA framed Cuba not to justify an immediate attack on Cuba, but to force Warren to bend over for the official story. LBJ's negotiation with Warren is a matter of historical record. He told Warren that if he didn't stick with the official bullshit story, Cuba's responsibility would lead to war entailing nuclear war with Russia.

And more standard CIA argumentum ad ignorantiam: you don't know who the CIA mastermind was, so it was Israel. You don't know who the mastermind was because CIA flouts the JFK Assassination Records Collection Act.

Guyenot applies Occam's sledghammer to prove that it wasn't the guys who had military, commercial, and criminal cutouts nationwide, extensive illegal domestic operations including blanket surveillance, arbitrary classification authority, and impunity in municipal law. It was Israel, who cleverly put one over on the dumb ol' CIA, nyuk nyuk nyuk. And CIA couldn't do nuthin' about it. This is how stupid they think you are.

JFK blah blah blah. CIA's your CHEKA. They've ruled your country since inception. They kill and torture whoever they want. What are you gonna do about it?

Sean , June 3, 2018 at 3:30 pm GMT
Did Lee Harvey Oswald kill JFK? LHO was a devotee of Casto and when he visited the Cuban Consulate in Mexico and was denied permission to travel to Cuba Oswald stormed out. The Kennedys were trying to kill Castro, and Oswald,, who had narrowly missed killing Edwin Walker months before, and found himself in a job that provided a shot on the JFK parade route, killed JFK for his anti communism. Kennedy had almost taken the world to WW3 in the Cuba crisis, which was Nikita Khrushchev's response to JFK's insane revival of Eisenhower's plan to give Germany a say in Nukes (to save the US taxpayer money basically). Perhaps it is just as well that Marine-trained rifleman Oswald put an end to Kennedy when he did.
John Gruskos , June 3, 2018 at 3:32 pm GMT

John, Robert and Ted Kennedy were all extremely friendly to Israel and extremely supportive of the interests of diaspora Jews. They led the Democratic Party away from the old-left emphasis on economic justice and peace, towards the new-left emphasis on issues of race and sex.

They weakened the labor unions with their campaign against the Teamsters, they supported tax cuts for the very wealthy, their support for increased immigration was hostile to the economic interests of the American working class, and they supported an intensification of the cold war against the Soviet Union. They even knowingly lied about an imaginary "missile gap", in order to present the Democratic Party as more hawkish than Eisenhower's Republicans.

The Kennedy brothers adopted this platform after the crucially important events of 1956-1957:

In response to the Suez Crisis, Khrushchev's Soviet Union definitively became the patron of Israel's Arab enemies. Simultaneously, Khrushchev was overseeing a Thermidorian reaction against the excesses of early Bolshevism in eastern Europe. Stalin was denounced, Matyas Rakosi was exiled, Kaganovich was purged from the Politburo, Solzhenitsyn was released from the gulags, and the Hungarian counter-revolutionaries were treated less harshly than they would have been in the days of Lenin and Trotsky. A new Bukharinite, almost semi-nationalist, form of communism developed in eastern Europe – far less deadly, and with jobs and patronage more fairly distributed among the various ethnicities.

In other words, Soviet communism was no longer "good for the Jews". No longer were millions of counter-revolutionary "antisemites" being murdered. No longer were Jews massively over-represented in positions of power and prestige. And no longer was the Soviet Union a supporter of Zionism and Israel.

Similarly, the rise of American Jews from the working class into the upper middle and wealthy classes, meant that domestically the American old-left economic policies such as progressive taxation and support for rogue unions such as the Teamsters, were no longer "good for the Jews".

In these circumstances, Eisenhower's moves towards detente with the Soviet Union, insistence on Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai, support for immigration restriction (which prevented the migration into America of the Jewish former ruling class of communist eastern Europe – Kaganovich, Rakosi and hordes of lesser-known radical Bolsheviks, commissars and secret police agents), and even his continuation of FDR-era progressive taxation and public works projects, were seen as "bad for the Jews", just as Kennedy's exact opposite platform was seen as "good for the Jews".

Perhaps more significantly, the Eisenhower-Nixon cultural conservatism (praising Robert E. Lee as the greatest American who ever lived, expressing regret for having appointed Earl Warren to the Supreme Court, and living a chaste life of faithfulness to their wives) contrasted with the cultural radicalism of the Kennedy brothers (full support for the most radical elements of the civil rights movement, libertine personal lives filled with not-so-secret love affairs).

Compared to what came before, JFK represented an assault on the ethnic self-respect of old-stock Americans and the cultural norms of traditional Christianity – to the delight of the Jewish movements examined in Kevin MacDonald's Culture of Critique .

Whatever personal animosity may have existed, in political terms LBJ was indistinguishable from the Kennedy brothers. He too was hostile towards the Soviet bloc, a friend of Israel, and supportive of the cultural left.

Given this macro-historical background, I think the simplest explanations of the assassinations are correct, and the various convoluted conspiracy theories are incorrect.

Lee Harvey Oswald was an old-left Marxist who saw JFK as an enemy, a traitor against the "true" left.

Jack Ruby was a hyper-ethnocentric Jewish gangster who murdered Oswald to avenge the death of the Jewish people's best friend.

Sirhan Sirhan was a Palestinian nationalist.

Conspiracy theorist are typically Kennedy sycophants who don't like being reminded that their heroes were enemies of socialism, enemies of the long-suffering Palestinian people, and heroes to the likes of Jack Ruby.

They'd prefer to believe that JFK and RFK were martyrs murdered by reactionary WASPs – but that is pure fantasy.

Intelligent Dasein , Website June 3, 2018 at 3:39 pm GMT
I'm really beginning to wonder what Ron Unz is doing with his website. Last week we got that moronic article by 9/11 doucher David Lorimer, and now we are treated to a 10,000 word disquisition about how Israel assassinated the Kennedys -- both of which articles are rather baseless canards but are deeply emotionally appealing to a certain coterie of contrarians and which are sure to attract (and have attracted) the most odious collection of commenters who are both uninterested in and oblivious to the the truth about any of it. Not only is it a frustrating exercise in futility to try to discuss anything with such people (their minds are closed not only with respect to the lunacy that they themselves believe but also with respect to what they assume you believe -- they've already assigned you to a camp and will never allow you to depart from it), but also the subjects themselves have grown tiresome and tedious and are only anymore of interest to the very same propounders of revisionist idiocy who keep them alive with their siege mentality.

What purpose can there be in publishing such articles other than to fuel the febrile files of this phantasist fringe? There is nothing here in the interests of truth; this is demagoguery and obscurantism of the worst sort. Articles like this are the intellectual equivalent of a plague bacillus, winding its way through human minds, putrefying and perverting all in its course. Such foul air requires a constant nosegay of truth to ward it off, and these flowers are in very short supply around here.

I have no desire to defend the Jews, or Judaism, or Zionism, or the State of Israel, but the charges that they were involved with the Kennedy assassinations are completely without merit and ought to be repugnant to decent people. The fact that they were directly responsible for the attack on the USS Liberty is more than enough reason to despise the Israelis; they do not need to be beaten with every club or charged with every crime. To do so is vindictive and paranoid and shameful, and I cannot be sanguine about the motives of those who would whip themselves and others into such a frenzy.

Cold N. Holefield , Website June 3, 2018 at 3:50 pm GMT
Here's Mathilde Krim with a soirée of Fine Folks to include LBJ & Lady Bird. She certainly made the rounds. Definitely an Intelligence Operative considering her prodigious network of contacts. A Cancer to Humanity. It reminds me of a scene from Rosemary's Baby.
Mike P , June 3, 2018 at 3:52 pm GMT
@Bardon Kaldian

Considering that you belong to the resident Hasbara brigade, your position fits well with the hypothesis of this piece – the "limited hang-out" of the U.S. "deep state" to cover up the Israeli connection.

Dimona was clearly a major point of contention – and it is very unlikely that JFK would have aided and abetted the shenanigans surrounding the war of 1967. Israel had plenty of reason to do away with him.

Frederick V. Reed , Website June 3, 2018 at 4:09 pm GMT
"the bullet tested in laboratory to be compared to the the one extracted from Robert's brain had not been shot by Sirhan's revolver, but by another gun, with a different serial number; "

The author seems blankly ignorant of guns, apparently believing that a serial number can be determined from a bullet. He sounds as though he has some vague recollection that marking left by lands and grooves on bullets are unique to the gun firing them, and somehow confuses this with serial numbers. Amateurish research does not breed confidence in conclusions. Does he give a link to which labortory and its report?

Laurent Guyénot , June 3, 2018 at 4:13 pm GMT
@Intelligent Dasein

Do you mean you believe that Oswald killed Kennedy? Or do you mean the question is irrelevant? I'm interested to know.

Monty Ahwazi , June 3, 2018 at 4:22 pm GMT
Well researched and written article! Additional and further research is needed in the following possibilities raised by the people living outside of the US in 1960's:
1. JFK's opposition to the planning of Israelis initiating a war against the Arab states in 1967
2. Killing 2 birds with one shot by falsely accusing an Arab for killing RK before he reopens the assassination case of his brother
3. Destruction of the world media from the 1967 war to the assassination of RK
4. Involvement of LBJ in both assassinations since he is a Zionist from his mother side
Laurent Guyénot , June 3, 2018 at 4:24 pm GMT
@Bardon Kaldian

Yes, the JFK assassination was a public execution, but why would that incriminate the deep state rather than Israel? I would rather think the opposite. I think you also miss a point that you could perhaps get by reading James Douglass: JFK considered it his most important task to abolish nuclear weapons. It was possible then. So it makes sense to believe that his determination to stop Dimona was very, very strong.

Laurent Guyénot , June 3, 2018 at 4:27 pm GMT
@Frederick V. Reed

No, I am not that ignorant. Either I expressed myself poorly (English being not my native language), or you misunderstood. The serial number of the gun from which the test bullet was shot (as indicated on official report) is different from the serial number of Sirhan's gun (as indicated on another official report.

Dissident X , June 3, 2018 at 4:31 pm GMT
Thank you Laurent Guyénot. This is a long(ish) article, and obviously complex.

So, in breaking down this theory, one must first admit, in light of what is known of the Kennedy assassinations, consideration of the Torah-Pharisees-Talmud international collective as a potential prime operative, is reasonable, based on the prime-facia motives .
Specifically:
1. the intention of registering the American Zionist Council (AZC subsequently AIPAC ) as a "foreign agent" subject to the obligations defined by the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938
2. the Kennedy's determination to stop Israel [secretly, like many things] developing its own nuclear bomb
3. Kennedy committed to support UN Resolution 194 for the right of return of Palestinian refugees

Anybody familiar with the trends of the last 200 years of the activities and well- [self]- published political motivations of Torah-Pharisees-Talmud international collective , notably pro-zionists and their leading spokes people, would be aware that each one of the listed intentions, if validated , would be considered ample justification for another political assassination, from such an extremist ideological perspective.

The thornier, but potentially more revealing issue is capability .
But one must ask oneself, who in the world, could have the capability to kill a sitting U.S. president and a leading presidential nominee?

In consideration of this question, one can greatly reduce the number of potential suspects, since the range is extremely small, and I would suggest, probably included the collaboration of several of the very few limited candidates.

For example, does anyone think that the Soviet Union could possibly have managed this alone, or even more ridiculously, Fidel Castro?!

I personally think it at least on the verge of absurd.

Capability continued

Frequently, I find myself drawn back to Gilad Atzmons excerpt from testimony, as expert witness on Jewish Identity politics, at 'hate crime" trial of Arthur Topham 20151108-20151109
Sourced originally at: http://blog.balder.org/?p=1673

"When we criticise Jewish politics (Israel, Zionism, the Lobby etc') some Jews are "racially offended" in spite of the fact that race, biology, blood or ethnicity was never mentioned. When we criticise Jewish racism some Jews hide behind the argument that we are criticizing their religion. When we occasionally criticise the religion or some obscene Jewish religious teaching we are quick to learn that Jews are hardly religious anymore (which is true by the way). The meaning of it is simple, yet devastating. The Jewish triangle makes it very difficult, or even impossible to criticise Jewish politics, ideology and racism because the Identity is set as a field with a tri-polar gravity centre. The identity morphs endlessly. The contemporary 3rd category (political) Jew is everywhere and nowhere simultaneously, this is the quantum mechanics that is set to suppress any possible criticism."

But most particularly, " Jew is everywhere and nowhere simultaneously, this is the quantum mechanics that is set to suppress . ""

I am also reminded of Noam Chompsky's model (explanation), as described in Manufacturing Consent for what he describes as a passive media skewing mechanism (my words), along the lines of, systemically, many slight slanted/nudged editorial decisions, which aggregated, may well completely distort an accurate picture of events.

By not being able to identify one clear, discrete actor/provocateur, the system, the way it operates, will be incapable of actually making a determination and assignment of cause.

Now, if one followed a operational model of negative sum gain gaming of systems to always gain advantage, one might have identified this weakness in the system, and employed a quantum-mechanics like distribution of a fifth column in the system to effect the political change one desired.

Cold N. Holefield , Website June 3, 2018 at 4:34 pm GMT
@Frederick V. Reed

That's a good point but it still doesn't explain how Sirhan Squared fired the fateful shot from behind Kennedy when he was always in front of Kennedy.

Fyi, I have always felt horrible for Sirhan Squared. So much so, I named my dog after him and it's a female dog. You should see the reaction when I take her to the vet and they ask her name and I say it's Sirhan Sirhan. The look is priceless. My next dog's name will be Jesus. I'm sure it will go over equally as well with the hoi polloi.

Does anyone really believe that if a POTUS decided to eradicate Israel's nuclear weapons program and cut off all funding to Israel that said POTUS wouldn't be assassinated before he/she could make it happen? Trump has been egregiously disrespectful to the Intelligence Community and yet he's still alive, but what if Trump was egregiously disrespectful to Israel instead of kissing Israel's ass as the first Jewish POTUS that he is? What if Trump ended all American aid to Israel and went to the United Nations and put forth a resolution for Israel to eliminate its nukes because if Iran and North Korea and Ted Nugent can't have them, neither can Israel. If Trump got elected on such a platform, which he never would have by the way, he would have been assassinated before he or any POTUS could implement such a plan. Israel has made it clear many times over, it will do ANYTHING & EVERYTHING it has to do to protect itself existentially and I'm sure that includes assassinating the POTUS if need be and all else fails.

Arnieus , June 3, 2018 at 4:41 pm GMT
Not Israel exactly but the banker clans that created Israel with US wealth and still own monopolies in banking, media, and drugs legal and illegal. Kennedy was put in office because they thought he was just a skirt chasing son of a bootlegger that would not interfere with the Globalist agenda. Kind of like Bill Clinton. Then he starts talking about "secret societies" and backing off the constant war agenda. And he fostered a trusting relationship with Russia, trying to really be president. He is the last one to try that.
chicken salad , June 3, 2018 at 4:48 pm GMT
Great article. Just wanted to mention that Jeff Gates' Guilt by Association corroborates the author's thesis.
Wizard of Oz , June 3, 2018 at 4:54 pm GMT
@John Gruskos

From one with no barrow to push: this is refreshingly sane.

j2 , June 3, 2018 at 4:54 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz

"As to your Meyer Lansky point you do not indicate whether you have any serious claim to knowing anything useful about him and/or his connection to Israel but surely it is rubbish to talk of his interest in Cuban casinos being relevant. Really!? In 1963? And anyway you would only be making sense if you were asserting – with reason – that RFK felt constrained to use to his friend Schlesinger "Cubans or gangsters" as code for Israel.

Or, conceivably you think RFK didn't know what you know about the involvement of Israel but wanted a further inquiry which might have produced an embarrassing truth about Israel. Really?"

I recently bought a book about Lansky's Havana operations from Cuba. Before the revolution by Castro Lansky run the crime empire there. It is also written of his connections to Israel, which you can check even from Wikipedia. We all get our information from books and documents. This book was rather OK concerning facts. Lansky lost a lot when Castro came to power. In 1963 Lansky had a very good reason to want the USA to attack Cuba to gain his empire. Besides, he run the USA organized crime at that time and had reasons not to like Kennedys actions against organized crime.

There is no reason for "Cubans and gangsters" to be a code word for Israel as Cubans and gangsters were almost certainly involved in the JFK assassination.

I think Robert Kennedy did know of the Israel atom bomb project and he did not like it, same as JFK. Robert Kennedy probably did not know if Israel was involved in the JFK assassination but was going to investigate who was. It might have lead to Israel. There was this danger.

Wizard of Oz , June 3, 2018 at 5:05 pm GMT
@Monty Ahwazi

You lose all credibility for anything sensible you might say when you spout such tendentious rubbish as "he is[sic] a Zionist from his mother [sic] side". You presumably are confusing the Orthodox criterion for someone to be a Jew with the choice a person makes to be a Zionist (for which you don't even have to be a Jew come to think of it). It's even sillier than people saying Rupert Murdoch is a Jew because a great or great great grandmother may have been Jewish.

renfro , June 3, 2018 at 5:07 pm GMT
@Bardon Kaldian

a coup by the deep state

And who do you think the deep state is.

SunBakedSuburb , June 3, 2018 at 5:08 pm GMT
Interesting and well-researched article, but ultimately, as commenter Wizard of Oz notes, it serves the author's "confirmation bias."

Behind the JFK and RFK assassinations is the Allen Dulles gang: Richard Helms, David Atlee Phillips, and James Jesus Angleton. It is true, as the author notes, that Angleton had deep ties with Mossad. It is also true that since the end of the second world war, Israeli skullduggery in the US and Europe has been massive. But these two political murders were planned and executed by the above Dulles cabal.

Oswald was a CIA asset since his time as Marine serving at the US Atsugi base in Japan. Researcher HP Albarelli connects Oswald to right-wing Agency operative and pedophile David Ferrie as far back as the early 1950s. Oswald was also part of Angleton's false defector program, which inserted him into the USSR in the late 1950s.

The grooming and handling of Sirhan Sirhan in California in the mid 1960s speaks of a well-entrenched domestic network of CIA assets. He was picked for patsydom for a number reasons, and Angleton, again, a prince of an ally for Mossad, liked Sirhan's Palestinian background, which amped up the Arab threat, in the eyes of the US audience, to his Israeli friends. The author is correct that Thane Caesar was the real assassin of RFK. Previous to the RFK hit, Caesar work for the Hughes corporation in Burbank. The sprawling Howard Hughes business empire had served as a CIA cover since the 1950s.

Why would the Dulles gang want to murder the Kennedy brothers? JFK: revenge for the Bay of Pigs betrayal and the subsequent firing of Dulles. RFK: a man who worked closely with the Agency in the early 1960s on the Castro project. David Talbot's book Brothers, referenced by the author, makes clear that RFK had an absolutely clear conception of who killed his brother. There was no way he was going to reach the White House.

Both brothers also sought to wind down the profitable war in Vietnam. RFK was especially vocal about his goal of ending the war on the'68 campaign trail. And then there's Richard Nixon: a national security state favorite since his time as congressman during the so-called Red Scare of the early 1950s, Nixon was their favored candidate in the '68 election. RFK's death sealed the deal for Nixon. Nixon would go on to incur the wrath of his former national security state allies with his secret negotiations with China and the USSR while president. Because of his previous good works for them, a political death was arranged rather than a violent physical one.

renfro , June 3, 2018 at 5:09 pm GMT
@Jon Baptist

Lansky killed Kennedy for Israel and for mob interests within the U.S

Most likely

Intelligent Dasein , Website June 3, 2018 at 5:11 pm GMT
@Laurent Guyénot

Yes, I believe that Oswald killed Kennedy. I have no reasonable doubt that Oswald alone fired the fatal shot.

I also believe that the question, while certainly not irrelevant, is little thought of by most people today and would not affect their lives one way or the other. This is not to say that truth should not be investigated and justice done whenever possible. Falsehoods of any sort should be brought to light and expunged from the historical record, for there is no telling what damage an error may do even long after the fact. However, in the first place, I do not think that the historical record has enshrined any major errors in the case of the Kennedys; and in the second place, the fervency with which the contrarians (and they alone) continue to revive this long-buried topic does not savor of an honest pursuit of truth. I gather they would not be satisfied even if all the world were converted to their opinion.

They have some sort of an agenda. What it is varies from case to case and is not something I'm willing to speculate upon. But this sort of crusading over the meaning of an historical event is never anything but a quest for political power in the present moment, and is usually driven not by any coherent ideology but by the sheer passion for revenge. The willingness of so many revisionists to make saints out of the Kennedys -- which on any objective reading they clearly were not -- is by itself sufficient to discover the all-too-human wellsprings of their motivation. You have a beef with Israel, with the CIA, with Lyndon Johnson, with the whole American Deep State. I get that; I'm no fan of these people, either. But I'm not going to pervert my entire view of history so as to cast them in the role of the eternal villain. Self-deception is not only bad for your psychological health, it's also very politically inexpedient. You will never accomplish anything by this method. Just imagine the dismay that will come upon you if, peradventure, you happen to have a real shot at gaining some actual power and then you realize that your only friends and compatriots are the unreliable fruit loops who've been yup-yupping your articles these past years. A lot of help they're going to be.

The assertion that Israel had anything to do with assassinating either Kennedy brother is just not true. It is falsehood and lies and intellectual pollution. The reverence for such a belief belongs as a sub-genre of postmodern urban mysticism and religious occultism, along with the belief that the CIA planted explosives in the World Trade Center.

ians , June 3, 2018 at 5:15 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz

The nonsensical assertion that it was an accidental bullet from a Secret Service man was debunked long ago.

geokat62 , June 3, 2018 at 5:18 pm GMT
@Cold N. Holefield

the first Jewish POTUS that he is?

PTI, but just wanted to make a quick observation. Is it just me or have others noticed that there have been quite a number of Presidents upon whom this honorary title has been bestowed, including:

LBJ
Ronald Reagan
Barack Obama
Donald Trump

(Bill Clinton and George W Bush should receive honorary mention).

Now, back to regularly scheduled programming.

chicken salad , June 3, 2018 at 5:22 pm GMT
@schrub

I should have mentioned that Jeff Gates goes into the LBJ/Krim relationship, NUMEC, McCain father and son, the USS Liberty, with a measure of Jeff Flake in his book. It bears rereading, now if only I can find it.

Wizard of Oz , June 3, 2018 at 5:23 pm GMT
@j2

Well you have just proved what a hopeless amateur you are as conspiracy theorist and as analyst.

What you have now shown is all you dredged up about Meyer Lansky is a million miles from proving that he had sufficient reason to murder Kennedy. To make any sense of your bizarre notion of cause and effect and of motive you would have to suppose that a US President could be expected to look after the Cuban interests of a known criminal even going to the extent of using US armed forces to do it. Specifically your barmy idea entails that Lansky had a communications conduit to LBJ and thought he had obtained assurance from Johnson that the US would go to war to overthrow Castro and restore an American criminal's casino. Pathetic.

There is indeed no need for "Cubans or gangsters" to be code for "Israel" but again you have shot yourself in the foot by your missing the point completely. My obvious point, which you managed to get confused about, was that Bobby Kennedy had no reason not to mention Israel to his confidant Schlesinger so his use of the words "Cubans" and "gangsters" meant that he didn't have Israel in mind

ians , June 3, 2018 at 5:25 pm GMT
@Sean

Garbage. Oswald was impersonated in Mexico. He didn't try to kill Walker.

Anon [257] Disclaimer , June 3, 2018 at 5:29 pm GMT
Five towns Jewish times April 11 2013

Article claims LBJ was a Jew who smuggled German Jews into the port of Galveston during the 1930s.

I'm sure this thread will be enjoyable as people post their pet theories and others jump in to debunk the theories.

Gary , June 3, 2018 at 5:30 pm GMT
The most likely scenario is of course that the assassinations met the needs of not only Israel/Mossad, but of the U.S. oligarchs/Wall Street, European oligarchs, and the U.S. deep state forces of the CIA/Pentagon. It isn't an "either/or" with the Mossad vs the CIA as to who is the culprit, but rather that everyone benefited by these assassinations. From the U.S. Joint Chiefs who wanted to end JFK's efforts to stop the Cold War, to Mossad who wanted carte blanche Israeli power in the Middle East AND the bomb, to the CIA which most definitely did not want to be "splintered into a thousand pieces and scattered to the winds" – you have a set of powerful interests that converge and all benefit by these deaths.

The whole debate of whether Israel is the tail wagging the dog misses the point that the very creation of Israel was all about helping the Western colonial powers maintain neo-colonial power in the Middle East as their former colonies were being liberated post-WWII.

The oligarchic power blocs in Europe, the U.S., the U.K. and Israel have all benefited from the assassinations of the Kennedy brothers and the policy shifts that were then possible by their permanent removal from political office. Chasing the – "was it the Mossad, or was it the CIA"- train, leaves us grasping at phantoms like "the girl in the polka dot dress," or "the second Oswald," and simply distract from the obvious reality that all these parties not only benefited, but also knew each other's secrets and operated in coordination to make these events happen, and to sew intrigue and endless questions in their wake.

SunBakedSuburb , June 3, 2018 at 5:32 pm GMT
@Intelligent Dasein

I agree with your assessment of the author's claim of Israeli involvement in the JFK/RFK assassinations. But

" the subjects themselves have grown tiresome and tedious "

If political assassinations and shadowy conspiracies don't capture your imagination, your website must be "tiresome" and "tedious".

Laurent Guyénot , June 3, 2018 at 5:55 pm GMT
@ChuckOrloski

I did not mean to exonerate the CIA. I tried to be as brief as I could, so I didn't get into the detail of CIA involvement. CIA had to be involved to some extent in order to be blackmailed into powerlessness. My point is that CIA was not the mastermind and I wanted to point out that the mainstream media were pointing to the CIA, which is in itself very significant: it is like when the mainstream media say "the CIA controls the media". I am actually inclined to agree with Gary Wean's thesis (as Piper seemed to do) that the CIA had planned a faked failed assassination coup to force JFK into acting against Castro, but was double-crossed. This fits the scenario which I also believe for 9/11. http://rockthetruth.blogspot