"Kennedy's Murder: Theoreticians 'CIA-do-it' cover for Israel!"

RFK Jr. and Inalienable

Dick Russell's latest biography, The Real RFK Jr.Trials of a fact Warrior, contains 2 chapters devoted to the search for fact by RFK Jr. about the murders of his father and uncle. [1] This is part of chapter 28:

He was approaching 50 erstwhile in 2008, preparing to give a lecture on environmental protection at the Franciscan monastery in Niagara, fresh York, Bobby [RFK Jr.] found a copy of a fresh book "on my table in the greenhouse, left as an anonymous gift to me". The book was called "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters" by Catholic theologian James W. Douglass. Bobby considered the book "a fascinating and thorough analysis of the circumstances surrounding the assassination". Bobby spent quite a few time studying Douglass' exact footnotes. He noted that "extraordinary analysis has shown that dishonest CIA agents are linked to a Cuban task and his mob buddies". Bobby was so impressed that he sent a book to the author of president Kennedy's speeches, Ted Sorenson, who wrote to him in 2010: "She lay on the table for 2 weeks, and then I picked it up. And erstwhile I started, I couldn't get distant from her. And you know, for all these years, no of us who were close to Jack could stand the fact that they'd always looked at these things and all the conspiracy books. Well, nothing they had seemed to stand in court. Each of us thought, "This won't bring Jack back." But I read it and it opened my eyes, opened my mind, and now I'm going to do something about it." Sorenson said he spoke to the author and planned to compose a preface for release in a soft setting. "Thanks for putting the ball in motion," wrote Bobby. However, Sorenson later told Douglass that his wife and daughter had convinced him that his relation with Jack had always active the President's life and should have stopped there. Sorenson died shortly after. Bobby himself "has taken on a painful task to read wider literature on this subject". [2]

I cited this paragraph extensively due to the fact that it illustrates the remarkable impact of James Douglas's book."JFK and the Unspeakable", published in 2008. With the support of any of JFK's most prominent researchers, including filmmaker Oliver Stone, she became the Bible of Gideon all JFK amateur. It is typical of the dominant school – I will call them CIA theorists – but the author, a longtime Catholic peace activist with a large heart and poetic mind, gives his book a spiritual aftertaste, raising the communicative to a mythical or even mystical level. This is the communicative of a man who "changed" from a cold warrior to a peacemaker (during the Cuban crisis in 1962) and saved the planet from atomic Armageddon; a man who saw the impending death but lived according to his perfect of atomic disarmament and became immortal. Heroic peacemaker. Christ, almost.

The basic game of the book is questionable. According to Jim DeEugenio nothere was no "conversion" due to the fact that Kennedy was never a cold warrior, despite his rhetoric in the 1960 campaign.[3] another details in Douglass' narrative, specified as the script of the 2 Oswalds (borrowed from Richard Popkins' 1966 book The Second Oswald), besides met with criticism. Nevertheless, Douglass is praised for defending CIA explanation with unprecedented talent and explained in eloquent words, "why it matters."

What's incorrect with Douglass?

I was impressed by Douglass' book erstwhile I first read it in 2011. It led me to the most fascinating intellectual exploration, and I am grateful for that. I found a French publisher and helped translate. [4] But over the course of the year, erstwhile I read any of Douglass' bibliography and studied another studies, I realized the shortcomings of the book and intrigued myself with them. The Douglass material lacks 2 thick folders: Johnson and Israel. This is simply a common feature of most of the work to put the CIA in charge, specified as Oliver Stone's fresh documentary written by DiEugenio, which I reviewed Here..

I besides believe that Douglass' book structure is ingenious: intertwining Oswald's communicative to prove that it was served by the CIA, and Kennedy's communicative to prove that the CIA hated him, maintains a constant sense of correlation between the 2 stories and provides strong evidence that the CIA was active in the assassination. However, this does not prove that the bombers were in the CIA. Not at all.

First of all, what CIA are we talking about? surely not the CIA that CIA manager John McCone (named Kennedy) knew about. Most CIA theorists agree that CIA strings related to Oswald came from the office of counterintelligence chief James Jesus Angleton. Quoting John Newman, a respected CIA theorist: "No 1 else in the Agency had access, authority, and diabolically ingenious head to manage this sophisticated plot." [5] But Angleton surely wasn't "CIA." Rather, as Peter Dale Scott wrote, "managed the 'second CIA' in the CIA". [6] According to his biographer, Jefferson Morley, Angleton acted on his own initiative, isolated from control and free from any responsibility; his superior, Richard Helms, "allowed Angleton to do what he liked, asking fewer questions," McCone had no thought what Angleton was doing. Another biographer, Tom Mangold, notes that Angleton's counterintelligence staff "had its own secret muddy fund, which Angleton strictly controlled", which "give Angleton exceptional power to run his own tiny operations without excessive supervision." [7] In fact, Angleton was considered by many of his peers to be a madman whose paranoid obsession with the discovery of russian moles caused large harm to the Agency. The only reason he was not released before 1974 (by manager William Colby) is that he kept besides many files concerning besides many people.

It is unthinkable that Angleton is in charge of the full operation. But if he did not follow Richard Helms' orders – and there is not a single proof that Helms knew about the assassination – then under whose direction or influence did he act? It's simple: apart from counterintelligence, Angleton led the "Israeli office" and had more close contacts with the Mossad hierarchy than with his own. He loved the Israelis as much as he hated the Communists—apparently believing that 1 man could not be both. Meir Amit, head of Mossad from 1963 to 1968, called him "the top Zionist" in Washington, while Robert Amory, head of the CIA Intelligence Directorate, named him "a cooped Israeli agent".[8] While Angleton was dishonored in the United States after his forced resignation, he was honored in Israel. After his death in 1987, according to Washington Post, five erstwhile heads of Mossad and Shin Bet and 3 erstwhile heads of Israeli military intelligence were present to "give last tribute to the beloved associate of their secret fraternity". Among the services he provided to Israel, "Angleton reportedly assisted Israel in obtaining method atomic data". [9]

Douglass never mentions Angleton's Israeli connections. He never mentions Jack Ruby's Israeli connections, though Seth Kantor expressed them very clearly in his book Who was Jack Ruby? Written in 1978. For Douglass, he is simply "a CIA-related nightclub owner, Jack Ruby". [10] It's only after we've examined the final footnotes that we can know his real name, Jacob Rubenstein (it doesn't sound so Sicilian anymore). Ruby wasn't a mob. Like his mentor Mickey Cohen, he was associated with both Meyer Lansky (chief of the judaic Crime Syndicate) and Menahem Begin (former chief terrorist of Irgun).

Finally, Douglass, like most CIA theorists, keeps Johnson out of the loop, ignoring evidence collected for 50 years of investigation that Johnson had full control before, during and after the Kennedy assassination. How could Douglass miss Johnson? First, without asking the most crucial question, how did they kill Kennedy? In another words, "Why Dallas, Texas?" Texas was a hostile state for Kennedy ("We're going to the madland," said Kennedy to Jackie), but it was Johnson's kingdom, and Johnson knew all Kennedy haters there. At least you can't get over the presumption that the conspirators knew in advance that Johnson would cover them. But Douglass did.

I say "Dimona," you say "Auschwitz."

After correspondence with Douglass about the translation, I shared my concerns with him in my email and letter. First, I advised him to read Phillip Nelson's book LBJ: The Mastermind of JFK's Assassination(2010) and I encouraged him to reconsider Johnson's role. He replied that he bought Nelson's book, but did not find it convincing without developing the subject.

Later, I asked Douglass about his silence about Kennedy's determination to anticipate Israel's atomic ambitions. Kennedy's efforts to lead the planet towards universal atomic disarmament are the central and most inspiring subject of Douglas's book. Kennedy's decisive opposition to the secret Israeli atomic bomb mill is the most dramatic manifestation of these efforts. So why did Douglass decide not to mention it? I asked him about it in interview with French Reopen 9/11 website and in a long, individual list. In an interview, Douglass replied, "I found no convincing evidence that Israel was active in the Kennedy assassination. The communicative I wrote relates to the origin of his death. For Israel to be in this story, Kennedy's opposition to the Israeli atomic weapons program would should be linked to a conspiracy against his life. In his letter he responded to my arguments, presenting a individual evidence about how judaic author André Schwarz-Bart, author of the fresh Last of the righteous"He helped me free myself from Christianity, which has specified a murderous heritage, and presented to me a judaic position which I had to see from inside a freight wagon approaching Auschwitz." From there he stated that he was not working on accepting Israel's work for the assassination of Kennedy, 9/11, or for any another crime.

Its justification seemed irrelevant and irrational, but at the same time very revealing. If I say "Dimona", Douglass says "Auschwitz", suggesting, I believe, that Jews should not be suspected of being guilty of killing JFK due to the fact that they are actually innocent victims. Or was I to realize that the very memory of Diony would endanger to hurt the Jews who had suffered so much at the hands of Christians? Or that the word "Dimona" has an anti-Semitic effect? Regardless of the reason, the disturbing fact is that Douglass chose to skip in his book anything that might propose any Israeli engagement in "Unpronounced". About Douglass we can say what Stephen Green wrote about the LBJ after 1963: "he didn't see Dimona, he didn't hear Dimona and he didn't say Dimona." [11]

Normally I would not share the content of individual letters, but I made an exception due to the fact that Douglass' mention to Shwarz-Bart is not confidential (he wrote articles about him) and due to the fact that it is in the public interest, as an honest explanation of the censorship which CIA theorists consistently impose on themselves in relation to Israel in general, and Diony in particular.

Auto-censorship can be strategically justified. For example, surviving in France, I do not openly confess my heretic beliefs about the Holocaust to avoid being thrown into prison by a powerful French inquisition. So I can imagine Douglass would censor himself as part of a strategy to minimize the hazard of being banned by publishers and maximize reading. That's not what Douglass told me, but if that's the real reason after all, I might even agree that it was worth it, due to the fact that Douglass' book converted RFK Jr. and another influential people to the false authoritative theory.

But what's different is avoiding the subject completely, and what's different is writing a book pretending that Kennedy's execution was solved erstwhile and for all, while hiding facts that might indicate another solution. In fact, it is even worse: Douglass kept quiet about Kennedy's anxiety due to Dimona, even though it would strengthen his main thesis of Kennedy's determination to halt and reverse the proliferation of atomic weapons. For any reason, Douglass made certain that he did not give his readers the slightest chance to imagine that Israel had any part in Kennedy's problem with "Unspoken". That made me say that Israel is truly unspoken in JFK and theUnspeakable, And that motivated me to compose The Unspoken Kennedy Truth.

CIA explanation as a Shield for Israel

In this article, I will explain rather in item why CIA explanation is wrong. Speaking of CIA theory, I do not mean the explanation that high-ranking CIA officers were active in the case (I believe that is the case). I mean, the explanation is that the main group of CIA directors, with respective top military commanders, planned and arranged the assassination. Of course, we can answer both the CIA and Mossad, as well as the FBI, the Pentagon, the Mafia, Cuban expatriates, Texas oil barons, and whatever else. But the crucial question is: which group was the main engine? Who came up with this intrigue long before others were drawn into it? Who led or misled everyone else involved? Who knew the global strategy by separating tasks on the basis of the essential knowledge? Not who pulled the trigger, but who pulled the main ropes? If we see, the answer can't be the CIA. This can't be Angleton or even Johnson.

I express my gratitude for the work of tens of researchers who have been working against the CIA since the 1960s. any of them are heroic. They collected adequate evidence to prove conspiracy and cover-up beyond doubt. It's a large success. However, their general CIA explanation must now be considered a failure. It was a false lead from the beginning. Vince Salandria, 1 of Warren's first critics (his first article was published in "Legal Intelligence" in 1964), considered to be a teacher by many JFK investigators and by Douglass himself (who dedicated his book to him), he disappointed in his own CIA theory, frankly speaking to Gaeton Fonzie in 1975: "I fear we were misled. All critics, including myself, were misled very early. ... The interests of those who killed Kennedy now go beyond national borders and national priorities. There is no uncertainty that we are now dealing with an global conspiracy." [12]

CIA theory, as I claim, serves as a cover for the real perpetrators, as does KGB theory. KGB explanation rapidly broke up due to the fact that it was meant to be, and due to the fact that it does not contain any truth, while CIA explanation is more resistant due to the fact that it contains any truth. The CIA is profoundly compromised, but the brains were elsewhere. They needed the CIA to be compromised adequate for the U.S. government to be forced to publicize all matters. At the same time, they usage CIA explanation to defend their own group from suspicions. That's why Israeli Sayanim Working in the information, book or movie industry, they urgently keep CIA past alive in public opinion. It was a pre-planned limited meeting. W "Did Israel kill the Kennedys?". I gave examples of Zionist agents planting signposts to direct skeptics towards the CIA and mafia (not Mossad and Miszpucka). The classical example is Arnon Milchan, maker of Oliver Stone's movie JFK, who, as he himself admits, acted as a secret Israeli agent working to strengthen the Israeli atomic program—it's always about Dimona. Other The example I missed earlier is fresh York Times revealing on April 25, 1966, that Kennedy "said to 1 of the highest officials of his administration that he wanted to "break the CIA into a 1000 pieces and spread it to the wind," an undetectable message which has now become 1 of the most frequently cited by CIA theorists. who in this case have blind religion in integrity New York Times. [13]

Additional evidence that the leading CIA theorists are little curious in seeking the fact than hiding Israel's crime came to me 2 weeks ago, in the form of an email from Benjamin Wecht, boy of Cyril Wecht and program admin Annual symposium on the assassination of JFK organised by Citizens Against Political Action (CAPA) at the Institute of Judicial Sciences and Law Cyril H. Wecht University of Dusquesne. Pittsburgh:

I am writing to inform you that the poster you proposed to present here next period was rejected due to the fact that it does not meet the academic standards of this institution, and is besides in favour of a position that we think would be peculiarly inflammable – if not even destructive – at this time and at this place. Our partner organization, Citizens Against Political Murder, full agrees with our decision.

It was a consequence to a study that Karl Golovin and I sent to "poster session" upcoming symposium on 60Th anniversary (see our poster at the end of this article and download it in advanced resolution Here.). Given the deception of Wecht's denials or my "academic standards" and given his position that accusing Israel of the crime of the century is "inciting" and "destructive", I think it is fair to call Wecht and the organization he represents, the shameless guards of Israel. Eventually, Oswald's prosecution and CIA prosecution of the crime of the century service the same purpose. This explains why the president of CAPA Cyril Wecht, a forensic pathologist tirelessly exposing a lie about "one bullet", was a friend of Arlen Specter, the inventor of that lie he helped become a U.S. Senator in 2004. [14]

Did Johnson thwart the CIA's plan?

To realize why CIA explanation is wrong, we request to start with its top inconsistencies. Almost unanimously, from Mark Lane to James Douglas, CIA theorists presume that the assassination was conceived as an operation under a false flag designed to blame Castro and/or Soviets and justify retaliation on them.

This is simply a natural presumption based on 2 facts. Firstly, Oswald was clearly set up as a communist supporting Castro. The strategy included visits and telephone conversations of Oswald's double in both the russian and Cuban embassy in Mexico City at the end of September and early October 1963. The following day, after Kennedy's assassination of tv networks and national newspapers, they presented the alleged killer as "a Marxist supporting Castro". [15] See

Secondly, we know that the invasion of Cuba to overthrow the pro-Soviet government of Castro has been a CIA obsession since the late 1950s. Under the command of officers specified as E. Howard Hunt, the CIA organized, funded and trained any of the hundreds of thousands of Cuban expatriates in Miami. As a result, "the presence of the CIA in Miami has grown to overwhelming size," wrote investigator Gaeton Fonzi. "And while this presence was omnipresent before Bay of Pigs, there was only a prelude for later, larger operation". [16] See After Bay of Pigs (April 1961) "a mass war began and this time a truly secret war against the Castro regime", codenamed JM/WAVE, covering "ten front operations throughout the area", as well as aircraft, ships, weapons warehouses and paramilitary training camps. Even after the Cuban crisis (October 1962), erstwhile Kennedy promised not to invade Cuba, Cubans against Castro on the CIA payroll attempted to provoke incidents with Cuba. For example, in April 1963, the paramilitary Alpha 66 group attacked russian ships to "publicly embarrass Kennedy and force him to appear against Castro", as CIA advisor Alpha 66, David Atlee Phillips, said. [17]

These 2 facts – a pro-Castro Pashtet profile designed by the CIA and anti-Castro CIA war plans – lead to the besides apparent conclusion that the aim of the Dallas shooting was to fake a false pretext for retaliation in Cuba. This explanation became so dominant in the JFK investigation that most people with conspiracy views consider it to be proven beyond doubt.

However, he has 1 serious flaw: there was no invasion of Cuba after the Kennedy assassination. This fact is problematic for CIA theorists. Although they don't like to put it that way, it means the CIA plan failed. If the conspirators believed that the setting of Oswald, a documented supporter of Fidel Castro associated with the russian Union, would lead to a full-scale war against Cuba, they must have been terribly disappointed. James Douglass attributes Lyndon Johnson to thwarting their plan:

The CIA case made Cuba and the USSR a scapegoat through Oswald liable for the assassination of the president and directed the United States towards invasion of Cuba and atomic attack on the USSR. However, LBJ did not want to start and end its presidency with a global war. [18]

It's fair to admit to Johnson that he wouldn't let the Soviets take the fall for Kennedy's murder; To his embarrassment, he decided not to face the CIA about what she did in Mexico City. Thus, while the secondary mark of the assassination was thwarted, its main nonsubjective was achieved. [19]

Indeed, as of November 23, Johnson worked on the telephone to suppress rumors of a communist conspiracy and began hand-picking members of Warren's commission with a clear mission to prove the explanation of a lone nut to avoid a atomic war that would kill "40 million Americans in an hour" (Johnson's theme). It seems Johnson never considered invading Cuba. He kept the promise made by Kennedy Castro and Khrushchev that he would not do so—a promise the CIA had declared a betrayal. In short, according to Douglass, Johnson was not part of the plot, in fact frustrated the conspirators who had bet on following their script. Johnson couldn't save Kennedy, but he saved us from planet War III. He besides saved the conspirators: no 1 was fired.

It's just unbelievable. As individual who is so carelessly working on JFK's execution can so freely exclude LBJ from the list of suspects, since he should be the main fishy in terms of motive (presidentship), means (VP) and possibilities (Dallas). Consider the small known fact revealed by Dr. Charles Crenshaw of Dallas Parkland infirmary in his book Conspiracy of Silence (1992), That Johnson called the infirmary erstwhile Dr. Crenshaw tried to save Oswald's life, and insisted that he leave the O.R. and approached the telephone while an unknown agent with a weapon hanging from his back pocket stayed with Oswald. "Dr. Crenshaw," Johnson said on the phone, "I want the accused killer to confess on his deathbed. There's a man in the O.R. who'll take that statement. I anticipate full cooperation on this matter." The crucial word here is "death," as Dr. Crenshaw understood. erstwhile he returned to the O.R., the agent disappeared, and Oswald's heart stopped beating. Obviously, Johnson wanted Ruby's work to be finished. Despite Johnson's scandalous direct interference, CIA theorists claim that Johnson was not active in the conspiracy, but simply in cover-up.

Again in a pill Douglass story: The CIA murdered Kennedy under the false flag of Communist Cuba, assuming Johnson intends to take revenge on it. To this end, they worked with the media (because, you know, the CIA controls the media). But Johnson, although amazed on November 22, rapidly reacted the next day and took control of all investigations, and even media coverage, to destruct the CIA's plan.

It must have been annoying to the CIA that she was tricked into invading Cuba after all they had gone through – the failure in the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban rocket "appeasement" and the problem of murdering the President. Wouldn't they want to execution Johnson now? Yet there are no signs of tension between Langley and the Oval Office after November 1963. We are told to believe that the CIA, completely disarmed by Johnson's unexpected reaction, immediately surrendered and followed the useless, absurd explanation of a lone lunatic, and even participated in defeating its own painfully staged false flag. Sam Allen Dulles, CIA manager fired by Kennedy after Bay of Pigs, joined the Warren Commission, which Johnson commissioned to suppress rumors of a communist conspiracy. The mainstream media rapidly got utilized to them, and the communist conspiracy completely disappeared from the news (where is Mockingbird erstwhile you request it?).

Think about it and make your own conclusion as to how credible this script is. It comes to this: do you think the game of conspirators failed or that it succeeded? If it worked, it wasn't a CIA plan, as CIA theorists see. It was someone's plan.

Invisible coup

Why would the CIA want to kill Kennedy? Why not just make him lose the 1964 election? surely the CIA had the means to do so if their media control was as large as the CIA theorists tell us. Did the CIA have an urgent request to kill Kennedy who couldn't wait a year? Nope. In the election year Kennedy was not going to do anything that would give his enemies a reason to call him a communist flatterer. Referring, for example, to Vietnam, he told Kenny O'Donnell, "If I were now trying to completely retreat from Vietnam, we'd have another red Joe McCarthy panic on our hands, but I can do it after re-election. Then damn it, let's make certain I'll stay. re-elected. [20] See On 11 October 1963, he signed a cautious NSAM 263 decree to retreat "1000 American soldiers by the end of 1963" and "until the end of 1965 the majority of American personnel"[21], But if Kennedy had been defeated in the 1964 election, this decree would not have had much meaning. Anyway, he was thrown in the trash by Johnson. How Last time he repeated Ron Unz:

Most of the different groups that would like to get free of [Kennedy] would simply wait and concentrate on political means, including Dulles. This included utilizing their contacts with the media to harm him politically. The only 2 who desperately needed to get free of him immediately were the LBJ, whom he was about to throw off the list and destruct politically, and Israel due to immediate efforts to destruct their atomic program in Dimon. This is why LBJ and Israel are mostly logical suspects.

The investigation into JFK's execution has to come to the conclusion that it was a coup. CIA theorists tend to minimize the first fact that the assassination led to a change of president. So let's repeat the obvious: whoever murdered Kennedy wanted to take Johnson to power. Therefore, defeating Kennedy in the election was not an option: Johnson would have fallen alongside Kennedy (his epic corruption was to be revealed anyway). Kennedy's death was Johnson's only chance to become president—and possibly to avoid prison. But Johnson couldn't do it alone, so let me rephrase: Kennedy's death was the only way the conspirators made Johnson president.

Can we identify these conspirators? If they needed Johnson as president in 1963, they had to be the ones who blackmailed Kennedy to take Johnson as vice president in 1960. "I had no choice, these bastards tried to frame me" – Kennedy Hyman Raskin erstwhile confided to justify his Johnson choice, despite strong opposition from his team, especially his brother Robert. [22] Among ""was a columnist "Washington Post"Joseph Alsop who considered himself "one of the hottest American supporters of the Israeli cause," as written in obituary "New York Times". From Arthur Schlesinger Jr., we know that Kennedy made his decision after talking behind closed doors with Alsop and his boss Philip Graham. [23] See Following the assassination of Kennedy Alsop, she was the first to call on Johnson to set up a presidential commission to convince the public that Oswald acted alone. His argument was, "You don't want to impose a painful task on the lawyer General to review evidence regarding the execution of his own brother." [24] See

In 1960, "traitors" had to put Johnson behind Kennedy's back so that, if necessary, they could knock Kennedy out and make Johnson enter the Oval Office. The intent of Kennedy's execution had nothing to do with Cuba; it was simply about replacing Kennedy Johnson. That's all he had to do, and that's all he did. It was a success, not a failure.

It must have been an "invisible coup" to convince Americans that nothing would change but the president and that under fresh circumstances Johnson would behave as Kennedy would have done. There was 1 thing Johnson reversed, but the Americans only noticed it 30 years later. It active relations between the United States and Israel and Israel’s enemies. Johnson was absolutely irreplaceable, not to the CIA, but to Israel: no another president would have gone as far as Johnson to support the Israeli invasion of Egypt and Syria in 1967. No another American president, even Truman, would have let the massacre on the USS Liberty get distant with it. Johnson not only let them escape, but helped them do so (read Phillip Nelson's book "Remember the Liberty").

Johnson was devoted to Israel, financially (via Abraham Feinberg, see below) and spiritually ("The line of judaic mothers can be traced back 3 generations in Lyndon Johnson's household tree"). [25] This explains why he cast the Warren Commission with Israeli agents specified as Arlen "Magic Bullet" Specter, later honored by the Israeli government as "an unwavering defender of the judaic state". [26] See

David Ben Gurion

Let's imagine Detective Columbo investigating the execution of president Kennedy. I'm certain he'd like to know if Kennedy had a serious dispute with anyone shortly before he died. W decent script He would then get his hands on a late declassified correspondence that shows, in words Martin Sandler, editor The Letters of John F. Kennedy(2013), that "A fierce dispute developed between Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, who believed that the endurance of his nation depends on his reaching atomic potential. And Kennedy, who was fiercely opposed to it. In May 1963, Kennedy wrote to Ben Gurion explaining why he is convinced that Israel's quest to have atomic weapons is simply a major threat to planet peace.[27]

On May 12, Ben Gurion begged Kennedy, to reconsider his position on Dimona: "Mr President, my nation has the right to exist... And this existence is threatened." [28] See Reading in the same letter a bizarre mention of "the danger that 1 bullet can put an end to life and to the government [some king]"[29], Columbo is wondering if it was a veiled threat. Reading Kennedy's next letter (June 15), he sees that Kennedy was relentless and insisted on an immediate visit "at the beginning of this summer" to "dissolve any doubts about the peaceful intentions of the Dimona project". Kennedy made it clear that American engagement in Israel could be "seriously threatened" in the event of non-compliance. amazed that Ben Gurion's answer is not in the archive, Columbus shortly learns that Ben Gurion resigned after receiving Kennedy's letter. "Many believe that his resignation was mostly due to the Kennedy dispute over Dimona," says Martin Sandler. It is insinuated that Ben Gurion's resignation was part of a change in strategy to destruct Kennedy's obstacles. He will now gotta perceive to those who have always believed in assassinations and terrorism, those whom he exiled in 1948, and now they come back and pressured him from the right. And he resigned to keep his place in history. We request to realize the predicament Ben Guriona: Egypt, Iraq and Syria have just formed the United arabian Republic and announced the "liberation of Palestine" as 1 of their goals. Ben Gurion wrote to Kennedy that knowing the Arabs, they "are able to follow the Nazi example." The claim that it was Only rhetoric is simply a misassessment of the importance of the Holocaust in psychology Jewish, especially Ben Gurion's psychology. In his eyes the Israeli needThe vague deterrence was not negotiable. If he failed overcome Kennedy's opposition diplomaticSomeone else will gotta take care of It's different.

Israel's atomic doctrine has not changed since Ben Gurion. It has 2 sides: atomic weapons for Israel, no atomic weapons for Arabs and Iranians. Anyone acting against 1 of these 2 strategical principles threatens the existence of Israel and must be eliminated. Many examples can be found in Ronen Bergman’s book Rise and Kill First: The Secret past of Israel's Targeted Assassinations (2019). [30] This is simply a passage about how Meir Dagan, appointed by Ariel Sharon to Mossad in 2002, "responsible for disrupting the Iranian atomic weapons task that both men saw as an existential threat to Israel".

Dagan acted in many ways to fulfill this task. Dagan felt that the hardest way, but besides the most effective way, was to identify key Iranian atomic and rocket scientists, find them and kill them. Mossad pointed out 15 targets he eliminated six... In addition, a general of the Iranian muslim Revolutionary defender Corps, who led the rocket project, was blown up in his office with seventeen of his men. [31]

Ben Gurion passed Kennedy's problem to those who always relied on execution to destruct obstacles to the Zionist cause. Icchak Shamir was most likely a man of this situation. Disgraced by Ben Gurion after the assassination of United Nations mediator number Folke Bernadotte in 1948, Shamir was released back to Mossad in 1955, where he formed a peculiar strike squad with erstwhile Lehi murderous members (or Stern Gang). This unit operated until 1964, 1 year after the assassination of JFK. It is estimated that she carried out 147 attacks on Israel's alleged enemies, aimed in peculiar at "German scientists working on the improvement of missiles and another advanced weapons for Egypt". [32] Icchak Shamir declared in 1943:

Neither judaic ethics nor judaic tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat. We are far from any moral scruples in our national war. We have before us the Torah's order, whose morality surpasses the morality of any another set of laws in the world: "You will erase them to the last man."[33]

Do you think that's how Bible psychopath Would he hesitate to execution Kennedy if he got a green light? I'm certain he'd like that! Conscious of committing the crime of the century to his bloodthirsty god, would he not like to movie it so that the historical evidence is recorded in history? And why not send a message with a bullet in the form of a man holding Black umbrella Chamberlain By the face? If you think it's irrational, read "Talk in Hell" John Podhoretz.

Icchak Shamir became Prime Minister in 1983, just after Menachem Begin, another terrorist liable for the 1946 King David Hotel bombing. Of course, killing Kennedy deep changed Not only America, but Israel. In fact, no single death has had a profound effect on planet past like Kennedy's death.

Abraham Feinberg

Kennedy's problem had another dimension, which in my script Columbo discovers by borrowing "Samson's Options" Seymour Hersh from the local library. There he learns that during the 1960 campaign, Kennedy was approached by a Zionist financier Abraham Feinbergwhose business, as Hersh writes, was to "provide the Democratic Party's permanent support for Israel" (in another words, buying Democratic candidates). After Kennedy's Democratic nomination, Feinberg organized a gathering of the candidate with a group of possible judaic donors in his fresh York apartment. Feinberg's message sounded, as Kennedy said to Charles Bartlett, "We know your run is in trouble. We are prepared to pay your bills if you let us control your policies in the mediate East." Kennedy was profoundly upset and decided that "if he always became president, he would do something about it." [34] Meanwhile, JFK collected 500,000 judaic dollars and raised 80 percent of judaic votes. After taking office, he appointed Myer (Mike) Feldman with his mediate East advisor. According to Alan Hart, "it was a political debt that had to be repaid. Feldman's nomination was 1 of the conditions for Feinberg and his co-workers to finance the campaign. [35] Kennedy realized that Feldman was actually an Israeli spy in the White House. "I imagine Mike has a Zionist gathering in his office," he erstwhile said to Charles Bartlett. [36] Kennedy may have concluded that it was good to know who was spying on you, but he most likely underestimated the amount of Israeli espionage that took place in his White House. He besides underestimated the degree to which Feinberg and his Zionist friends held him accountable.

Kennedy never gave his American policy to mediate east Israel. erstwhile high-ranking American diplomat Richard H. Curtiss noticed in his book A Changing Image: American Visions of the Arab-Israeli Dispute: "It is amazing to realise, in retrospect, that since Kennedy took office as a narrowly elected organization candidate heavy dependent on judaic support, he planned a completely fresh look at US policy in the mediate East. "and "developing new, good, individual relationships with individual arabian leaders". [37] The paradox did not escape Feinberg's attention. Kennedy had to be punished. Given the aggravating circumstances of his father's concessions during planet War II, a Scriptural punishment was required.

Feinberg was a powerful figure that JFK researchers should pay more attention to. Founder Americans for Haganah, he was profoundly active in an Israeli arms smuggling network in the United States, part of which was Jack Ruby. In the 1950s and 1960s, in addition to building the AIPAC, he was actively active in the Israeli pursuit of Holy atomic Weapons. [38] It was Feinberg who organized Ben Gurion's only gathering with Kennedy, which took place in fresh York City on May 30, 1961, erstwhile Ben Gurion first begged Kennedy to look distant from Dimona. [39] Commenting on this meeting, Feinberg told Hersh, "There is no way to describe the relation between Jack Kennedy and Ben Gurion due to the fact that there is no way that B.G. would treat JFK as an equal... B.G. could be mean and he hated the old man so much. "Old man" here meant the patriarch Joe Kennedy, JFK's father. [40] It should besides be noted that Feinberg had raised funds for the LBJ since his first stolen election to the legislature in 1948. [41]

Double-Cross Screenplay

Let's go back to the interior contradiction of CIA theory, the failure of the alleged CIA plan to launch an invasion of Cuba. John Newman, retired U.S. Army major and prof. of political science, came up with a solution. In the epilogue added to the 2008 book by Oswald and the CIA (Oswald and the CIA2008 (on which Ron Unz pointed out here and Here.), Newman argues that the real intent of putting Oswald as a Communist was not to trigger an invasion of Cuba, but to make a "World War III virus" that Johnson would usage as an excuse for "national security" to close all investigations and intimidate everyone. from government officials to the average American, to accepting the explanation of a lone shooter, even in the face of its apparent falsehood; "a pretext to cover up the planet War III national safety issue was built into the structure of a conspiracy to execution president Kennedy". [42] Oswald's communist ties hit the front page of the papers long adequate to get everyone panicking, and then the government offered salvation to a grateful nation: just pretend to believe that Oswald acted alone, or the Soviets would bomb you with Hiroshima. It worked perfectly due to the fact that it was Plan A, not Plan B.

Newman's analysis is simply a perfect upgrade to CIA theory. But that doesn't solve the problem. due to the fact that Newman thinks it was a CIA plan, more specifically an Angleton plan, the question is why the CIA would make a plan that would yet thwart their easy excuse to invade Cuba. We must besides consider that Angleton has defended KGB explanation his full life. erstwhile KGB officer Yuri Nosenko fled to the United States in 1964 and claimed to know for certain that the Soviets had nothing to do with the execution of John F. Kennedy, Angleton was determined to prove to him that he was a liar and held him in custody under intense interrogation and imprisonment for 1277 days. He failed to break his will, and Nosenko was yet cleared of charges. Angleton stuck to his KGB explanation much longer than essential and was the main origin of Edward Jay Epstein's book "Legend: The Secret planet of Lee Harvey Oswald" (1978), in which he blamed the KGB. [43]

Did Angleton keep KGB explanation alive to keep Americans in an work to swallow the explanation of a lone nut so as not to trigger planet War III? This is possible, but it is completely different from Angleton, who, according to all the testimony, had an authentic obsession with blaming the Soviets for all evil on the face of the earth and continued to origin tremendous harm to the CIA with his search for "the mole", especially in the russian Analysis Office, where all Russian-speaking suspects were. I think it is more likely that Angleton believed from the beginning that his plan would lead to an invasion of Cuba, dealing with Communist sympathizers, and possibly to planet War III.

This brings us back to the hypothesis that there were actually 2 separate plans, 1 of which included the other. Angleton, like Howard Hunt and respective another CIA officers dealing with Cuban refugees, pursued a plan that included blaming Castro for the Dallas shooting. However, they were double-attacked by another group of conspirators who did not search to overthrow Castro, and were not even curious in Latin America, but had another concerns. The second group monitored and most likely even inspired the CIA's plan, but turned it distant from its first target. They oversaw the full plan from a higher reflection point, while CIA conspirators only saw part of it, though they believed they saw everything.

Going 1 step further, any propose that the CIA plan did not include a real assassination, but a failed effort to not kill Kennedy, but to exert irresistible force on him to do something with Cuba. According to this hypothesis, a harmless CIA plan was utilized and modified by a group that wanted to get free of Kennedy and put Johnson in.

The plan [Hunt] was to subversion Americans v. Castro and the stimulation of patriotism to boiling point not felt since Pearl Harbor bombings. Infuriated Americans would request that our troops attack Cuba and destruct a two-bit dictator for his barbarian Test the execution of president Kennedy. ...he was about to scope assassination On president Kennedy's life yes realisticThat his failure would be seen as a miracle. Footprints were leading straight To Castro's threshold, a way that even the top amateur could not lose.

However, the plan was taken over from outside the CIA by individual who knew "all these small details [of Hunt's plan] to realize it the way they did. Something frightening, terribly sinister interrupted Hunt's mission. " Hunt's crazy plan created a crazy effect of Kennedy's location as mark at weapon range" and individual else utilized it.

As Wean interprets these revelations, "the plan Hunt about a false execution has been monitored from the beginning by a sneaky enemy"; There was a "conspiracy aimed at Double Crossing conspiracy." Wean's origin "John" (Tower) did not identify this "scrupulous enemy", but Wean, based on his cognition of organized crime, believes that the CIA's plan was taken over by "Mishpuck" – as, according to Wean, judaic gangsters called their cultural criminal organization (the word means "Family" in Yiddish). Wean has a lot to say about Mishpuck's ties to Israeli Deep State. However, like Douglass, he sees no connection to Johnson and assumes that Johnson was not part of either the CIA or Mishpuck's plot, but simply cover-up.

Writing in 1987, Wean could not come up with a more precise motive for Mishpuck's execution of Kennedy than the greed of war money. JFK was killed due to the fact that "he was 1 step distant from negotiating planet peace," and that is bad for business. We know present that Israel had a more precise and urgent request to remove Kennedy. In short, JFK's assassination was a coup d'état designed to replace pro-Egyptian president pro-Israeli president who would let Israel to produce as much atomic weapons as it wished, from materials stolen from the US and would let them to triple their territory in 1967.

To be honest, I uncertainty Wean got his double cross script from John Tower (who was already dead erstwhile Wean identified him as his informant). I believe he took it from his own reasoning and imagination.

Given all this, I believe that the script of a failed assassination staged by the CIA and turned into a real 1 by Israel is not entirely satisfactory, for the following reason: without Israeli interference, specified a CIA plan was doomed to fail, due to the fact that Kennedy would have easy seen it. He'd know Castro had nothing to do with it, and he wouldn't quit pressure. He'd alternatively his brother conduct a full investigation and find out Oswald is simply a CIA puppet. His revenge would turn against the CIA, not Castro. possibly Angleton was crazy adequate to think he could manipulate Kennedy and get distant with it. But he was besides crazy adequate to want to truly execution Kennedy.

Anyway, the most likely scenario, in my opinion at this stage, is that Angleton was encouraged or convinced, straight or indirectly, by his "friends" of Mossad and by Johnson, to organize or contribute to an ambush in Dallas, possibly with the aid of Hunt and respective Cuban exiles, not forgetting the Secret Service (although the latter's engagement in the crime, by agent Emory Roberts and respective others, was surely supervised by Johnson). [51]

Why would Israel take control of CIA operations alternatively of just killing Kennedy? It's just, like I said, they needed the CIA to be so profoundly compromised that the full U.S. government would like to keep the full thing a secret. They needed the CIA not so much to prepare the death region as to clear it and cover it up. They besides needed evidence that the CIA was a "limited gathering place" to rise skeptics in this direction – a strategy that proved so effective that CIA explanation now gained vulnerability in the mainstream.

This script is akin to the 1 I was theorizing in "The conspiracy explanation of the double cross 9/11" And I believe that this is Israel's favourite rule of action.

Laurent Guyénot is the author of the book "Kennedy's Unspoken Truth"and movie "Israel and the Kennedy brothers' murders".

Notes

[1] Russell is not a rookie in the JFK execution case, he wrote 2 books about him: The Man Who Knew besides Much (1992) and On the way of the JFK Assassins (2008).

[2]Dick Russell, The Real RFK Jr.: Trials of a fact Warrior, Skyhorse, 2023, p. 329.

[3] "DiEugenio at VMI seminar, September 16, 2017, www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/jim-dieugenio-at-the-vmi-seminar

[4] James Douglass, JFK et l'Indicible: Pourquoi Kennedy a été assassiné, Demi-Lune, 2013.

[5] John M. Newman, Oswald and the CIA: The Documented fact About the Unknown relation Between the U.S. Government and the alleged JFK Killer, Skyhorse, 2008, pp. 613-637. Fragments on Spartacus-educational.com

[6] Peter Dale Scott, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, University of California Press, 1993, p. 54.

[7] Tom Mangold, Cold Warrior – James Jesus Angleton: The CIA's Master Spy Hunter, Simon & Schuster, 1991, p. 52.

[8] Jefferson Morley, The Ghost: The Secret Life of CIA Spymaster James Jesus Angleton, St. Martin's Press, 2017, p. 78.

[9] Glenn Frankel, "The Secret Ceremony," Washington Post, 5 December 1987, p. www.washingtonpost.com. Andy Court's article "Spy Chiefs Honor CIA Friend," Jerusalem Post, 5 December 1987, is not available online.

[10] James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, Touchstone, 2008, p. xxxi.

[11] Stephen Green, Taking Sides: America's Secret Relations With a Militant Israel, William Morrow & Co., 1984, p. 166.

[12] Gaeton Fonzi, Last investigation: what the insider knows about JFK's murder, Skyhorse, 2013, Chapter 3.

[13] Tom Wicker, John W. Finney, Max Frankel, F.W. Kenworthy, "C.I.A.: Maker of Policy, or Tool?", The fresh York Times, April 25, 1966, as quoted in: Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable, p. 15.

[14] Link to article in Pittsburgh Post Gazette, which I accessed in 2022, no longer works: https://www.post-gazette.com/news/politics-federal/2004/09/14/Democrat-Wecht-backs-GOP-s-Specter-in-re-election-bid/stories/200409140195

[15] Jefferson Morley, Our Man in Mexico: Winston Scott and the Hidden past of the CIA, University Press of Kansas, 2008, p. 207.

[16] Gaeton Fonzi, Last investigation: what the insider knows about JFK's murder, Skyhorse, 2013, Chapter 4.

[17] James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, Touchstone, 2008, pp. xxv and 57.

[18] Douglass, JFK and unspoken, p. 81.

[19] Douglass, JFK and unspoken, p. 232.

[20] Douglass, JFK and unspoken, p. 126.

[21] Douglass, JFK and unspoken, p. 187.

[22] Seymour Hersh, The Dark Side of Camelot, Little, Brown & Co, 1997, p. 126, cited in: Phillip Nelson, LBJ: The Mastermind of JFK's Assassination, XLibris, 2010, p. 320.

[23] Arthur Schlesinger Jr., A 1000 Days: John Kennedy in the White home (1965), Mariner Books, 2002, p. 56. besides in: Donald Ritchie, Reporting from Washington: The past of the Washington Press Corps, Oxford UP, 2005, p. 146.

[24] Donald Gibson gives a full transcript of a telephone call in "The Creation of the 'Warren Commission'", in: James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, The Assassinations: Probe Magazine on JFK, MLK, RFK and Malcolm X, Ferral House, 2003. Alsop was a strong supporter of America's commitment to the Vietnam War and a strong advocate for escalation under Johnson, as David Halberstam papers in The Best and The Brightest, Modern Library, 2001, p. 567.

[25] Morris Smith, "Our first judaic president Lyndon Johnson? – update!," 5 Towns judaic Times, 11 April 2013, no longer at 5tjt.com but available via the Wayback device on web.archive.org/web/20180812064546/http://www.5tjt.com/our-first-jewish-president-lyndon-johnson-an-update/ French version published by Tribune Juive is available on www.tribunejuive.info/2016/11/07/un-president-americain-juif-par-victor-kuperminc/

[26] Natasha Mozgovaya, "Prominent Jewish-American politician Arlen Specter dies at 82", Haaretz, October 14, 2012, www.haaretz.com.

[27] Martin Sandler, John F. Kennedy's Letters, Bloomsbury, 2013, p. 333. perceive to Sandler about this: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4547313/user-clip-jfk-gurion-mossad-dimona

[28] Avner Cohen, Israel and the bomb, Columbia UP, 1998, pp. 109 and 14; Seymour Hersh, The Samson Option: Israel's atomic Arsenal and American abroad PolicyRandom House, 1991, p. 121.

[29] Monika Wiesak, Last president of America: what the planet lost erstwhile it lost John F. Kennedy, by hand 2022. p. 214.

[30] Ronen Bergman, Rise and Kill First: The Secret past of Israel's Targeted Assassinations, John Murray, 2019, p. xv.

[31] Bergman, First emergence and kill, p. 3.

[32] According to the article in Haaretz written by Yossi Melman and dated 3 July 1992, mentioned by Piper, The Last Judgment, pp. 118-119. This article cannot be found in the archive Haaretzbut was quoted the next day by Washington Times and Los Angeles Times: "Shamir Ran Mossad Hit Squad", Lost Angeles Times, July 4, 1992 https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-07-04-mn-1072-story.html

[33] "Document: Shamir on Terrorism (1943)", Middle East Report 152 (May/June 1988), merip.org/1988/05/shamir-on-terrorism-1943/

[34] Seymour Hersh, Option Samson: Israel atomic arsenal and American abroad policy, Random House, 1991, pp. 93, 97.

[35] Alan Hart, Zionism, the actual Enemy of the Jewst. 2: David becomes Goliath, Clarity Press, 2009, p. 269.

[36] Hersh, Samson Optionpp. 98-100, as quoted in: Piper Final Judgement, pp. 101-102.

[37] Richard H. Curtiss, A Changing Image: American Visions of the Arab-Israeli Disputeas quoted in: Piper, Final Judgement, p. 88. Curtiss book is hard to get at a reasonable price, but 1 of his speeches, "The Cost of Israel to the American Public", can be read on Alison Weir's website "If the Americans knew", https://ifamericansknew.org/stat/cost2.html

[38] Michael Collins Piper, Final Court: The missing link in the JFK assassination plot, American Free Press, issue 6, 2005, p. 96.

[39] Hersh, Samson option, p. 111; "Meeting Kennedy-Ben Gurion (30 May 1961)", www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/

[40] Hersh, Samson option, p. 102.

[41] Hart, Zionism, the actual Enemy of the Jewst. 2: David becomes Goliath, p. 250. Read Phillip Nelson about the 1948 stolen election, LBJ: The Mastermind of JFK's Assassination, XLibris, 2010, pp. 66-74.

[42] Newman, Oswald and the CIA, pp. 613-637. Fragments Spartacus-educational.com

[43] As Carl Oglesby pointed out in The JFK Assassination: The Facts and the Theories, Signet Books, 1992, p. 145, quoted in: Michael Collins Piper, Final Judgement: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy, American Free Press, issue 6, 2005, pp. 166-169.

[44] Piper, The Last Judgment, pp. 291-296.

[45] James Hepburn,Farewell America, Frontiers, 1968, pp. 337-338, quoted in: Piper, Final Judgement, p. 301.

[46] Dick Russell, A man who knew besides much, Carroll & Graf Publishers, 1992, p. 177.

[47] Russell, A man who knew besides much, p. 539.

[48] Russell, A man who knew besides much, pp. 703-704.

[49] Russell, A man who knew besides much, p. 693.

[50] Gareth Wean, There's a fish in court., Casitas Books, 1987, p. 2Nd 1996 edition, pp. 695-699. The applicable chapter (44) and another interesting thoughts of Wean can be read on https://archive.org/details/NoticesAndReportsToThePeopleByGaryWean . A useful critical reading of Chapter 44 can be read on https://kenrahn.com/JFK/Critical_Summaries/Articles/Wean_Chap_44.html

[51] For the record, Vince Palamara mentioned, without much conviction, the hypothesis of the "security test" carried out by the Secret Service, in consequence to Edgar Hoover's intrigue to take over White home safety (Secret Service was led by the Treasury Department): "The first thought of safety tests could have been to establish the function of Secret Service as President's defender, after successfully stopping the assassination attempt. On the another hand, the agency (and tests) could have been compromised by the insiders" (Vincent Michael Palamara, Survivor's Guilt: The Secret Service and the Failure to defend president Kennedy, Trineday, 2013, Kindle l. 4586). However, given the many violations of the rules and the scandalously weak operation of the Secret Service on this terrible day, I find this hypothesis unbelievable).

____
https://www.unz.com/article/kennedy-assassassination-cia-did-it-theorists-are-covering-for-israel/

Translated by Google Translator

source:https://stateofthenation.co/