AND JUST LIKE THAT, THE CLAIM VACCINES ARE THE WORLD’S BEST STUDIED PRODUCT DIES
The world’s leading vaccinologist, Dr. Stanley Plotkin, and company have just capitulated…
Injecting Freedom by Aaron Siri | July 10, 2024
Wow. After decades of Dr. Stanley Plotkin and his vaccinologist disciples insisting vaccines are the most well studied products on the planet, they just penned an article admitting precisely the opposite.
They just admitted vaccines are not properly studied—neither pre-licensure nor post-licensure. They admitted, for example, “prelicensure clinical trials have limited sample sizes [and] follow-up durations” and that “there are not resources earmarked for postauthorization safety studies.”
That is an incredible reversal. But let me provide context so nobody is fooled at what they are clearly up to:
For decades, the medical community insisted vaccines are the most thoroughly studied product ever; for example, Dr. Paul Offit said, “I think we should be proud of vaccines as arguably the safest, best tested things we put in our body.”
For decades, parents of vaccine injured children, vaccine injured adults, and other stakeholders contested these claims only to be shunned and attacked by the medical community and health agencies.
In 2018, I had the unprecedented opportunity to depose the architect of our vaccination program and the Godfather of Vaccinology, Dr. Plotkin, and lay bare the evidence that showed what these authors are now finally admitting about the utter lack of vaccine safety trials and studies. See https://thehighwire.com/ark-videos/the-deposition-of-stanley-plotkin/.
After this deposition is made public, Dr. Plotkin goes on a tirade, making demands that FDA add “missing information on safety and efficacy” in vaccine package inserts and that CDC exclude harms from its Vaccine Information Sheets, “lobbying the Gates Foundation to support pro-vaccine organizations,” working to have WHO list vaccine hesitancy as a global threat, lobbying AAP, IDSA and PIDS to “support training of witnesses” to support vaccine safety, etc. See https://icandecide.org/article/dr-stanley-plotkin-the-godfather-of-vaccines-reaction-to-being-questioned/.
The problem is, it doesn’t work. It doesn’t work because, at bottom, there are no proper safety studies. So, there is no safety data to add to the FDA package inserts, and hiding harms by removing them from CDC inserts doesn’t make them go away. Parents and other adults don’t simply stop believing what they have seen with their own eyes because CDC, WHO, the Gates Foundations, etc., won’t acknowledge them, or worse, they attack them.
That brings us to the present in which Plotkin and his disciples realize they can’t cast voodoo on the public. They can’t hide the truth. So, their only option is to try and co-opt the truth they have lied about for decades by now admitting that the studies to show vaccines are safe do not exist. But in making that admission, they conveniently fail to admit that for decades they lied, gaslit, defrauded (and I don’t use that word lightly) the public by claiming that vaccines are probably the most thoroughly safety tested products on the planet and that people should rest assured, no stone on vaccine safety was left unturned.
Thus, in their article just published, they pretend they never lied about vaccine safety. They pretend they are now just pointing out vaccine safety has never really been conducted, as if that was not known to them before.
Don’t be fooled. Their real agenda is plain, and it is not to study vaccine safety, but rather to confirm that which they already believe. This is crystal clear from the fact that, while their article admits the studies have not been done, they write in the same breath that serious vaccine harms are “rare.” But if the studies have not been done, how do they know that? The answer is, they don’t, and they don’t care to know the truth. Their goal is to protect the products they have spent their careers defending and worshipping and that have brought them fame and riches.
They also ignore the mountain of studies and data which already exist that clearly show serious vaccine harms. Just take a moment to review the large body of science around one of the adjuvants used in vaccines which multiple studies show can cause serious harm. See https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38788092/.
Finally, just look at their proposed solution. After making the a priori conclusion that harms are “rare,” ignoring all the existing studies showing harm, these folk have the audacity to want to raid the federal vaccine injury compensation fund to presumably pay themselves and their compatriots hundreds of millions of dollars to conduct the studies that would, no doubt, seek to confirm their prior conclusion that vaccine harms are “rare,” while ignoring the studies that already show serious harm.
So, with that in mind, and sorry for the long wind-up, here are the things they admit in this article for maybe the very first time:
“[T]he widespread vaccine hesitancy observed during the Covid-19 pandemic suggests that the public is no longer satisfied with the traditional safety goal of simply detecting and quantifying the associated risks after a vaccine has been authorized for use.”
Comment: The parents of vaccine injured children, vaccine injured adults, and others were never “satisfied” with seeking to assess “risks after a vaccine has been authorized.”
“Postauthorization studies are needed to fully characterize the safety profile of a new vaccine, since prelicensure clinical trials have limited sample sizes, follow up durations, and population heterogeneity.”
Comment: Let me translate: the clinical trials relied upon to license childhood vaccines are useless with regard to safety since they virtually never have a placebo control, typically review safety for days or weeks after injection, and often have far too few participants to measure anything of value, just see www.icandecide.org/no-placebo; amazingly, I just had a dispute with a Plotkin disciple not long ago in which they were clearly still not ready to admit the above truth https://x.com/AaronSiriSG/status/1673483027618623489.
“It is critical to examine adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) that have not been detected in clinical trials, to ascertain whether they are causally or coincidentally related to vaccination.”
Comment: No shit and you have been claiming for decades this was being done!
“When they are caused by vaccines (vaccine adverse reactions), the risk attributable to vaccination and the biologic mechanism must be ascertained. That science becomes the basis for developing safer vaccines, if possible, and for determining contraindications to vaccination and the compensation that should be offered for AEFIs.”
Comment: Again, no shit, and you have also been claiming for decades this was being done!
“Currently in the United States, when the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends a new routine vaccine, the only automatic statutory resource allocations that follow are for vaccine procurement by Vaccines for Children (VFC) and for the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). Although the ACIP acknowledges the need, there are currently no resources earmarked for postauthorization safety studies beyond annual appropriations, which must be approved by Congress each year.”
Comment: Again, no shit! But nice of you to finally admit it after decades of gaslighting.
“Progress in vaccine-safety science has understandably been slow — often depending on epidemiologic evidence that is delayed or is inadequate to support causal conclusions and on an understanding of biologic mechanisms that is incomplete — which has adversely affected vaccine acceptance.”
Comment: More gaslighting because had a proper clinical trial been conducted pre-licensure, we would know the safety before it is unleashed on babies and we wouldn’t need to rely on confounded-biased-conflicted-post-authorization “epidemiological” studies you now want to conduct which you make clear you only suggest because you want to avoid “public concern and consequent decreases in immunization coverage,” not because you actually care about safety.
“In 234 reviews of various vaccines and health outcomes conducted from 1991 to 2012, the IOM found inadequate evidence to prove or disprove causation in 179 (76%) of the relationships it explored, illustrating the need for more rigorous science.”
Comment: Again, no shit, and I would appreciate if you would please properly cite to the ICAN white paper from 2017 from which you have plainly lifted this point https://icandecide.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/VaccineSafety-Version-1.0-October-2-2017-1.pdf.
“Identifying the biologic mechanisms of adverse reactions — how and in whom they occur — is critical for developing safer vaccines, preventing adverse reactions by expanding contraindications, and equitably compensating vaccinees for true adverse reactions.”
Comment: Shameless to pretend you have not for decades ignored or attacked those calling for these studies while pretending a mountain of such studies showing the foregoing don’t already exist.
“[T]he budget for vaccine-safety monitoring at the CDC (which is responsible for the majority of U.S. federal efforts) has remained stagnant … at about $20 million per year” which they write is an “inadequate level of funding.”
Comment: Again, shameless to pretend parent groups have not been yelling about this issue for decades only to be ignored and attacked.
“The public [now] also wants public health authorities to mitigate and prevent rare but serious adverse events – which no longer seem rare when vaccines are given to millions or billions of people.”
Comment: They have always been given to millions or billions of people, and the studies showing the harms they cause are not rare and they already exist, but you don’t really care about that reality as vaccine safety is not really the goal.
If they are really interested in the truth about what injuries vaccines cause and the rate at which these injuries occur, then they should welcome convening a bipartisan panel which could first review all the very concerning studies and hard data that already exists on this topic (often by scientists not on pharma’s dole) and we could design additional studies together and have them run in the open so everybody has to live with the result.
(Among other reasons to demand the study be conducted in the open is that I have witnessed firsthand what happens when a study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children in large multi-million person datasets, using historical insurance data, showed vaccinated children had multiple times the rate of numerous chronic diseases – the study gets buried hence the need to do it in the open.)
Plotkin and company should welcome studies which can show vaccines have not contributed to the rise in chronic childhood disease (many of which are immune mediated diseases) from 12% of children in the early 1980s (when CDC recommended 7 routine childhood injections) to over 50% of children now (when CDC recommends over 90 routine childhood injections).
And I think they do welcome such studies if they can assure that the outcome would show vaccines do not cause these harms. Alas, the reality is that (as they know) studies showing vaccines contribute to this rise already exist. But their goal, in any event, is not to really study safety. Rather it is to prove their prior assumption that vaccines are safe and harms are “rare.” This approach is how they designed VAERS, V-SAFE, VSD, and every other “safety” system.
As is transparent from their article, the only reason they even pretend to care about vaccine safety is that they want to avoid reduction in vaccine uptake – not actually assure safety.
That all said, if they are really well-meaning, I would welcome collaborating. To be fair, I will email all four of them to request a meeting to review existing science and design studies mutually agreed upon. If they are really interested in vaccine safety, they should welcome that (I have no hard feelings despite their attacks on me and I hope they can rise above any hard feelings they have for the sake of protecting children). Most importantly, I’m willing to live with the results of those studies. Are they?
JFK Jr. and the Jewish Curse on the Kennedys
BY LAURENT GUYÉNOT • UNZ REVIEW • JULY 12, 2024
John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Jr. died 25 years ago, with his wife and his sister-in-law.
He was assassinated. I’ll summarize the evidence below.
He was assassinated because he was JFK’s son, and had political ambitions driven by a strong filial piety. He had to die for the same reason his uncle RFK had to die in 1968: no Kennedy should ever approach the White House again — unless, Rabbi Jeffrey Salkin suggests, he is also a Schlossberg. And JFK Jr. could have reached the White House in eight years (he would have been 48 in November 2008; his father became president at 43).
“The Kennedy family is a clan, a tribe, a sovereignty, and a dynasty,” once wrote Arthur Krock, who knew them well.[1] None of the Kennedys can be understood as mere individuals. And so, in a deeper sense, the reason JFK Jr. had to die is that he was the grandson of the founding patriarch, Joe Kennedy. The point was candidly made by John Podhoretz in an op-ed piece for the New York Post, published on the very day when JFK Jr.’s body was recovered from the ocean floor, together with the bodies of his wife and sister-in-law. In that most disgusting piece of fiction, Podhoretz imagines that the Devil is telling Joe in Hell: “every time you think your family is on its way back to glory, I just have to do something. Like I did this weekend, with your grandson John.” According to Podhoretz, speaking in the name of the Devil to Joe, JFK Jr. died in retribution for what his grandfather did to the Jews, “when you were America’s ambassador to England, saying all those nice things about Hitler, doing everything you could to prevent Jewish emigration from Nazi Germany. Thousands of Jews died because of you.”
Note that, logically, the Jewish god Yahweh, not the Devil, should want to punish Joe by killing his grandson. Unless, of course, Yahweh is the Devil. Podhoretz took no time to ponder this question; he could not wait one day to voice his delight, while all Americans were mourning the prince of Camelot.
John Podhoretz is the son of Norman Podhoretz (his colleagues at the Washington Times used to call him “John P. Normanson” because he had been introduced to them as “John Podhoretz, Norman’s son”). Norman will be remembered as the man who wanted so much to launch World War IV. The Podhoretz love world wars because world wars are always good for Israel. Which is also why they have an eternal hatred for Joe Kennedy, the man who almost succeeded in averting World War II. As I explained in “Joseph P. Kennedy, the Cursed Peacemaker,” Joe Kennedy was not a friend of Hitler, but a friend of peace, just like Neville Chamberlain. “I am pro-peace, I pray, hope, and work for peace,” he declared on his first return from London in December 1938.[2]
For trying to prevent the Jews from drawing America into the war, Joe Kennedy was deemed a holocaustic arch-anti-Semite. It is quite astonishing, actually, that his sons could do so well in American politics, despite their father’s reputation as a Hitler-appeaser. It is, in part, a tribute to Joe’s political shrewdness. Here is a funny story told by John Hughes-Wilson:
Joseph Kennedy solved the problem in 1956 by secretly asking a prominent media and entertainment business mogul called Joe Hooker to orchestrate a right-wing press campaign against his son, by accusing the then Senator Jack Kennedy of being a “Jewish puppet”, secretly in hock to Jewish interests and influences. Hooker and his neo-Fascist contacts duly smeared JFK in the Press. “Kikes for Kennedy” ran one headline. The American Nazi party denounced him as a “Jew lover”. The Jewish lobby was impressed and so, when the request for campaign funds duly appeared, Jewish political financiers decided to back Kennedy.[3]
I doubt if the trick impressed the group of financiers gathered by Abraham Feinberg after the 1960s primaries. “Jack,” they said to JFK, “everybody knows the reputation of your father concerning Jews and Hitler. And everybody knows that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.” They gave him $500,000 as campaign fund nonetheless, according to Seymour Hersh[4].
They thought they had bought Kennedy’s foreign policy, but they would soon feel cheated: as promised, Kennedy did name Mike Feldman as his advisor on the Middle East, but he treated him as the Israeli agent that he was, and went on befriending Nasser.
The Zionists thought Joe Kennedy’s background could provide them with some leverage on his son. Their preferred Democratic candidate had been Lyndon Johnson, who during the primaries had attacked John as being the son of a “Chamberlain umbrella man” who “thought Hitler was right” (the black umbrella had become a symbol of Chamberlain and the 1938 Munich Conference).[5] When LBJ lost to JFK, JFK was blackmailed, through Philip Graham and Joseph Alsop of the Washington Post, into picking Johnson as vice-president. No one knows for sure what the blackmail was about. Kennedy’s long-time secretary Evelyn Lincoln thought it was “about womanizing, and things in Joe Kennedy’s background.”[6] Since the sex life of politicians was not the type of things that the press reported back then — and the Washington Post was no exception — my guess is that it was more about “Joe Kennedy’s background”. Like Feinberg’s Jewish friends, Graham and Alsop must have reminded JFK of “the reputation of your father concerning Jews and Hitler.”
President Kennedy became a huge problem for Israel, not only for wanting to deprive Israel of the holy nuke, but also for trying to end the Cold War: a rapprochement between Kennedy and Khrushchev, both supporting Nasser’s secular nationalism and pan-Arabism, was Ben-Gurion’s worst nightmare. The Soviet minister of Foreign Affairs Andrei Gromyko recalled in his memoirs a revealing conversation he had with President Kennedy in the White House, October 3, 1963 — a conversation which, he writes, “left a deep impression in my mind.”
As I entered his study, I found him smiling and as usual in a good mood. He said, ‘Why don’t we go out on to the terrace and talk one to one without interpreters?’
Naturally I agreed, and we left the room.
He immediately began to talk about the internal situation in the USA: ‘The fact is, there are two groups of the American population which are not always pleased when relations between our two countries are eased. One group consists of people who are always opposed to improvement for ideological reasons. They are quite a stable contingent. The other group are people “of a particular nationality’” — he meant the Jewish lobby — who think that always and under all circumstances, the Kremlin will support the Arabs and be an enemy of Israel. This group has effective means for making improvement between our countries very difficult.’ He ended briefly: ‘That is the reality. But I think it is still possible to improve relations, and I want Moscow to know that.’
… At the end of our conversation, Kennedy said, ‘I just wanted you to know some of the difficulties the President of the United States has to face when dealing with questions of Soviet-US relations.’
… I don’t know why, but when I first heard the Tass report of Kennedy’s murder it was that talk on the White House terrace that came into my mind — what he had said about there being opponents to his policy.[7]
From Israel’s point of view, JFK was definitely an appeaser like his father. Israel had needed WWII, and Israel now needed WWIII (as neocon Norman Podhoretz insists on calling the Cold War). “What’s wrong with the Kennedys? Why do they always want to prevent or end the wars that Israel needs? A curse on their house!”
The Kennedy curse is a kabbalistic concept that has been thrown to the public in such books as The Sins of the Father (Ronald Kessler) and The Kennedy Curse (Edward Klein). The title of the first book, written in 1997, is a reference to Exodus 20:5: “I, Yahweh, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.” The second book, published in 2004, includes in its introduction a story “told in mystical Jewish circles”, of a rabbi who was “fleeing the Nazis” “shortly before the outbreak of World War II, and “put a curse on Kennedy, damning him and all his male offspring to tragic fates.”[8] It easy to see what the “Kennedy curse” has in common with John Podhoretz’s op-ed: blame it on Satan, but know it’s about messing with the Jews.
Implicit in Klein’s story is that the curse entered into action with the death of Joe Kennedy Jr., the eldest of the brothers, who was killed in action on August 12, 1944, as a patrol bomber pilot. He would have been President Kennedy. The destiny passed to the second son.
The Kennedy Curse fell again on November 22, 1963. In my article “The Umbrella Man, the Sins of the Father, and the Kennedy Curse,” I highlighted the significance of the 39-year-old man named Louie Steven Witt who had decided to open a black umbrella at the precise spot and time of President Kennedy’s execution. In 1978, he explained to the House Select Committee on Assassinations that he intended to “kind of do a little heckling” to JFK about his father’s support for Chamberlain’s appeasement policy. But the coincidence between the heckling and the killing was … well, pure coincidence, he said, and the HSCA asked him no more questions.
I had failed to pay attention to the fact that Witt was not alone in doing his “little heckling”. On the Zapruder film and on several photos, we can see, on his front right, a man saluting JFK. This “dark complected man,” as he is sometimes referred to by JFK researchers, has never been identified. This is odd, because he was obviously with Witt. Minutes after the shots that killed Kennedy, they were sitting beside each other. This suggests that their actions were a coordinated symbolic act. And this in turn suggests that the salute of Witt’s fellow was meant as a Nazi salute. The black umbrella by itself might not have been a clear enough message, so the nazi salute made the message much clearer.
Were they cognizant Zionist agents? I don’t think so. Their sitting together after seeing JFK’s head blown before their eyes suggests that they were stunned and wondering what the hell they had been doing. I suppose they had been sent to do their “little heckling” without being told that it would spice up the killing. Who would be so crazy as to put himself in that position knowingly, standing almost in the line of the Grassy Knoll sniper? Perhaps they had been convinced to do it for money, or as a wager, or as a service to Witt’s Jewish boss at the Rio Grande National Life insurance Co where he worked.
Whatever the case may be, if there was still any doubt that Israel was the prime mover in the assassination of John Kennedy (the evidence is in my book The Unspoken Kennedy Truth), Umbrella Man and Nazi-Salute Man are the ultimate signature. But to see this, you need some spiritual insight into Jewishness and Kennedyness.
Jewishness is the evil soul of the U.S., best embodied today by the neocons (of whom Norman Podhoretz, editor-in-chief of Commentary for 35 years, is the founding father). Kennedyness was the good soul of America. Above anything else, the Kennedys stood for strong family values and service to country to the point of sacrifice. “Joseph P. Kennedy,” writes Laurence Leamer, “created one great thing in his life, and that was his family. . . . Joe taught that blood ruled and that they must trust each other and venture out into a dangerous world full of betrayals and uncertainty, always returning to the sanctuary of family.”[9] Joe also taught his children that they had to pay back to America what America had given them. The Kennedy family symbolized the America that Americans and the world loved.
This is why John F. Kennedy, Jr. was the “charismatic crown prince of America’s royal family,” as the New York Daily News wrote the day after his death.[10] He was Prince Hamlet haunted by the ghost of his murdered father, destined to avenge him and save the kingdom from the usurpers. The Kennedy tragedy is the most Shakespearian, the most paradigmatic, the most archetypal story in all American history. And America has not a worthy monument in their honor. So many Holocaust museums to honor the Jews’ dead, and not one chapel to pray for the Kennedys!
As a matter of fact, only Israel has a Kennedy memorial of any significance. It was explicitly designed to look like “the stump of a felled tree,” and it does. Do you get the idea? It symbolizes Israel’s plan for the Kennedy dynasty. You can trust Jews to choose their symbols carefully. And don’t imagine people can see any statue or even a single photo of Kennedy inside; it is as hollow as a dead stump. It is a memorial to erase the memory of Kennedy. It reminds me of the paradoxical command: “remember to erase Amalek’s memory” (Deuteronomy 25:19 and Exodus 17:14).
The Zionists’ hatred for the Kennedys runs deep, despite their histrionic “crocodile tears” after JFK’s death. When meeting the new president on May 30, 1961 in New York, Ben-Gurion could not help but see in him the son of a Hitler-appeaser. Abraham Feinberg (who arranged the meeting) recalls that “Ben-Gurion could be vicious, and he had such a hatred of the old man [Joe Kennedy].”[11] Ben-Gurion had no illusion about the fact that John was very much his father’s son. Had he not, in his 1956 Pulitzer-Prize-winning book Profiles in Courage, vindicated Senator Robert Taft for denouncing the Nuremberg Trials as a parody of justice, and the hanging of German officials as “a blot on the American record which we shall long regret”?[12] It certainly didn’t escape the Zionists that, on May 11, 1962, President Kennedy invited Charles Lindbergh and his wife at a grand reception at the White House, sitting them at the presidential table and hosting them overnight. Lindbergh had been the most prominent voice for the America First Committee in 1940, publicly accusing the Jews of pushing America into the war. Since then, he had been living in reclusion.
Moreover, Ben-Gurion believed that JFK was paving the way for a new Holocaust by preventing Israel from acquiring the indispensable nuclear deterrence against the Arabs. This is what Ben-Gurion meant when describing Nasser as a new Hitler and the Arabs as the new Nazis, in one of his last letters to Kennedy, May 12, 1963, in response to Kennedy’s demand for immediate inspections of Dimona: “Knowing them I am convinced that they are capable of following the Nazi example. … Mr. President, my people have a right to exist … and this existence is in danger.” Monika Wiesak has noted that, in that very letter, the father of the Jewish State made a cryptic digression about Jordanian King Hussein, writing: “there is always a danger that one single bullet might put an end to his life and regime.”[13]
Salvator Astucia has, I think, well captured the essence of the Kennedy problem for Israel:
The Israelis distrusted President Kennedy because of his father. It is widely known that Joseph Kennedy Sr. developed a strong loathing of Jews from his business dealings with them in finance, Hollywood, and politics. And the elder Kennedy had groomed four sons for the White House, but his oldest — Joe, Jr — had been killed in World War II. President Kennedy’s inauguration in January 1961 marked the beginning of a dynasty that would likely continue until 1985 (after the three surviving sons had each completed two terms). With this background information, it becomes clear that there was one primary motive for the assassination: to destroy the Kennedy Dynasty.[14]
Under a Kennedy presidency, there would be no Six-Day War, the Palestinian refugees would recover their land, AIPAC would be registered as a foreign agent, and the Holocaust would certainly not become a State cult enforced by ADL inquisition. And of course, Israel would never have become a nuclear State.
Destroying the Kennedy dynasty was probably a sacred oath taken by all B’nai B’rith top officials (Dallas was full of them). JFK Jr. was a marked man, if not from the moment he saluted his father’s coffin on his third birthday, at least from the moment it became clear that he had the ambition and the potential to reach the White House. Killing his political future was not enough, and probably not possible.
I wrote a long article in January 2019, titled “The Broken Presidential Destiny of JFK, Jr.”, reviewing the evidence that JFK Jr. was assassinated. I will now summarize it.
Evidence of assassination
It was Friday July 16, 1999, at 9:39 pm, when JFK Jr.’s voice was last heard by Martha’s Vineyard air traffic controller Buddy Wyatt, asking, in a calm voice, instruction for landing. (This was reported the next day by U.S. Coast Guard Petty Officer Todd Burgun in a live phone interview with anchor Susan Wornick of Boston WCVB-TV.)
About two minutes later, John’s plane suddenly plummeted into the ocean at the radar-recorded speed of 4,700 feet per minute. Victor Pribanic, an attorney from Pennsylvania who was fishing for striped bass that night and had noticed the aircraft flying toward the island, reported to the The Martha’s Vineyard Times (cited in the New York Daily News, July 21, 1999): “I heard an explosion over my right shoulder. It sounded like an explosion. There was no shock wave, but it was a large bang.”
Based on these facts, the only rational explanation is that the plane suffered a sudden structural damage by explosive, making it impossible to maintain in the air; blowing off a part of a wing or the tail would have been enough, and would have required only a very small device magnetically affixed to the plane.
These facts, however, were quickly removed from public awareness. Pribanic’s testimony never made it to the national news. And Kennedy’s 9:39 call to Martha’s Vineyard airport was quickly denied and erased from the narrative. Instead, on July 18, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) produced some “newly found” radar “evidence” which supposedly showed Kennedy’s flight exhibiting signs of difficulties and irregularities long before it disappeared from the radar.
The official narrative was a mix of two ingredients, bad weather and pilot recklessness, coated by a heavy layer of “the Kennedy curse”. Not a word of the possibility of foul play.
When the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) concluded its investigation eleven months later, it issued a news release that attributed the plane crash to “the pilot’s failure to maintain control of the airplane during a descent over water at night, which was a result of spatial disorientation. Factors in the accident were haze and the dark night.” That is all the corporate news retained. However, a close reading of the full report reveals many unanswered questions and even contradictions with its conclusion. For example, the NTSB final report quotes Martha’s Vineyard air traffic controller Buddy Wyatt as stating that the visibility was good: “I remember aircraft on visual approaches saying they had the airport in sight between 10 and 12 miles out. I do recall being able to see those aircraft and I do remember seeing the stars out that night.”
Also, the sudden drop of altitude from 2,200 feet to 1,100 feet in 14 seconds, stated in the full report, is hard to reconcile with the news release statement. Disorientation implies that the pilot was not aware that he was flying straight into the ocean. But that is impossible, as the NTSB Investigator-in-Charge, Robert Pearce, had admitted as early as July 20, 1999: “They were aware they were going down. With that kind of descent rate, it is going to be noisier than hell in the cockpit.”
In contrast to what the news media kept hammering, the NTSB report reckoned that JFK Jr. had a flight experience of “about 310 hours, of which 55 hours were at night.” During the last fifteen months, he had made 35 flights between Fairfield airport, N.J., and Martha’s Vineyard, including five at night. Three certified flight instructors (CFI) quoted in the report describe John as an “excellent”, “methodical” and “very cautious” pilot.
No matter how we twist or downplay all other data, the very conditions of the plane’s sudden dive, which is an undisputed fact, should raise a strong suspicion of a major and sudden mechanical failure. As Anthony Hilder put it:
A finely-tuned, well-kept first-class airplane doesn’t just drop out of the sky and head straight down into the ocean unless it’s blown out of the sky or the pilot deliberately sends it into a dive to kill himself and his passengers.
Evidence of cover-up
Some testimonies used in support of the theory of JFK Jr.’s incompetence and recklessness are highly suspicious. A case in point is Kyle Bailey, “the last man to see Kennedy alive at the Fairfield airport,” who claimed to have had bad a premonition on seeing him take off: “I told my family, ‘I can’t believe he’s going up in this weather’,” he said on July 18. Bailey went on becoming an aviation analyst specialized in plane crashes, and regularly working for major network such as Fox News, CBS, ABC, NBC, and BBC. Bailey appeared in the documentary Curse on the Kennedys? and then in the ABC documentary The Last Days of JFK Jr., aired in January 2019, in which he repeated his story. Kyle Bailey is to JFK Jr.’s death what Mark Walsh is to 9/11.
The search for the plane and the bodies was entirely controlled by the military, although JFK Jr. had never been in the army. A 17-nautical mile no-fly zone and no-entry zone was established around the crash site. No civilians or media crew were allowed in this area. On July 20, 1999, as we read in the NTSB report, “the airplane wreckage was located by U.S. Navy divers from the recovery ship, USS Grasp.” Why was the Navy, rather than civilian rescue craft, tasked with the retrieval of JFK Jr.’s crashed airplane? More disturbing still, why did the Pentagon take exclusive control of news reporting from July 18?
There are issues also with the botched autopsies, as Joanna Weiss and Matthew Brelis of the Boston Globe wrote on July 23, 1999 in an article titled “JFK Autopsy Rushed.”
But the most suspicious thing of all is the way the bodies were disposed of: they were cremated, then their ashes were taken aboard a Navy destroyer, and scattered into the sea, near the place where they had met their death. “The burial for the 35th president’s son was reportedly carried out in keeping with his expressed wishes,” noted journalist Paula Maxwell. What? At age 39, JFK Jr. had expressed his will not to be buried with his father and mother at Arlington cemetery and instead to be cremated and his ashes spread above the ocean? Who can believe such a thing? The Boston Globe reported on July 22 , “Kennedy’s family requested a burial at sea, and the Pentagon granted that request.” But, the next day, the same newspaper expressed surprise:
The cremated remains of John F. Kennedy Jr., his wife, and her sister were cast from a warship to the ocean currents in a manner not favored by the Catholic Church and in a ceremony that occurred only after the intercession of Pentagon brass. The Roman Catholic Church prefers the presence of a body at its funeral rites. And the Defense Department rarely accords the honor of burial at sea to civilians.
No other Kennedy had ever been cremated. The reasons given for cremating JFK Jr. body do not make any sense and are contradictory. The New York Times wrote:
“Kennedy family members, citing his wishes and hoping to avoid having a spectacle made of Mr. Kennedy’s final resting place, have decided to have his body cremated and his ashes scattered at sea in a Navy ceremony, a family adviser said.”
That is utterly unbelievable. The bodies must have been cremated and scattered for another reason: to prevent any possibility of ever finding traces of explosives in the bodies.
But the idea of wanting to deprive JFK Jr. of a final resting place that could possibly encourage a popular Kennedy cult has also a strong biblical and B’nai B’rith smell. Who, among “Kennedy family members”, could possibly have wanted this? It happens that, according to information found in RFK Jr.’s diary, published by the New York Post, Ann Freeman, Carolyn and Lauren Bessette’s mother, “began asking that her two daughters be buried near her home in Greenwich, Connecticut.” It was Edwin Schlossberg, Caroline Kennedy’s Jewish husband, who convinced her to have her two daughters cremated and their ashes spread in the ocean. “He bullied, bullied, bullied the shattered grieving mother,” writes RFK Jr.
The heir and the Avenger
JFK Jr. had grown up with a sense of destiny. According to biographer Christopher Andersen (The Good Son): “Jackie made sure that John was constantly exposed to the people who knew John [President Kennedy] best.” In her last letter to her son before dying to lymphoma in 1994, she wrote: “You, especially, have a place in history.” John told Lloyd Howard in 1997: “She expected me to follow in my father’s footsteps, and of course I will. But I don’t think the time is right just yet.” Just like his father before him, John Jr. first pursued a career in journalism: in 1995, he founded the magazine George, which engaged in controversial issues of deep politics. His longtime friend Robert Littell wrote, in The Men We Became: My Friendship with John F. Kennedy Jr. (St. Martin’s Press, 2004): “George was also an opportunity for John to build a platform from which he might possibly move into political life.” George was also a means for John to interact with political actors and thinkers.
Brought up in the worship of his father, John had taken a keen interest in “conspiracy theories” about his death at least since his late teens. His knowledge deepened in his thirties, and motivated him to publish in a special “conspiracy issue” of his magazine George, eight months before his death, a cover article by Oliver Stone, director of the groundbreaking film JFK, titled “Our Counterfeit History”.
At age 39, John had made up his mind to launch his political career by seeking an electoral mandate in New York State, and he was about to announce it publicly. According to his friend Billy Noonan (Forever Young: My Friendship with John F. Kennedy, Jr., Viking Press, 2006), he was about to enter the race for the New York Senate seat left vacant by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, which Hillary Clinton also coveted (and ultimately got). John was a New Yorker, and Clinton would have stood no chance against him.
JFK Jr. had also voiced privately his ambition to ultimately reach for the presidency. Given his personality and his popularity, he had high chances to make it in less than 20 years. Pierre Salinger, one of the men Jackie had asked to educate John about his father, had become very close to him, and declared on French radio Europe 1, on July 19, 1999: “I felt that in the coming year John Junior would also become a politician. It’s my point of view. And with other people, we thought he was going to be a Democratic candidate for the next presidential election.” Others, such as John’s assistant at George, RoseMarie Terenzio, thought “he would’ve run for president … in 2008.”
In 1968, John Kennedy’s brother ran for President with the intention, not just to save the Kennedy legacy, but to reopen the investigation on his brother’s death (as David Talbot has demonstrated in his book Brothers). He was assassinated. In 1999, Robert Kennedy’s nephew was about to announce his entry into politics, with the clear intention to go all the way to the White House. There is no question that one of his goals in life was to expose the murderers of his father. His old high school girlfriend Meg Azzoni, in her self-published book, 11 Letters and a Poem (2007), writes that as a teenager, “his heartfelt quest was to expose and bring to trial who killed his father, and covered it up.”
I rephrase my conclusion from my longer 2019 article:
So, was JFK Jr. himself assassinated? Here is man whose road to the presidency seemed traced. No other man of his age had better chances to reach the White House one day. And no other man in the world had more reasons to want the 1963 Kennedy assassination reinvestigated. He was already trying to educate the public through his magazine, at the risk of exposing his own beliefs, something no other Kennedy had ever done (even RFK had kept his doubt on the Warren report private, and his plan to reopen the case secret). And this man, his friend Billy Noonan believes, was just about to announce his candidacy for a New York Senate seat, which everyone would have understood as the first step toward the White House. Pierre Salinger and others even believe he would have run for president in 2000. What are the odds that he would die at this precise moment by accident? … If it was an accident, then the Devil caused it. Or was it Yahweh?
One more thing: JFK Jr. died two years before 9/11. Who knows what influence he would have had on the American public, either as a senator or as the editor of a magazine with a strong interest in conspiracies? He may very well have stood in the way of the War on Terror, the WWIV that Norman Podhoretz was calling for. You never know, with those Kennedy peacemakers!
Israel believes in preemptive assassinations, as demonstrated by Ronen Bergman in Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations.
Israel killed JFK Jr.
A curse on Israel!
Notes
[1] Arthur Krock, Memoirs: Sixty Years on the Firing Line, Funk & Wagnalls, 1968, p. 328.
[2] Michael R. Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt: The Uneasy Alliance, Open Road, 1979, p.187.
[3] John Hughes-Wilson, JFK: an American coup d’état, John Blake, 2013, pp. 88-89.
[4] Seymour Hersh, The Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy, Random House, 1991 , p. 96.
[5] Robert Caro, The Years of Lyndon Johnson, vol. IV: The Passage of Power, Alfred Knopf, 2012, p. 104. Also in Krock, Memoirs, op. cit., p. 362.
[6] Seymour Hersh, The Dark Side of Camelot, Little, Brown & CO, 1997, p. 129.
[7] Andrei Gromyko, Memoirs, Doubleday, 1989, pp. 181-182.
[8] Edward Klein, The Kennedy Curse: Why Tragedy Has Haunted America’s First Family for 150 Years, Saint Martin’s Press, 2004.
[9] Laurence Leamer, Sons of Camelot: The Fate of an American Dynasty, HarperCollins, 2005, kindle l. 262-267.
[10] Dave Saltonstall, Austin Fenner, Helen Kennedy and Greg B. Smith, “John F. Kennedy Jr. went missing after taking a flight with his wife and her sister in 1999,” New York Daily News, July 18, 1999, on nydailynews.com
[11] Hersh, The Samson Option, op. cit., p. 103.
[12] Robert Taft, October 6, 1946, quoted in John F. Kennedy, Profiles in Courage, 1956, Harper Perennial, 2003 , p. 199.
[13] Monika Wiesak, America’s Last President, 2022, p. 214.
[14] Salvador Astucia, Opium Lords: Israel, the Golden Triangle, and the Kennedy Assassination, 2002, p. 5, on www.whale.to/b/astucia.pdf.
The Ways of the Jewish Slave Traders
NOI RESEARCH GROUP • UNZ REVIEW • JULY 8, 2024
“As Mr. Yakub continued to preach for converts, he told his people that he would make the others work for them. (This promise came to pass.) Naturally, there are always some people around who would like to have others do their work. Those are the ones who fell for Mr. Yakub’s teaching, 100 per cent.” — The Most Honorable Elijah Muhammad, chapter 55 of Message to the Blackman in America titled “The Making of Devil”
“Three blessings a Jewish man is obligated to pray daily: ‘(Blessed art Thou,) Who did not make me a gentile; Who did not make me a woman; and Who did not make me a slave.’” — Babylonian Talmud, Menahot 43b–44a[*]
The story of the Jewish American experience that most Jews want to believe, and want the world to believe, is one of almost endless historical victimhood. They insist that they fled anti-Semitic oppression in Europe, landing safely on Ellis Island long after the Civil War’s end in 1865, and certainly some did. By their hard work, strong religious bonds, and reverence for communal education they succeeded against all odds, becoming, as Isaiah exhorts,[1] “a light unto the world.” As their story goes, they altogether eluded the ugly business of plantation slavery—but had they been here, they assure us, Jews would have been leading the abolitionists. After all, their own alleged enslavement to Pharaoh would have made them—of all the groups of Caucasian people—more sympathetic toward Black suffering.
To a trusting, Bible-believing people this Jewish self-portrait sounds plausible and is consistent with a Christian doctrine that sanctifies God’s Chosen People, the so-called Children of Israel (Deuteronomy 7:6–11). But the people who today call themselves Jews have now collided with their own Jewish scholars and historians who have presented an entirely different and far more troubling story about American Jewish history and the central role of Jews in the greatest crime in world history—the Black African Holocaust.
For the most part, Americans—white and Black—are entirely unaware that when the trans-Atlantic slave trade began in the 1500s, it was focused on shipping enslaved Africans to the sugar plantations of South America and the Caribbean islands centuries before expanding to the cotton fields of the American South in the mid-1700s. In the entire history of slavery in the western hemisphere as many as 9 out of 10 stolen Africans were shipped to those tropical climes—not to Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, or South Carolina. The map below illustrates by the thickness of the arrows the relative proportions of Africans shipped to the New World, and, as shown, relatively few made it into what was to become the United States.
And all during this unprecedented racial tragedy Jews claim they were preoccupied in Europe, nowhere near the scene of the crime. Dr. Robert Swierenga very directly challenges that oft-repeated Jewish alibi (emphasis ours):
“At the birth of the United States in 1787 the Jews of the slave islands [Caribbean] outnumbered those in North America by five times and may have equaled those in England. Surinam had fourteen hundred Jews and Curaçao fifteen hundred—both nearly one half of the total white population. By contrast, the entire United States in 1790 numbered less than fifteen hundred Jews.”[2]
Seeking Religious Liberty?
But doesn’t this early Jewish presence in the “slave islands” conflict drastically with the prevailing image of the Jews as freedom-loving religious refugees? This is the perfect time to have an adult conversation about the trans-Atlantic slave trade and the Jewish role in it, and we must start by putting to bed the infantile notion endemic in this Jewish American fairy tale that Europeans sailed across the ocean “seeking religious liberty.” Every school child learns about the brave and pious Pilgrims who sailed to Plymouth on the Mayflower in 1620 “seeking religious liberty” from the tyrannical king of England. But the reality is that the “Pilgrims” were under contract with a private business named the Company of Merchant Adventurers, which expected them to acquire lumber, beaver and otter furs, and any other riches to be found or stolen. Thus, the “Pilgrims”—who referred to themselves as “separatists,” not as “pilgrims”—worked under contract to a private enterprise whose investors cared nothing about religion. More than a century before those Separatists, a Spaniard named Christopher Columbus was privately financed for his infamous voyage of discovery in 1492, by a wealthy Jew named Luis de Santangel. According to Simon Wiesenthal, in his book Sails of Hope (p. 168), “But for this man, Columbus’s expedition would never have taken place.” A practiced slave dealer, Columbus captured 600 of the aboriginal people he encountered to auction off back in Spain. And so it is with the Jewish newcomers who were seeking profits in sugar, cotton, tobacco, and other riches of the New World. Jewish scholar Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi describes them:
“[T]hese Jews engaged in an almost untrammeled range of economic activity, bore arms in the militias, owned land and ran plantations, and were represented in local councils. They had arrived at the closest point to full legal equality possible for Jews prior to the emergence of the modern nation-state.”[3]
They were seeking not “religious freedom” but the freedom to trade on an international scale. In fact, when they were first barred from acquiring Black slaves in the colonies they entered, the Jews considered it an act of “anti-Semitism.” The riches they sought could not be extracted without free and forced African labor. And as Jewish merchants followed their Yakubian directive—making others work for them—this is where the Black–Jewish relationship in the West truly begins.
In fact, there are scant references to the Jewish faith, Judaism, in any of the extant records of these early Jewish settlers. Nothing about Moses, Aaron, The Ten Commandments; no mention of the Ark of the Covenant; and nothing about being any “Light unto the Worlds.” If there were no profit in it, there was no “Jew” in it—and there was plenty of profit in Black slavery.[4]
Surinam, located in northeastern South America, holds the distinction of having the oldest Jewish community in the Americas, Jews having formed a synagogue in 1665. British Jewish historian Dr. Cecil Roth tracks them in his History of the Marranos: “The Jews of [Surinam] were also foremost in the suppression of the successive negro revolts, from 1690 to 1722: these as a matter of fact were largely directed against them, as being the greatest slave-holders of the region.
And here is where—unbelievably—we find the first inkling of the Jewish religion. The very first published Jewish prayer in their New World paradise, was a prayer titled “Old Hebrew Prayer in Time of Revolt of the Negroes,” in which the rabbi asked their God to give them strength “to conquer and destroy beneath their feet all cruel and rebellious Africans, our enemies who are planning evil against us…. Amen.”[5]
Roth continues: “These disturbances, together with the inroads of the climate, led ultimately to the abandonment of the settlement, of which nothing but the ruin now remains.” Dr. Roth hits on a theme here that may be difficult for most to comprehend. Not only were Jews present in the Americas long before the actual founding of the United States, but they were “the greatest slave-holders” in one of the major destinations of enslaved Africans. Further, these same “liberty-seeking” Jews actually went to war against the Africans that had escaped from Jewish plantations! Scholar Steven Sallie:
“There is little dispute, however, that Jews were quite often in charge of raiding adventures and the severe punishing of the maroons [escaped slaves]. In response to the cruelty of some Jews, maroons quite often attacked selected Jewish plantations. These Jewish-African conflicts were numerous, well organized, and persisted into the 1800s. Given their names, the leaders of the maroons tended to be Muslims.”[6]
One must also note that the decorated scholars quoted above spoke of “Jews” as a collective, neither making any qualification about the term that would limit responsibility or culpability to “some” or “a party among” or “a portion of” the Jewish community. This is particularly important given the magnitude of the crime they are describing—Black slavery.
Two major Jewish historical associations concur with, and elaborate on, this generally unknown aspect of the Jewish role in Black slavery. The American Jewish Historical Society (AJHS) is the oldest and most prominent, having its founding in 1892. Rabbi Marc Lee Raphael was its longtime editor of its publications when he wrote in 1983 that in the Caribbean and South America,
“Jewish merchants played a major role in the slave trade. In fact, in all the American colonies, whether French (Martinique), British, or Dutch, Jewish merchants frequently dominated. This was no less true on the North American mainland, where during the eighteenth century Jews participated in the ‘triangular trade’ that brought slaves from Africa to the West Indies…”
“FREQUENTLY DOMINATED” and “played a major role” are the terms Rabbi Raphael used almost a decade before the Nation of Islam published its never-refuted book on Jews and the slave trade, The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, Vol. 1. Drs. Swierenga, Sallie, Raphael, and Roth are all addressing a startling duality in the 500-year Black–Jewish relationship—that the Jewish self-image of a biblical people yearning for freedom directly contradicts the actual fact that the Jewish people were attracted to, and often dominated the economies in, the very places where existed the most brutal forms of chattel slavery.
The American Jewish Archives (AJA) was founded in 1947 by the “Dean of American Jewish scholars,” Rabbi Jacob Rader Marcus,[7] and is the repository of “ten million pages of documentation” on Jewish history in the Americas. Turns out, the AJA has a lot to say about these early “oppressed” Jews who migrated from Europe and somehow found unprecedented prosperity in the “slave islands.” In several articles the AJA casually makes several references to the interdependent relationship between the most brutal forms of slavery and the Jewish pilgrims: “[I]ndividual Jews can be found on almost every island of the Caribbean prior to the abandonment of slavery in the mid-nineteenth century,”[8] thus firmly linking slavery to the Jews’ very presence.
In the plantation colony of Surinam the AJA points out that Jews “fared well, thanks to the abundance of slaves and plantations…”[9] Rabbi Dr. Raphael adds that
“Slave trading was a major feature of Jewish economic life in Surinam, which was a major stopping-off point in the triangular trade. Both North American and Caribbean Jews played a key role in this commerce: records of a slave sale in 1707 reveal that the ten largest Jewish purchasers spent more than 25 percent of the total funds exchanged.”[10]
A more recent analysis of Surinam’s Jews by Dr. Aviva Ben-Ur only solidifies this linkage and adds to the horrors:
“The liberty Jews enjoyed…was inextricably intertwined with violent coercion….African slaves were routinely tortured on the village’s roadsides or along the fence enclosing the synagogue square.”[11]
The AJA hits on a theme that is repeated over and over again: “the abolition of the slave trade in 1819 and the formal emancipation of slaves in 1863 made plantations unprofitable and so decimated Jewish trade that [the Jews] all but disappeared.” Recognize the import of that statement: the freeing of the Black slaves “DECIMATED” and “DISAPPEARED” the Jewish community.
Jews had a presence on the island of Barbados in about 1628 and historian Stephen Fortune wrote that “the reputed prosperity of the Jews contrasted with the inexcusable and disgraceful plight of the slaves.”[12] Jews flocked to this hell on earth, and here again the AJA sounds the uniquely Jewish refrain: “Unfortunately, economic depression resulting from the earthquake and the emancipation of slaves led to the emigration of many of the island’s Jews.”[13] They pose the freeing of African slaves as a disaster equal to that of an earthquake—causing the “unfortunate” Jews to permanently flee.
The Encyclopedia Judaica (EJ) reports that the island of Curaçao was called the “Mother of the Caribbean Jewish communities,” yet Jewish scholars describe the island as a distribution center for the slave trade[14]— “a large slave depot.”[15] The AJA affirms that “The slave trade helped Curaçao to prosper, and her Jewish community grew rapidly,” even building a synagogue “for the convenience of the plantation owners who lived outside of the city.”[16] In fact, Jews owned 80 percent of Curaçao’s plantations, and Jewish slave traders were responsible for distributing the slaves from Curaçao to the Spanish American ports throughout the Caribbean and South America.[17] In 1765, the Jesurun family owned a record number of 366 Black people; the closest Gentile had 240 slaves. In one documented case in 1701, the Jewish Senior brothers arranged the shipment of 664 Africans; 205 perished en route to Curaçao.[18] And historian of the island Johan Hartog confirms a familiar Jewish theme—that the Jewish community suffered a “steep decline” the same year that the slave trade was curtailed.[19]
When Jews settled in Haiti, the Encyclopedia Judaica admitted,[20] they “specialized in agricultural plantations [but] with the slave revolts at the end of the 18th century, Jews gradually abandoned Haiti for other Caribbean islands or for the United States (New Orleans, Charleston).” Here again Jews are not sticking around for Black freedom; nor were they part of the process of achieving it. As soon as emancipation becomes a reality, Jews abandon Haiti for slavier environs.
Jamaica also had a robust Jewish colony, writes the AJA (p. 151): “The growth of the sugar industry enlarged the Jewish immigration and a number of Jews became plantation owners.”[21] The EJ boasted that “Jews with agricultural plantations controlled the sugar and vanilla industries, and …were the leaders in foreign trade and shipping.”[22] In its section on “Sugar”—the product most responsible for the enslavement of millions of Africans—the EJ puts Jews at the epicenter:
“The Jews of Brazil were not important as proprietors of [sugar] mills but rather as financial agents, brokers, and export merchants. When Brazil came again under Portuguese rule in the second half of the 17th century, many Jews emigrated to Surinam, Barbados, Curaçao, and Jamaica, where they acquired large sugarcane plantations and became the leading entrepreneurs in the sugar trade.”[23]
And then it reveals the other, now predictable, Jewish reality: “The abolition of slavery in the British dominions (1833) lowered the economy and scattered the Jews.” Note here the AJA writes that freedom for enslaved Blacks “scattered” the Jews.
Many of those Jews “scattered” to the North American mainland, says the AJA: “The end of slavery in the Caribbean saw Jews from the islands arriving almost daily…” Many ended up in the colony of Georgia, described as “suffering from the trustees’ idealistic insistence on no slaves or liquor…”[24] As the AJA frames it, “no slaves” meant Jewish “suffering.” In fact, the refusal of the leaders of Georgia to permit Black slavery triggered a Jewish exodus from the colony! By 1740 only three Jewish families were left. They bounced, according to Rabbi Marcus, because “Negro slavery was prohibited, the liquor traffic was forbidden.”[25] Jew Abraham De Lyon said he left for “the want of Negroes…whereas his white servants cost him more than he was able to afford.”[26]
From their own archival documents the most lettered Jewish scholars have painted an alarming portrait of the earliest of their founding fathers. In every case examined, Jewish “liberty” and prosperity were entirely dependent on Black slavery, and once Black “liberty” was achieved the Jewish world imploded and the Jews fled. The Encyclopedia Judaica summarizes nicely:
“A general decline of the Spanish-Portuguese communities in the Caribbean set in during the 19th century. Growing competition in agricultural products, the abandonment of the plantations by the Afro-American laborers due to the abolition of slavery, assimilation, and emigration were the main causes of this decline.”[27]
The Most Honorable Elijah Muhammad wrote that after being bound in Europe for 1,000 years, “they were loose (free) to travel over the earth and deceive the people.” Further, “They have been here now over 400 years. Their worst and most unpardonable sins were the bringing of the so-called Negroes here to do their labor.”[28]
Jewish scholars have thus affirmed that no one better fits Mr. Muhammad’s description of the traveling deceiver and “unpardonable” slave-making sinner than the Jew.
NOTES
[*] See also Michael Hoffman, Judaism Discovered (2008), p. 375.
[1] Isaiah 42:6; 49:6; 60:3.
[2] Robert Swierenga, The Forerunners: Dutch Jewry in the North American Diaspora (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1994), p. 36.
[3] Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi, “Between Amsterdam and New Amsterdam: The Place of Curaçao and the Caribbean in Early Modern Jewish History,” American Jewish History, vol. 72, no. 2 (December 1982), p. 190.
[4] Yda Schreuder, Amsterdam’s Sephardic Merchants and the Atlantic Sugar Trade in the Seventeenth Century (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019), p. 70. Also, Steven S. Sallie, “The Role of the Semitic Peoples in the Expansion of the World Economy Via the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade: A Literature Extraction and an Interpretation,” Journal of Third World Studies, vol. 11, no. 2 (Fall 1994), p. 173.
[5] “Miscellaneous Items Relating to Jews of North America,” Publications of the American Jewish Historical Society, vol. 27 (1920), pp. 223–24.
[6] Sallie, “The Role of the Semitic Peoples,” p. 173.
[7] https://www.americanjewisharchives.org/about/jacob-rader-marcus/
[8] Malcolm H. Stern, “Portuguese Sephardim in the Americas,” American Jewish Archives, vol. 44, no. 1 (Spring/Summer 1992), p. 142.
[9] Allan Metz, “Those of the Hebrew Nation…The Sephardic Experience in Colonial Latin America,” American Jewish Archives, vol. 44, no. 1 (Spring/Summer 1992), p. 226.
[10] Marc Lee Raphael, Jews and Judaism in the United States: A Documentary History (New York: Behrman House, 1983), p. 24.
[11] Jewish Autonomy in a Slave Society (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2020), p. 76.
[12] Stephen Alexander Fortune, Merchants and Jews: The Struggle for the British West Indian Caribbean, 1650-1750 (Gainesville: University Presses of Florida, 1984), p. 109.
[13] Stern, “Portuguese Sephardim in the Americas,” p. 143.
[14] Lavy Becker, “A Report on Curacao,” Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle, December 5, 1969.
[15] Daniel M. Swetschinski, “Conflict and Opportunity in ‘Europe’s Other Sea’: The Adventure of Caribbean Jewish Settlement,” American Jewish History, vol. 72, no. 2 (December 1982), p. 236.
[16] Stern, “Portuguese Sephardim in the Americas,” p. 147; Emma Fidanque Levy, “The Fidanques: Symbols of the Continuity of the Sephardic Tradition in America,” American Jewish Archives, vol. 44, no. 1 (Spring/Summer 1992), pp. 184–85.
[17] Marc Lee Raphael, Jews and Judaism in the United States: A Documentary History (New York: Behrman House, 1983), p. 24.
[18] Isaac S. and Susan A. Emmanuel, History of the Jews of the Netherland Antilles (Cincinnati: American Jewish Archives, 1973), p. 77.
[19] Johan Hartog, Curaçao From Colonial Dependence to Autonomy (Aruba, Netherland Antilles, 1968), p. 276.
[20] Second Edition, Volume 4, p. 473.
[21] Stern, “Portuguese Sephardim in the Americas,” p. 151.
[22] Second Edition, Volume 4, p. 474.
[23] See also James C. Boyajian, “New Christians and Jews in the Sugar Trade, 1550–1750: Two Centuries of Development of the Atlantic Economy,” in The Jews and the Expansion of Europe to the West, 1450-1800, eds. Paolo Bernardini and Norman Fiering (New York: Berghahn Books, 2001), p. 476.
[24] Stern, “Portuguese Sephardim in the Americas,” p. 164.
[25] Jacob Rader Marcus, Memoirs of American Jews 1775-1865, vol. 2 (New York: KTAV Publishing House, 1974), p. 288.
[26] Edward D. Coleman, “Jewish Merchants in the Colonial Slave Trade,” Publications of the American Jewish Historical Society, vol. 34 (1938), p. 285.
[27] Second Edition, Volume 4, p. 470.
[28] Message to the Blackman in America, pp. 104, 267; “Is There a Mystery God?” Pittsburgh Courier, Aug. 18, 1956.
Republished from Nation of Islam Research Group
As Zelensky visits Poland, Ukraine’s silence about the Volhynia massacre underscores one-sided alliance
BY GRZEGORZ ADAMCZYK | REMIX NEWS | JULY 11, 2024
July 11 marks the 81st anniversary of Bloody Sunday, the most tragic episode of the Ukrainian-perpetrated genocide of Poles in Volhynia, which was a Polish territory before the Second World War in the “borderland” region, but is now part of Ukraine. On this day, tens of thousands of people were slaughtered in 99 villages, and to this day, the exact number of victims remains unknown. These victims have yet to be exhumed and given a dignified burial, a process continuously blocked by Ukrainian authorities, including the current administration.
Last year, on the 80th anniversary of this horrific crime, Poland received not a single word from the Ukrainian president, much less any substantive discussion. The issue of exhuming the victims and providing them with a proper burial remains at a stalemate. Tragically, the steadfast guardian of this cause, Rev. Tadeusz Isakowicz-Zaleski, is no longer with us.
This year, just three days before the anniversary, Volodymyr Zelensky visited our country. His visits, typically centered on what more Poland can offer Ukraine, did not deviate from expectations. The fact that the Ukrainian leader did not mention the impending anniversary is unsurprising and is reflective of a “Kyiv standard.”
However, it is scandalous that this omission was mirrored by every Polish politician he met. Both the left-liberal Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk and the conservative President Andrzej Duda seem to prefer that the Volhynia issue be forgotten, wishing away the uncomfortable problems of memory and the unburied dead.
Simultaneously, Poland signed an agreement with Ukraine on defense commitments that, in reality, encompasses much more. The format of this document is crucial: It is not formally an international treaty, thus it does not require legislative approval for ratification. If it were a treaty, such approval would be necessary given it involves a military alliance — a detail highlighted by the content of the agreement. The choice of agreement format also conveniently avoids parliamentary debate, which would likely raise uncomfortable questions about the benefits Poland receives from the arrangement and what it demands in return. Clearly, in this “bilateral” deal, Kyiv is practically the sole beneficiary.
The entirety of the 24-page document is staggering: a litany of Polish obligations to Ukraine, underpinned by a tally of what we have already done. The document does not address a single issue where Polish and Ukrainian interests might conflict, such as in agricultural production. In Poland, based on this agreement, a Ukrainian legion is to be formed, which we are of course expected to equip. No one has clarified how this will affect our security, especially given that Ukrainian soldiers will effectively be entering combat from Polish territory.
Tucked away at the very end of the agreement, on page 14, there is a vague mention of “enhancing cooperation in conducting searches, exhumations, and other activities aimed at the dignified burial of victims of conflicts, repression, and crimes.” Exactly which “conflicts, repressions, and crimes” are referred to remains unclear.
Top 10 NHS dietary advice FAILS (from a doctor)
Dr Philip Bosanquet | August 4, 2023
The NHS dietary guidelines are not fit for purpose (in my opinion).
Buy The Concise Nutrition and Lifestyle Guide: https://www.bosanquethealth.com/book-… (available worldwide via Amazon).
Visit Bosanquet Health: https://www.bosanquethealth.com The 10 fails are:
10. Approaching healthy eating / nutrition from a calories-in vs calories-out energy balance focus (failing to take into account Leptin).
9. Basing meals on starchy carbohydrates (failing to understand the root cause of insulin resistance, number one driver of obesity and chronic disease).
8. Minimising fat intake (due to it’s calorie density).
7. Promoting seed oils (vegetable oil, rapeseed oil, sunflower oil) as healthy, whilst stating saturated fat is bad / causes cardiovascular disease (papers on this are listed below, see also video on animal fat: 
• Why ANIMAL FAT is the ultimate SUPERF… ).
6. Advising people not to delay or skip meals, including breakfast (failing to appreciate time restricted eating / intermittent fasting).
5. Advice of healthy snacks.
4. Advice on artificial sweeteners as a substitute for sugar.
3. No mention of the gut microbiome, of organic food being better for humans and the environment than non-organic food, of minimally processed or unprocessed foods in preference to overly processed foods, or the quality or nutritional density of food choices.
2. Switching from full cream / full fat / whole milk to semi skimmed / reduced fat milk to help kids lose weight (!). Failing to take into account fat soluble vitamins including vitamin D.
1. Some of the recipe examples given.
Links to papers on saturated fat: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28864…
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24723…
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26268…
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34796…
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34547…
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34717…
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34509…
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27071…
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23386…
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34290…
Dr Philip Bosanquet The Low-Tech Lifestyle Medic
content (except quotes) copyright to Dr Philip Bosanquet 2023 ©
New Study: ‘Carbon Dioxide And A Warming Climate Are Not Problems’
Instead, warmth and elevated CO2 are a boon for humanity
By Kenneth Richard | No Tricks Zone | July 8, 2024
A new peer-reviewed paper published in The American Journal of Economics and Sociology (May and Crok, 2024) counters the prevailing “wisdom” that says a warmer climate and greener vegetation are problematic.
The authors detail the horrors of the much colder Little Ice Age that destroyed civilizations (crop failures, summerless years). Half the population of Finland and 15% of Scotland’s citizens died off in the 1690s due primarily to the cold-induced famines and frozen-over water supplies.
Elevated CO2 and warmth are 70% and 8% responsible, respectively, for a much greener, more vegetated landscape across the world since the 1980s.
The incidence and severity of storms, hurricanes, floods, and extreme weather in general have undergone flat to declining trends over the last several decades. Thus, “it is hard to find any unusual weather or weather-related disaster that can be blamed on climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic.”
“52 of 53 studies of disaster losses due to extreme weather were unable to attribute the events to human causes…”
The US government estimates the warming since 1950 has reduced the country’s gross domestic product by less than 0.5%, and an estimated 3°C of warming by 2100 still only reduces the GDP by less than 1%. Considering the US economy grew by 800% from 1950 to present, this means any assumed “damage” from warmth and elevated CO2 would not be detectable.
The quest to “save” the world from warming and elevated CO2 is devoid of scientific and socio-economic merit.
Image Source: May and Crok, 2024
Civil War in Donbass 10 Years On
Scroll down for video
By Kit Klarenberg | Global Delinquents | July 8, 2024
July 1st marked the 10th anniversary of a brutal resumption of hostilities in the Donbass civil war. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it passed without comment in the Western media. On June 20th 2014, far-right Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko called a ceasefire in Kiev’s “anti-terrorist operation”. Launched two months prior following vast protests, and violent clashes between Russian-speaking pro-federal activists and authorities throughout eastern Ukraine, the intended lightning strike routing of internal opposition to the Maidan government quickly became an unwinnable quagmire.
Ukrainian forces were consistently beaten back by well-organised and determined rebel forces, hailing from the breakaway “People’s Republics” in Donetsk and Lugansk. Resultantly, Poroshenko outlined a peace plan intended to compel the separatists to put down their arms, during the ceasefire. They refused to do so, prompting the President to order an even more savage crackdown. This too was a counterproductive failure, with the rebels inflicting a series of embarrassing defeats on Western-sponsored government forces. Kiev was ultimately forced to accept the terms of the first Minsk Accords.
Anti-Maidan protesters gather in front of the occupied Donetsk Oblast regional administration building, April 2014
This agreement, like its successor, did not provide for secession or independence for the breakaway republics, but their full autonomy within Ukraine. Russia was named as a mediator, not party, in the conflict. Kiev was to resolve its dispute with rebel leaders directly. Successive Ukrainian governments consistently refused to do so, however. Instead, officials endlessly stonewalled, while pressuring Moscow to formally designate itself a party to the civil war.
No wonder – had Russia accepted, Kiev’s claims that its savage assault on the civilian population of Donbass was in fact a response to invasion by its giant neighbour would’ve been legitimised. In turn, all-out Western proxy war in eastern Ukraine, of the kind that erupted in February 2022, could’ve been precipitated. Which, it is increasingly clear, was the plan all along.
‘Grassroots Movement’
In the days prior to the April 2014 launch of Kiev’s “anti-terrorist operation” in Donbass, notorious war hawk Samantha Power, now USAID chief, openly spoke on ABC of “tell-tale signs of Moscow’s involvement” in the unrest. “It’s professional, coordinated. Nothing grassroots about it,” she alleged. Such framing gave Ukrainian officials, their foreign backers, and the mainstream media licence to brand the brutal operation a legitimate response to a fully-fledged, if unacknowledged, “invasion” by Russia. It is referred to as such in many quarters today.
Yet, at every stage of the Donbass conflict, there were unambiguous indications that the Ukrainian government’s claims of widespread Russian involvement – endorsed by Western governments, militaries, intelligence agencies, pundits and journalists – were fraudulent. One need look no further than the findings of a 2019 report published by the George Soros-funded International Crisis Group (ICG), Rebels Without A Cause. Completely unremarked upon in the mainstream, its headline conclusions are stark:
“The conflict in eastern Ukraine started as a grassroots movement… Demonstrations were led by local citizens claiming to represent the region’s Russian-speaking majority.”
ICG noted that Russian leaders were from the start publicly and privately sympathetic to Russian-speakers in Donbass. Nonetheless, they issued no “clear guidance” to businessmen, government advisers or the domestic population on whether – and how – they would be officially supported by Moscow in their dispute with the Maidan government. Hence, many Russian irregulars, encouraged by “what they regarded as the government’s tacit approval, made their way to Ukraine.”
Per ICG, it was only after the conflict started that the Russian government formalised a relationship with the Donbass rebels, although the Kremlin quickly changed tack on what they should do. A Ukrainian fighter told the organisation that he “began hearing calls for restraint in rebel efforts to take control of eastern Ukrainian towns and cities” in late April 2014. However, “the separatist movement in Donbass was determined to move ahead.”
Due to this lack of control, and repeated calls for direct intervention in the conflict from the rebels, Russia replaced the Donetsk and Lugansk rebel leadership with hand-picked figures, who took an explicitly defensive posture. But the Kremlin was ultimately “beholden” to the breakaway republics, not vice versa. It could not even reliably order the rebels to stop fighting. A Lugansk paramilitary told ICG:
“What do you do with 40,000 people who believe that, once they put down their arms, they will all be shot or arrested? Of course, they are going to fight to the death.”
Elsewhere, the report cited data provided by “Ukrainian nationalist fighters”, which showed rebel casualties to date were “overwhelmingly” Ukrainian citizens. This was at odds with the pronouncements of government officials, who invariably referred to them as “Russian mercenaries” or “occupiers”. More widely, figures within Poroshenko’s administration had routinely claimed Donbass was wholly populated by Russians and Russia-sympathisers.
One Ukrainian minister was quoted in the report as saying he felt “absolutely no pity” about the extremely harsh conditions suffered by Donbass civilians, due to the “legal, political, economic and ideological barriers isolating Ukrainian citizens in rebel-held territories” constructed by Kiev. This included enforcing a crippling blockade on the region in 2017, which created a “humanitarian crisis”, and left the population unable to claim pensions and welfare payments, among other gruelling hardships.
Several Donbass inhabitants interviewed by ICG expressed nostalgia for the Soviet Union. Most felt “under attack” by Kiev. A pensioner in Lugansk, whose “non-combatant son” was killed by a Ukrainian sniper, asked how Poroshenko could claim the territory was “a crucial part” of Ukraine: “then why did they kill so many of us?”
‘Worst Option’
In conclusion, ICG declared the situation in Donbass “ought not to be narrowly defined as a matter of Russian occupation,” while criticising Kiev’s “tendency to conflate” the Kremlin with the rebels. The organisation expressed optimism newly-elected President Volodymyr Zelensky could “peacefully reunify with the rebel-held territories,” and “[engage] the alienated east.” Given present day events, its report’s conclusions were eerily prescient:
“For Zelensky, the worst option… would be to try to forcibly retake the territories, as an all-out offensive would likely provoke a military response from Moscow and a bloodbath in Donbass. It could even lead Moscow… to recognise the statelets’ independence. The large-scale military option is mainly advocated by nationalists, not members of Ukraine’s political establishment. But some prominent mainstream politicians refuse to rule it out.”
Zelensky did initially try to resolve the Donbass conflict through diplomatic means. In October 2019, he moved to hold a referendum on “special status” for the breakaway republics in a federalized Ukraine, while personally meeting with representatives of Azov Battalion, begging them to lay down their arms and accept the compromise. Mockingly rebuffed and threatened by the Neo-Nazi group’s leaders, while rocked by nationalist protests against the proposed plebiscite in Kiev, the plans were dropped. So then the President picked the “worst option”.
In March 2021, Zelensky issued a decree, outlining a “strategy for the de-occupation and reintegration” of “temporarily occupied territory.” Falsely characterising Crimea and the Donbass as “occupied by the armed forces of the aggressor state,” it sketched a clear blueprint for a hot war to recapture both territories. Immediately, Ukrainian forces began to mass in the south and east of the country in preparation.
This activity inevitably spooked the Kremlin, leading to a huge military buildup on its border with Ukraine, and extensive wargame exercises, plotting scenarios including encirclement of Ukrainian forces in Donbass, and blocking Kiev’s Black Sea access. Suddenly, the Western mainstream became awash with warnings of imminent Russian invasion, and British and US surveillance flights in the region surged. Media reporting either neglected to mention or outright denied this was explicitly triggered by Kiev’s escalation.
Things quietened down thereafter, although the situation on-the-ground remained tense. In October that year, a Ukrainian drone struck rebel positions in Donbass. Moscow, and German officials, charged that the attack violated Minsk, while Zelensky’s then-right hand man Oleksiy Arestovych denied this was the case. He had by this time openly stated on many occasions war with Russia was Kiev’s price for joining the EU and NATO.
Fast forward four months, and at the start of February 2022, French President Emmanuel Macron reaffirmed his commitment to Minsk. He claimed Zelensky provided personal assurances its terms would be fulfilled. Yet, on February 11th, talks between representatives of France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine collapsed without tangible results, after nine hours. Kiev rejected demands for “direct dialogue” with the rebels, insisting – yet again – Moscow formally designate itself a party to the conflict.
Then, as documented in multiple contemporary eyewitness reports from OSCE observers, mass Ukrainian artillery shelling of Donbass erupted. On February 15th, unnerved representatives of the Duma, led by the influential Communist Party, formally requested the Kremlin to recognise the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics. Vladimir Putin initially refused, reiterating his commitment to Minsk. The shelling intensified. A February 19th OSCE report recorded 591 ceasefire violations over the past 24 hours, including 553 explosions in rebel-held areas.
Civilians were harmed in these attacks, and civilian structures, including schools, targeted deliberately. Meanwhile, that same day, Donetsk rebels claimed to have thwarted two planned sabotage attacks by Polish-speaking operatives on ammonia and oil reservoirs on their territory. Perhaps not coincidentally, in January 2022 it was revealed the CIA had since 2015 been training a secret paramilitary army in Ukraine to carry out precisely such strikes, in the event of Russian invasion.
So it was on February 21st, the Kremlin formally accepted the Duma’s request from a week earlier, recognising Donetsk and Lugansk as independent republics. And now here we are.
The Corbett Report Hall of Shame
Corbett | July 5, 2024
Today, James begins inducting MSM liars, dodgy politicians and intelligence agency scoundrels into The Corbett Report Hall of Shame. Simultaneously, he begins inducting truth-telling whistleblowers and courageous journalists into The Corbett Report Hall of Fame. Who will make the cut? Who do you think should make the cut in the future? Join James for this week’s edition of The Corbett Report podcast and get your thinking cap on!
WATCH ON: 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
/ 
or DOWNLOAD THE MP4
DOCUMENTATION
| Dan Rather’s account from November 25, 1963 | |
| Time Reference: | 03:39 |
| Description: | Young CBS journalist Dan Rather became one of the first people on the planet to see the Zapruder film of the JFK assassination in November 1963. He then immediately rushed to the TV studio to lie about what he saw! SHAAAAME! |
| Link To: | YouTube.com |
| The CIA’s Zapruder Film Secrecy | |
| Time Reference: | 05:55 |
| Description: | Jacob Hornberger uncovers the true story of how the Zapruder film was altered by the CIA before it was deposited in the Life Magazine archives. |
| Link To: | Future of Freedom Foundation |
| Michael Ruppert- CIA involvement in Drug Trafficking | |
| Time Reference: | 11:24 |
| Description: | Michael Ruppert throws a 1996 CIA PR event into disarray when he tells Director Deutsch to his face that the CIA has dealt drugs in the USA for a long time. FAAAME! |
| Link To: | YouTube |
| The CIA and the Drug Trade | |
| Time Reference: | 12:51 |
| Description: | A 2011 report on how the CIA helps ship in the drugs. |
| Link To: | The Corbett Report |
| Requiem for the Suicided: Gary Webb | |
| Time Reference: | 13:30 |
| Description: | A 2010 report on Gary Webb’s reporting and untimely death.. |
| Link To: | The Corbett Report |
| A Crack in the Story — NBC Dateline (13 June 1997) | |
| Time Reference: | 14:45 |
| Description: | An extensive 1997 report on the CIA drug running story that features CIA officer Duane Clarridge denying that there has EVER been a conspiracy in the USA! SHAAAAME! |
| Link To: | YouTube |
| “The CIA and the Media” by Carl Bernstein | |
| Time Reference: | 17:22 |
| Description: | 1977 report expanding on the Church Committee revelations of CIA involvement in the news media. |
| Link To: | CarlBernstein.com |
| Truth At Last: The Assassination of Martin Luther King | |
| Time Reference: | 17:38 |
| Description: | 2018 report documenting the US government’s role in the MLK assassination (including the FBI’s attempt to blackmail King into killing himself). |
| Link To: | The Corbett Report |
| Frank Church on The Intelligence Gathering Debate (1975) | |
| Time Reference: | 17:59 |
| Description: | Senator Frank Church warns about the electronic surveillance capabilities of the US intelligence agencies and the threat that they pose to “democracy” itself. |
| Link To: | YouTube |
| William Colby presents the “heart attack gun” to the Church Committee | |
| Time Reference: | 18:43 |
| Description: | CIA Director William Colby interrogated by Senator Frank Church at a Senate committee hearing on intelligence operations. Colby exhibits and explains the use of a poison dart firing pistol that fires shellfish toxin and other poisonous ammunition. FAAAAME! |
| Link To: | YouTube |
| The Disturbing Story Of The Heart Attack Gun Invented By The CIA During The Cold War | |
| Time Reference: | 21:25 |
| Description: | One of the many mainstream articles detailing the history, development, presentation and “retirement” of the CIA’s previously secret heart attack gun. |
| Link To: | All That’s Interesting |
| Congressional Oversight and the Crippling of the CIA | |
| Time Reference: | 22:50 |
| Description: | Intelligence shills STILL blame the Church Committee for 9/11 and every other bad thing that’s ever happened. |
| Link To: | CorbettReport.com |
| Gerald Ford’s Remarks at the Swearing In of George H.W. Bush as Director of CIA | |
| Time Reference: | 23:49 |
| Description: | President Gerald Ford spoke in the auditorium at CIA headquarters on the occasion of George H. W. Bush’s appointment as Colby’s replacement as DCIA. |
| Link To: | YouTube |
| David Rockefeller and Dick Cheney joke around at the CFR | |
| Time Reference: | 24:59 |
| Description: | Dick Cheney admits he never told voters back home in Wyoming that he was once a director of the CFR. SHAAAME! |
| Link To: | YouTube |
| Dick Cheney’s 2003 CNN obituary | |
| Time Reference: | 27:48 |
| Description: | Snopes “fact checks” the idea that CNN prematurely published their ready-made Cheney obituary in 2003. (SPOILER: THEY SURE DID!) |
| Link To: | Snopes |
| How to Make a Lobbyist Squirm | |
| Time Reference: | 29:08 |
| Description: | A 2015 report on the infamous Moreira / Moore exchange about drinking glyphosate. |
| Link To: | The Corbett Report |
| Patrick Moore, Man Who Refused to Drink Roundup, is Not a Monsanto Lobbyist | |
| Time Reference: | 30:34 |
| Description: | Thanks for the clarification, Newsweek! |
| Link To: | NewsWeek |
| Bayer ordered to pay $2.25 billion after jury concludes Roundup weed killer caused a man’s cancer, attorneys say | |
| Time Reference: | 31:26 |
| Description: | Report on the monumental judgment against Monsanto in the Roundup cancer trial. |
| Link To: | CNN |
| The man who unmasked Patrick Moore | |
| Time Reference: | 31:44 |
| Description: | Important GMWatch interview with Moreira about how the viral Moore interview moment came about. |
| Link To: | GMWatch |
Featured Video
The Sordid History of the CIA – Part 2
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu: Leave No Palestinian or Arab Alive
By Jonas E. Alexis | Veterans Today | July 23, 2017
Israeli Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu seems to have picked up where the late Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef left off. The Israeli army, Eliyahu said, must slaughter the Palestinians “and leave no one alive.” The Palestinians, the good rabbi continued, must be “destroyed and crushed in order to end violence.” Here is Eliyahu’s algorithm:
“If they don’t stop after we kill 100, then we must kill 1,000. And if they do not stop after 1,000, then we must kill 10,000. If they still don’t stop we must kill 100,000, even a million.”
There is more to this “logic” than meets the eye and ear. Eliyahu even postulated that the Israeli army ought not to get involved in arresting Palestinians because “If you leave him alive, there is a fear that he will be released and kill other people. We must eradicate this evil from within our midst.”
You may say that this is just an isolated case. No Israeli official believes that, right? … continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
Aletho News- Jeffrey Epstein’s sinister shadow over West Asia
- The Sordid History of the CIA – Part 2
- French FM under fire over ‘false’ claims about UN rapporteur
- Israel Wants ISIS-Linked Militias To Control Rafah Crossing — The New Order in Gaza
- ISIS never left Syria, it just changed uniforms
- Why ARE the US and Israel Obsessed With Eliminating Iran’s Ballistic Missiles?
- Kremlin comments on EU ‘myopia’ over dialogue with Russia
- Russia more adapted to contemporary military technology than NATO
- Germany puts caveat on more missiles for Ukraine
- UK High Court rules Palestine Action ban unlawful
- If Americans Knew
- Noor’s short life of unimaginable suffering
- Israel Destroyed Gaza’s Hospitals. Now It’s Banning Doctors Without Borders.
- Is Spite of What Zionists Say, It’s a Good Thing to Criticize Governments
- Palestinian mother, daughter recount strip searches, harsh conditions in Israeli detention
- Israel used weapons in Gaza that made thousands of Palestinians evaporate
- ADL’s Stats Twist Israel’s Critics Into Antisemites
- Why Is the World Silent When the Gaza Genocide Is Not Over?
- In Gaza: 8,000 bodies under rubble, 3,000 missing – Not a ceasefire Day 126
- AZAPAC, the new PAC opposing Israeli domination of U.S policies
- Haim Saban: Billionaire for Israel
- No Tricks Zone
- Unfudging The Data: Dutch Meteorological Institute Reinstates Early 20th Centruy Heat Waves It Had Erased Earlier
- German Gas Crisis…Chancellor Merz Allegedly Bans Gas Debate Ahead of Elections!
- Pollen Reconstructions Show The Last Glacial’s Warming Events Were Global, 10x Greater Than Modern
- Germany’s Natural Gas Storage Level Dwindles To Just 28%… Increasingly Critical
- New Study Rebuts The Assumption That Anthropogenic CO2 Molecules Have ‘Special’ Properties
- Climate Scientist Who Predicted End Of “Heavy Frost And Snow” Now Refuses Media Inquiries
- Polar Bear Numbers Rising And Health Improving In Areas With The Most Rapid Sea Ice Decline
- One Reason Only For Germany’s Heating Gas Crisis: Its Hardcore-Dumbass Energy Policy
- 130 Years Later: The CO2 Greenhouse Effect Is Still Only An Imaginary-World Thought Experiment
- New Study Affirms Rising CO2’s Greening Impact Across India – A Region With No Net Warming In 75 Years
Aletho News 